Which were these deader wickets he'd proven himself on?
First and foremost is his now legendary performance in the centenary Test in 1977 at the MCG. All cricket officials wanted was a competitive Test with a result, since all the living players who had played for England and Australia were going to be there, as was Her Majesty. This proved to be a problem for curators, who stuffed up the pitch royally (no pun intended). The frist day or so and wickets fell very quickly, but after Australia batted a long second innings, it turned into a flat paridise for batsman. Without exaggeration, it was difficult for bowlers to get any varying bounce, let along seam (there was absolutely no seam). Basically the pitch did nothing. The match was heading for a disappointing draw, when Lillee came on and delivered one of his best performances. He basically bowled a spell comprising of slower balls and cutters, carefully using them to suprise batsman. Australia won and Lillee had a tenfer for the match. It was very reminiscent of Marshall's performance at the SCG years later and a dead wicket where cutters and slower balls did the job.
In fact the MCG was a bit of a seamers hell in the late 70s and early 80s from what Bob Willis has said. However, his best performances were consistently on the MCG, so much so he had a statue of himself, according to cricinfo, that was unveiled last year to comemorate his bowling on such an aweful wicket. Lillee was the legend of the MCG. People can incorrectly argue that's not a subcontinent wicket, but apparently it played like one back in those days. I mean that 1977 pitch was DEAD!
Then there's his famous performance in the 1981 series against the West Indies that's has the definitive image of him bowling Viv Richards out of the last ball of the day, before trudging off the field. That was arguably the best side in history and he dismantled them at the MCG in 1981. Four things people need to remember is that:
1. The MCG pitch was hard for seamers in the late 70s, early 80s. People can say how on earth can it change? But it's well known the Perth pitch was much faster in the 70s and 80s as well, and hasn't recovered it's sheer pace. Ask Tendulkar, who made a great ton there in 1992, and he'll say it was faster then than it is now.
2. Doesn't matter where you are in the world, pitches can react in similar ways. I've seen pitches in England perform like sub-continent wickets, and I've seen pitches in New Zealand seam like pitches in the West Indies. A dead pitch is a dead pitch... and if Lillee has proven himself many times on dead wickets, then there's no reason to believe he couldn't perform anywhere in the world. What if people judged Shane Warne on his last series against South Africa? Would people say he couldn't bowl to them? We know better because he had much more than one series against them.
3. Dennis Lillee was past his prime around 1982/83... 1981 was his last great year and may have actually been his best year. After that he was well overbowled and had to carry the side. In fact, Lillee bowled more overs for Australia, per match, then Hadlee did in his career.
4. Lastly, people here can say, "oh that's only two or three testimonies", but those are just his famous performances. It's no different to people listing Marshall's famous performance at the MCG. Most bowlers have just one definitive performance that stands out. I doubt anybody here could list more than five great Marshallperformances on bad wickets... doesn't mean he couldn't bowl on bad wickets, I know from testimony he definitely could, it just means there aren't many that can be remember for listing. It's the same with Lillee. But Lillee has a few legendary performances, and most of them occurred at the MCG in an era when it was an unreceptive pitch.
The difference is people here want to read into stats of one or two series which they, if they're honest, probably never saw. And while they love using testimonies for guys like Marshall, they ignore the testimonies for Lillee because of some rhetoric that started when people made assumptions about a small sample of sub-continent matches.
And if he had - he had not proven himself as good as Marshall, Imran, Hadlee or the like - however diplomatic all three may have been about it.
Says who? Were you alive to see Marshall, Imran and Hadlee? I'll willingly admit I didn't see Lillee, aside from clips (I have seen clips of the centerary match on the dead pitch though). But I would be willing to bet most people here didn't see the legendary performances of Marshall, Imran or Hadlee. In arguing that they were great on such wickets, you can list testimonies... by I can do the same for Lillee. If your going to use testimonies to talk about their greatness on dead wickets, fine. But there's plenty of testimonies out there for Lillee as well. I strongly suggest people watch ESPN's Legends of Cricket and watch what's said about Lillee in the episode devoted to him... you'll find many bowlers talking about him and saying he was the best fast bowler they saw.
Your judging him by a different criteria. How? I have yet to find a testimony saying Lillee was a bowler lacking on poor wickets. Yet people here seem fit to judge him on stats. Stats which can't decipher if Lillee:
*Was in a good bad or bad patch of his career (all crickets have them)
*Was unlucky in unpire decisions
*Played against batsman in great form (all great bowlers have at least once suffered by great batting)
*Was carrying an injurt etc.
There's lots of things that could have happened. If your going to say Marshall, Imran and Hadlee did it on bad wickets, you'll use testimonies. If you say Lillee sucked on bad wickets, then you ignore testimonies and use stats. That's an unfair way to judge him. And on such a small sample of evidence as well. I think you could find many small samples of patches where bowlers were knocked all over the parks in one series with any bowler!
You can't have it one way or the other. Accept testimonies for a few bowlers and reject them for Lillee. Especially based on such small sampling that pales in comparion to an abundance of compelling testimony.
several tours...which tours were these???
My thoughts exactly. You wont find someone talking about Lillee in the same way people might talk about how Gilchrist stuggled against Flintoff, like there was a weakness there. All one can do is maybe find some small sample that can't prove anything. Honestly, what if someone judgef Shane Warne entirely on what he did in the first test against Bangladesh... would you say he couldn't bowl out poor opposition after taking 700 Test wickets?
His Pakistan tour and I think there's a Sri Lanka tour there as well, are simply too small a sample to argue against all the compelling testimony of all the legendary cricketers of that era that rate Lillee the best bowler of that era. It's not hype, it's just them stating they think he was the best.
Basically, I want ex-cricketers who played against Lillee, or at least fans who saw those games, saying he was bad on dead wickets. Not some cricket fans who didn't see the games, looking at stats and making incorrect conclusions.
Sobers wasn't a great spinner of the ball at all and as a medium pacer,he used to get 1 or 2 wickets with the new ball or when conditions supported.If Sobers is loved so much as a bowler only because who could medium pace,orthodox & wrist spin,then Tendulkar can also bowl those(I'm not saying that Tendulkar is a better bowler than Sobers)type of delliveries.So,should we consider Tendulkar an allrounder for that?
.
