Greatest Ever Test XI

[shortpitched713]

There's a great rant of Jono's from a few months ago that's two or three times longer.

And Rich did one in OT that individually addressed every poster with more than 500 posts that was three or four pages long.

Not to mention Richard's in depth analysis of the England one day team since about 2001.

 

[Richard]

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.

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.

It's not as simple as that. Beyond all doubt, pitches in any country can be utterly devoid of life, I've said that myself millions of times. But there are more things to a bowler's performance than the pitch. The outfield, most notably; the ball; the atmosphere; the temperature; and several other unquantifiables.

Undoubtedly, there will have been thankless Test pitches in Australia (and probably in Engand) that Lillee will have bowled well on. I'm not for a second going to dispute the MCG pitch can have changed. But it's not the same, purely and simply, as bowling on a flat pitch in, say, West Indies or the subcontinent. There are so, so many other variables that come into the equation.

Whatever you may say about testimony, there is purely and simply no getting around the fact that Lillee did not perform outside Australia, New Zealand and England. While others did. Had Lillee toured other places more often and continued his woeful record, it's likely there'd be more testimony of him in such places - testimony attesting to poor performance.

For everyone who says Lillee was the best seamer of the modern era, there is probably someone who says Marshall, Hadlee or Imran was. No, I never saw any of the three live, but I have seen countless amounts of footage of all. And, beyond question, all were superb bowlers. But the thing that set Lillee apart from the other 3 was not skill - it was attitude. Lillee had that "I'm a big nasty fast bowler" thing. I can name cricketers who, because of their attitude, persona, the aura they gave off, can appear to the unwary to be a better player than the unassuming types who do near enough exactly the same job. It is this thing that makes me wary about testimonies of certain players - and it's not hard to work-out who those players are. There are many ways of using textual analysis to decipher what has influenced the writer - I've done it so many times with reading old pieces.

One other small point - there was never any chance the Centenary Test of 1976\77 was going to be a draw! Either Randall was going to pull-off a miracle win or Australia were going to hold their advantage.

 

[Richard]

There's a great rant of Jono's from a few months ago that's two or three times longer.

And Rich did one in OT that individually addressed every poster with more than 500 posts that was three or four pages long.

Must see if I can find that Jono rant - don't suppose you could help?

But it certainly wasn't based on postcount - it was based on whether or not I knew said poster. There were several with 1,000+ counts who I left-out for various reasons.

Not to mention Richard's in depth analysis of the England one day team since about 2001.

It was 2003, actually.

 

[archie mac]

It's not as simple as that. Beyond all doubt, pitches in any country can be utterly devoid of life, I've said that myself millions of times. But there are more things to a bowler's performance than the pitch. The outfield, most notably; the ball; the atmosphere; the temperature; and several other unquantifiables.

Undoubtedly, there will have been thankless Test pitches in Australia (and probably in Engand) that Lillee will have bowled well on. I'm not for a second going to dispute the MCG pitch can have changed. But it's not the same, purely and simply, as bowling on a flat pitch in, say, West Indies or the subcontinent. There are so, so many other variables that come into the equation.

Whatever you may say about testimony, there is purely and simply no getting around the fact that Lillee did not perform outside Australia, New Zealand and England. While others did. Had Lillee toured other places more often and continued his woeful record, it's likely there'd be more testimony of him in such places - testimony attesting to poor performance.

For everyone who says Lillee was the best seamer of the modern era, there is probably someone who says Marshall, Hadlee or Imran was. No, I never saw any of the three live, but I have seen countless amounts of footage of all. And, beyond question, all were superb bowlers. But the thing that set Lillee apart from the other 3 was not skill - it was attitude. Lillee had that "I'm a big nasty fast bowler" thing. I can name cricketers who, because of their attitude, persona, the aura they gave off, can appear to the unwary to be a better player than the unassuming types who do near enough exactly the same job. It is this thing that makes me wary about testimonies of certain players - and it's not hard to work-out who those players are. There are many ways of using textual analysis to decipher what has influenced the writer - I've done it so many times with reading old pieces.

One other small point - there was never any chance the Centenary Test of 1976\77 was going to be a draw! Either Randall was going to pull-off a miracle win or Australia were going to hold their advantage.

As one of the rare people on this site that watched all three of Marshall, Hadlee and Lillee live (I was 15 in 1981), I think any of the three at their best would be worthy of the title 'best bowler in the world'

It should be remembered that both Marshall and Hadlee and Imran all rated Lillee the best.

As for the Centenary Test we all thought it was going to be an England win, so a great effort from Lillee

 

[Richard]

Haha, I assure you no Englishmen ever rated our chances in that fourth-innings. It would have been the most miraculous comeback ever.

As I also mentioned - I do have my reasons for doubting Marshall, Imran and Hadlee's rating of Lillee above themselves. If anything, them doing so should lessen the impact of him being considered so.

I've honestly never read or heard any past player say "I was obviously better than him" or even "all things considered I genuinely believe I was better than him".

And given that all three are (or were ) extremely modest men I can't see that such suggestions carry too much weight, really.

 

[archie mac]

Haha, I assure you no Englishmen ever rated our chances in that fourth-innings. It would have been the most miraculous comeback ever.

As I also mentioned - I do have my reasons for doubting Marshall, Imran and Hadlee's rating of Lillee above themselves. If anything, them doing so should lessen the impact of him being considered so.

I've honestly never read or heard any past player say "I was obviously better than him" or even "all things considered I genuinely believe I was better than him".

And given that all three are (or were ) extremely modest men I can't see that such suggestions carry too much weight, really.

Yes, but why do they all choose Lillee as the 'best' not 'he was better then me'

 

[Richard]

Because if you're better than all those 3 then you're clearly the best?

I'd hope so, anyway!

 

[JBH001]

Lillee was one of the great fast bowlers, or, to be more precise, one of the greatest fast bowlers. And certainly, it is a little rich to hold that series in Pakistan against him which was played on dead wickets, and was the first time he had toured the sub-continent.

And his record in Australia, NZ and England is superlative because that is, after all, where he played most of his matches. I do not want to say that Lillee was unable to bowl on surfaces outside those countrues, because I think he could, and probably would have given enough tests and time on those surfaces and conditions.

But the simple fact is he did not, not because he could not, but because he simply did not play in those countries enough to get a representative sample of his abilities. Marshall, Hadlee, and Imran did, and did so successfully. Therefore, when judging Lillee against those three bowlers he must come off second best because we simply have a broader criteria to judge them against, as opposed to Lilee.

 

[Richard]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

That's exactly what I was trying to say earlier. You probably phrased it better.

 

[Burgey]

Well, that's a fair point. They can only play against those they are put up against. The Lillee discussion has been raised in several threads in relation to where he stands. I recall Hadlee saying in an interview on that ESPN series that when things were difficult he'd say to himself "What would Lillee do now? How would Lillee handle this?". Always thought that was a big wrap on DK.

 

[Francis]

It's not as simple as that. Beyond all doubt, pitches in any country can be utterly devoid of life, I've said that myself millions of times. But there are more things to a bowler's performance than the pitch. The outfield, most notably; the ball; the atmosphere; the temperature; and several other unquantifiables.

I agree, there's a lot of reasons why a bowler might not perform - the ball might not be doing anything, the outfield might reward good batting shots etc. Why hold that against Lillee? That has nothing to do with the sub-continent, it happens everywhere in the world - bad balls to play with, fast outfields etc. Surely that would have been the case in many Tests against England and New Zealand and the West Indies where Lillee succeeded. I don't understand why you started your rebuttal like this when the reason people don't rate Lillee that highly is because of a misconception that he played poorly on bad pitches. The other conditions you mentioned can be experienced in Australia and other places. I will say I've seen outfields in Perth and Brisbane be just as fast as sub-continent wickets. What's the difference between 100,000 Indian fans and 100,000 Australian fans at the MCG - same atmosphere except the crowd would be against Lillee... but then again Lillee was often booed at times in his career and it never effected him. There's nothing to suggest there Lillee couldn't perform in any one of those conditions. Anything else is purely speculation and once again neglects the fact he rarely placed in the sub-continent and such a small sample of evidence is inconclusive.

But it's not the same, purely and simply, as bowling on a flat pitch in, say, West Indies or the subcontinent. There are so, so many other variables that come into the equation.

Nope. Honestly, how many times have we heard commentators say something like, "This pitch is like the WACA pitch, so Damien Martyn should adapt to it" when Australia is playing overseas. Sir Garfield Sobers thought along the same lines, he's often tried to compare wickets in England to wickets in the West Indies to decide how he should play. SERIOUSLY! He knew of pitches in the England that played the same in the West Indies. Do you honestly believe batsmen don't look at wickets and say, "hmm, how should I play this innings... well I played on a pitch like this before so this is how I'll go about it." Commentators think the same way when they do pitch reports. It's not how the pitch looks, it's how it will react - fast, slow, will it help seam etc.

Whatever you may say about testimony, there is purely and simply no getting around the fact that Lillee did not perform outside Australia, New Zealand and England.

Purely and simply, he didn't play there often. I already said it, what if people judged Warne off his first Test against Bangladesh? Would people say he had problems in Bangladesh? It was one test and things can change in the next test or next series or whenever. Lillee played far too few Tests to make a good judgement of his ability. There's plenty of other more plausable ways to "get around it." To say it was anything but a small sample would be wrong.

For everyone who says Lillee was the best seamer of the modern era, there is probably someone who says Marshall, Hadlee or Imran was.

No that's what people here don't understand. It's a rule of thumb. I mean you'd nary find someone say he wasn't the best. All the Englishmen rated him the best - Botham, Gower, Willis etc. Malcolm Marshall said in his autobiography Lillee is just ahead of him. Hadlee said he was the best ever. I mean the list is endless, as in there's more than what I've written. It's like Rid Marsh said last year when that statue was given to him, "Ask everybody who played against him and they say he's the best."

This ignores the fact that you didn't list any testimony of someone saying Malcolm Marshall was the best. I'm sure there's one or two out there, Marshall was a genius of course. But the testimony for Lillee is far more comprehensive... you just wont find as much testimony for Marshall than you will for Lillee.

But the thing that set Lillee apart from the other 3 was not skill - it was attitude.

I fully disagree. It was the fact that Lille reinvented himself as a complete bowler that made him so revered. When he started he was all fire and brimstone, but he couldn't bowl great yorker, or change things up. Hurting his back was a good thing for him because it caused him to re-evaluate his craft. He lost speed, but gained accuracy, he began to incorpotate cutters, both ways too... he was more careful with swing and placement. He became complete - Hadlee saw this and mimmicked him.

People remember him for his comeback - that's where a lot of the testimony focuses, him becomming more completele. Coming to think about it, when people complement him for reinventing himself when he lost pace, they're basically saying he was the opposite of what you're decribing "some macho fast bully", when people like Botham remark on his amazement at Lillee reinventing himself. So few people have talked about his macho attitude, rather his ability to reinvent himself.

Again, that's a myth that just goes around places like here.

It is this thing that makes me wary about testimonies of certain players - and it's not hard to work-out who those players are.

Both Hadlee and Marshall idolised Lillee and learned off him. Hadlee tried to mimmick him in his action and loved his use of cutters. Marshall was always asking him questions when they met as well. It has nothing to do with a macho persona - it's everything to do with them thinking he was great.

One other small point - there was never any chance the Centenary Test of 1976\77 was going to be a draw! Either Randall was going to pull-off a miracle win or Australia were going to hold their advantage.

There were fears the match would be a draw when people looked at the pitch and how well Australia batted in the second innings. It was far too easy to bat on. England were heading to victory thanks to Randall when Lillee came on and cleaned England up.

If I said that match was heading for a draw on the last day then I was wrong. Sorry for the mistake. All the same, Lillee still won the Test for Australia.

As I also mentioned - I do have my reasons for doubting Marshall, Imran and Hadlee's rating of Lillee above themselves. If anything, them doing so should lessen the impact of him being considered so.

I find this approach of rebuttal frustrating when posters use it. I give an example or an opinion of a cricketer, and rather argue with evidence of your own, you question the credibility of the evidence. These players went far and beyond to proclaim Lillee the best - it was no hype. Hadlee, Botham and Akram were all selectors in ESPN's Legends or Cricket, and Lillee was easily the highest ranked fast bowler in that series. Marshall writes it in his autobiography that Lillee gets the fast bowling mantle...

I don't want to keep repeating myself on all this testimony. I just find it frustrating you ignore... or to put it more accurately, question the validity of the testimony, when it's:

comprehensive
You simply couldn't find as many, or close to as many, ex-players saying Marshall was the best as they do Lillee. Even Allan Border, who considered Marshall the hardest bowler he ever faced, thinks Lillee is the greatest ever. Like I said, you might find one or two saying he was the best, but it wont match the amount of Lillee testimony in how comprehensive it is.

conclusive
To be sure they were all modest players. But they were also assertive. As I said, Hadlee and Botham were all selecters on ESPN's Legends of Cricket. Botham says Lillee was first in the fast bowling department on his list in one episode. Hadlee says Lillee was the goal-standard, so he put him there top of his list as well. Marshall put it in his friggin autobiography when he didn't need to. THEY VOTED HIM THE BEST! It wasn't them being complementary and modest when the topic of Lillee was brought up. Like I said, it's frustrating when people refuse to believe any evidence you present because they don't want to. It's very conclusive evidence. They weren't blowing out smoke, they have all put him at the top when they didn't to. If you can't accept that then I don't want to talk about this because it's stubborn and uncomprimising to refute the evidence.

I've honestly never read or heard any past player say "I was obviously better than him" or even "all things considered I genuinely believe I was better than him".

If Marshall gives the fast bowling mantle to Lillee, then he's not saying Hadlee was the best. If Hadlee is saying Lillee was the best, then he's excluding Marshall. This is a trend that keeps on going my friend. I understand what you're saying here, but the amount of players who rate Lillee the best is just far too comprehensive for this argument to hold up because when one great rates Lillee the best he's excluding a lot of other greats. Marshall did say he'd give his nod "just" to Lillee, so he obviously rated himself by the way.

You can have your opinion on who the best fast bowler ever is. I certainly don't blink when somebody says Marshall was the best ever. But it's silly to refute that many of those great bowlers rated him the best when all you come off as is stubborn. And I'm not trying to sound high and mighty saying that, or insulting, it's just that such testimony can't be accepted as playing blowing out smoke and being modest, when there's too much of it for that to be so. Remember again, Hadlee and Botham had him as the highest fast bowler on their lists on ESPN's legends of cricket. And Marshall said he'd give the slight nod to Lillee. And don't forget the paragraph above this above this one, where I make the point that if Marshall says Lillee is the best, then he's at least saying he was better than Hadlee etc.

Please just accept that the testimonies hold water. Have your own opinion on who was the best by all means, by accept what's easy to accept. Otherwise I know this thing is going no where.

 

[Francis]

Marshall, Hadlee, and Imran did, and did so successfully. Therefore, when judging Lillee against those three bowlers he must come off second best because we simply have a broader criteria to judge them against, as opposed to Lilee.

I enjoyed your post because instead of rebutting what is clearly true, you come out and say first and foremost, that there isn't a big enough sample of sub-continent evidence. You admit the obvious instead of arguing it. Like I said, you could easily judge Warne on his Test against Bangladesh if that was his only sub-continent match... but we all know better.

My problem with your post was this...

I do not want to say that Lillee was unable to bowl on surfaces outside those countrues, because I think he could, and probably would have given enough tests and time on those surfaces and conditions.

Here you say Lillee could have done well in sub-continent wickets. Why should the fact he didn't play many games on sub-continent wickets be held against him if you think he "could"? If you know he would have done well, that shouldn't he held against him.

 

[archie mac]

Lillee was one of the great fast bowlers, or, to be more precise, one of the greatest fast bowlers. And certainly, it is a little rich to hold that series in Pakistan against him which was played on dead wickets, and was the first time he had toured the sub-continent.

And his record in Australia, NZ and England is superlative because that is, after all, where he played most of his matches. I do not want to say that Lillee was unable to bowl on surfaces outside those countrues, because I think he could, and probably would have given enough tests and time on those surfaces and conditions.

But the simple fact is he did not, not because he could not, but because he simply did not play in those countries enough to get a representative sample of his abilities. Marshall, Hadlee, and Imran did, and did so successfully. Therefore, when judging Lillee against those three bowlers he must come off second best because we simply have a broader criteria to judge them against, as opposed to Lilee.

Well either did Bradman, Trumper, SF Barnes; do we mark them down as well?

What about viv Richards, GSC and Sunny, them never played in Sth Afr; should they be marked down.

What if China become a Test nation, will we discount all of the players that have not played on those wickets?

 

[Matt79]

Must see if I can find that Jono rant - don't suppose you could help?

But it certainly wasn't based on postcount - it was based on whether or not I knew said poster. There were several with 1,000+ counts who I left-out for various reasons.

It was 2003, actually.

Jono's opus:
http://www.forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1008108&postcount=1

tongue was firmly in cheek with the 500+ comment. After all, I know that you left me out!

 

[silentstriker]

Here you say Lillee could have done well in sub-continent wickets. Why should the fact he didn't play many games on sub-continent wickets be held against him if you think he "could"? If you know he would have done well, that shouldn't he held against him.

Because he didn't. Could or could not is a matter of conjecture, did or did not is a matter of fact.

 

[Ikki]

Because he didn't. Could or could not is a matter of conjecture, did or did not is a matter of fact.

But while saying he did not, you mention a very small sample space. In regards to his abilities - or considering his whole career - you cannot say that he would not have done better if he had played there again. Francis is clearly making the point that Lillee already did well on conditions like the sub-continent, so it really isn't a mark against his abilities.

I think the suggestion that Lillee would have done as well as Marshall or Hadlee had he played as often as them there is plausible. His contemporaries attest to him being the best, so it certainly was not an issue for them - this slight mark on his record. They didn't see it as something that diminished the man probably because they didn't consider it a feat that was too difficult for Lillee.

 

[silentstriker]

But while saying he did not, you mention a very small sample space. In regards to his abilities - or considering his whole career - you cannot say that he would not have done better if he had played there again. Francis is clearly making the point that Lillee already did well on conditions like the sub-continent, so it really isn't a mark against his abilities.

But I cannot say that he would have done better either. I can guess - but that's what it is, a guess. So when comparing him against those that did do better (and not based on guesswork), he loses points.

 

[Ikki]

If you take these discussions like that, then you would/should never compile such lists.

Arguments like this are such that you may even argue that Bradman wouldn't do well if he played now, simply because he didn't have the same regiment as players nowadays. Sorry, but that would also be a worthless point to hold. You would have to take into account how great Bradman was back then in comparison to his contemporaries, then assume he would have been just as good if he had received the same conditioning as his would-be contemporaries now.

Just like you have to assume that Lillee did well on the same kinds of pitches and if he had more opportunity to he would improve his record. I think this is one of those moments where you could use common sense.

Lillee's own contemporaries - also his rivals - attest to him being the best. They would know the relevant measure to judge him on and they do not bring this argument to denigrate his record. So, it's exaggerated that anyone else should.

 

[Richard]

I'd argue that they don't. I'd argue that they fall for the same stereotypes as most do.

 

[silentstriker]

If you take these discussions like that, then you would/should never compile such lists.

Arguments like this are such that you may even argue that Bradman wouldn't do well if he played now, simply because he didn't have the same regiment as players nowadays. Sorry, but that would also be a worthless point to hold. You would have to take into account how great Bradman was back then in comparison to his contemporaries, then assume he would have been just as good if he had received the same conditioning as his would-be contemporaries now.

Just like you have to assume that Lillee did well on the same kinds of pitches and if he had more opportunity to he would improve his record. I think this is one of those moments where you could use common sense.

Lillee's own contemporaries - also his rivals - attest to him being the best. They would know the relevant measure to judge him on and they do not bring this argument to denigrate his record. So, it's exaggerated that anyone else should.

Not really - if someone averaged and scored just as much as Bradman but toured more countries than Bradman, I'd have no problems putting him higher.

The problem was that others (even in his own era) averaged just as good as Lillee (if not better) and toured more countries and did well in them. He didn't. Whether he could is irrelevant.