When Richard starts stating that rating Lillee as the best is a decision made in the subcontious, I think it's time to let it be. There's nothing I can say more other than repeating what I have already said. The facts remain that most rated him the best they ever saw in the fast bowling department. You can say, "Oh Hadlee and Marshall idolised them, so maybe they were biased" etc. but then you disregard the commentatros and umpires who said he was the best. Are they are making subcontious decisions in their brain? Many of them disregarded his on-field persona and rather sought to analyse his many variations - the cutters, the swing, the seam, the change of pace etc.
For the last time. There's just too much testimony and it's too comprehensive for silly explanations like, "it was a subcontious decision to rate him the best." It's groaping and guessing and desperately trying to hold on to an opinion while refuting hard evidence.
I think we've gone as far as we can go with this Richard so I'll move on to JBH.
In response to JBH001:
The person who posted after me said it better than I could.
And you said it best when you said you think he would have done well there. The logical question is to ask: What could prevent him from doing well over there? Hostile crowds? Lillee thrived in front of them. Unreceptive pitches? Bob Willis would tell you he thrived on them. Hot conditions? He came from Western Australia. Fast outfields? Brisbane and Perth anyone? I think it would be unfair if someone chastised Murali for never playing in China. And if he played three Tests in China and played poorly, would that mean he couldn't do well against them? Of course not, Murali's proven he can take wickets in the toughest of circumstances. When you're that established and proven, you know it's not the pitches or conditions. But oh the fact would remain he did poorly there and some future guy who could never break Murali's great records, but is established at taking wickets everywhere, could do something there and suddenly he's greater. That would be a shame if that ever happened because we know Murali's just about the perfect bowler.
The ridiculous thing is that if people think he could do well in sub-continent pitches, and that he's proven himself on unreceptive pitches, then it's not the sub-continent at all that was the reason for a few poor Tests. The place where he plays suddenly becomes irrelevent and it becomes clear he was just in bad form. I have no problem with people saying, "LIllee was in bad form in the sub-continent."
In response to no one inparticular... I would like to say that I don't blink when people say Hadlee or Marshall are better than Lillee. If Lillee was better than Marshall then surely it was only by a small margin, Hadlee too. I can also accept it when people say a few other bowlers are better. But I will say I think it was sad when, a while ago here at CW, people were rating the ten best bowlers of all time... and many didn't have Lillee in that list. You would never find a fast bowling great having Lillee out of their top ten, let alone top five, including that most would have him at one.
For the last time. There's just too much testimony and it's too comprehensive for silly explanations like, "it was a subcontious decision to rate him the best." It's groaping and guessing and desperately trying to hold on to an opinion while refuting hard evidence.
I think we've gone as far as we can go with this Richard so I'll move on to JBH.
In response to JBH001:
The person who posted after me said it better than I could.
Can't judge cricketers by different standards.
And you said it best when you said you think he would have done well there. The logical question is to ask: What could prevent him from doing well over there? Hostile crowds? Lillee thrived in front of them. Unreceptive pitches? Bob Willis would tell you he thrived on them. Hot conditions? He came from Western Australia. Fast outfields? Brisbane and Perth anyone? I think it would be unfair if someone chastised Murali for never playing in China. And if he played three Tests in China and played poorly, would that mean he couldn't do well against them? Of course not, Murali's proven he can take wickets in the toughest of circumstances. When you're that established and proven, you know it's not the pitches or conditions. But oh the fact would remain he did poorly there and some future guy who could never break Murali's great records, but is established at taking wickets everywhere, could do something there and suddenly he's greater. That would be a shame if that ever happened because we know Murali's just about the perfect bowler.
The ridiculous thing is that if people think he could do well in sub-continent pitches, and that he's proven himself on unreceptive pitches, then it's not the sub-continent at all that was the reason for a few poor Tests. The place where he plays suddenly becomes irrelevent and it becomes clear he was just in bad form. I have no problem with people saying, "LIllee was in bad form in the sub-continent."
In response to no one inparticular... I would like to say that I don't blink when people say Hadlee or Marshall are better than Lillee. If Lillee was better than Marshall then surely it was only by a small margin, Hadlee too. I can also accept it when people say a few other bowlers are better. But I will say I think it was sad when, a while ago here at CW, people were rating the ten best bowlers of all time... and many didn't have Lillee in that list. You would never find a fast bowling great having Lillee out of their top ten, let alone top five, including that most would have him at one.
Last edited:
) made it hard for him to run through the lower order
