Ambrose vs. Lillee in Tests. Who was better?

[adharcric]

People with little idea about cricket

Don't underestimate your knowledge of cricket.

 

[JBMAC]

Yes, if someone else had a 99.94 average and scored everywhere and wasn't crap in India....he would be better than Bradman...

You can not be serious!

I'm afraid with that one statement your credibility has "just left the building"

 

[Fiery]

You can not be serious!

JB MACEnroe

 

[JBMAC]

JB MACEnroe

 

[Dasa]

You can not be serious!

I'm afraid with that one statement your credibility has "just left the building"

Haha why? If someone had an average of 99.94, they would be thought of as roughly equal to Bradman - if this batsman had also performed in more countries than Bradman (despite Bradman not having the opportunity to do the same), I'd rank the player higher than Bradman as well. It's just logic.

 

[JBMAC]

Haha why? If someone had an average of 99.94, they would be thought of as roughly equal to Bradman - if this batsman had also performed in more countries than Bradman (despite Bradman not having the opportunity to do the same), I'd rank the player higher than Bradman as well. It's just logic.

Since when does Logic enter ANY discussion about Cricket? This is where I say BUT.... This arguement can go on in ad finitum with no one giving way on their thoughts .You could break it down to the nearest common factor though... As Bradman never had the opportunity to play against all the countries playing then just use one common denominator ....His opponents ie He played the majority ofhis games against England so you do the maths from there. At LEAST you have a yardstick to measure each batsmen's ability. Check them all against England.Who knows? You might come up with some startling Results

 

[Dasa]

What are you on about? We're talking about a hypothetical batsman who is/was virtually equal to Bradman in every way (in terms of cricketing achievements) but also performed in say...the subcontinent...why wouldn't you rate this batsman above Bradman?

 

[Pratters]

What are you on about? We're talking about a hypothetical batsman who is/was virtually equal to Bradman in every way (in terms of cricketing achievements) but also performed in say...the subcontinent...why wouldn't you rate this batsman above Bradman?

If some one scored as much as Bradman every where and had India as one of the countries where he scored, that would mean this:

DGB: 10/10 every where, unknown in India.
X: 10/10 every where, 10/10 in India.

So Bradman didn't play in India so we don't know how he would do in India. That doesn't mean we would be bad in India, for all we know, he might have been better.

We cannot use such a factor to decide some one is better or worse than the other person and the other person didn't have a chance to prove in the other scenario.

 

[adharcric]

Pretty much. In Lillee's case, though, he did play in the subcontinent and didn't fare well, albeit in limited opportunities. Too bad.

 

[Dasa]

I would use it as a point of difference - I would choose the 'new Bradman' in my team every time, because even if the real Bradman didn't have the opportunity to perform in India, the hypothetical batsman would have and would have done it well, which is enough for me to place this hypothetical batsman above Bradman.

 

[Pratters]

Re: Lillee - If the sample size is too small, I would not use it as a huge deciding factor really as I cannot judge effectively based on it.

 

[adharcric]

Re: Lillee - If the sample size is too small, I would not use it as a huge deciding factor really as I cannot judge effectively based on it.

Not really a huge deciding factor. Such factors are used to differentiate players that are otherwise similar in terms of what they have accomplished.

 

[Pratters]

SS rates a lot of players who are not equal to what Lillee accomplished ahead of Lillee just because of this. That to me is a deciding factor. Even for players with similar records, I wont discount Lillee just because of some thing like this. I would go deeper analysing those two players I am comparing.

 

[adharcric]

SS rates who above Lillee? Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath, Marshall? I would agree with him even without considering Lillee's record in the subcontinent.

 

[Pratters]

SS rates who above Lillee? Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath, Marshall? I would agree with him even without considering Lillee's record in the subcontinent.

Imran, Garner, Lillee might make the West Indies team of 70s but not sure, he may not be an all timer. Also, whether you agree or not who the better bowlers are is not the point. The point is, it is not a big enough criteria to be a deciding point. You analyse deeper really. I don't know, I have got the impression (I might be wrong) that he would select quite a few fast bowlers ahead of Lillee because of this criteria.

 

[silentstriker]

I put him at #8 or so all time when I created my thread...

 

[Pratters]

Fair enough mate.

 

[Swervy]

The better away-swinger (possibly only with a ball and skies in the right condition) maybe, but in almost every other respect Ambrose has more over Lillee, not just in Yorkers. His off-cutters and leg-cutters, especially. Ambrose could bowl leg-cutters like virtually no other, and if you can do that, and use the seam, you can't go far wrong.

Ambrose also used metronomic where Lillee used variation, and while both pay-off about equally, one has more potential to go wrong.

this is basically a crock of poo!!!!

Lillee was the master at cutting the ball off the pitch.

You just make it up as you go along don't you!

 

[Swervy]

Plenty of people did have doubts, though, and they were mostly those who looked beyond the image and at the actual output. There were people who could bowl slightly better than Lillee, in several ways, just not people who could convey the image so well in combination with excellent bowling.

Plenty?

Get the list of all these people on here then!!

 

[Richard]

Lillee performed in far more difficult circumstances.
Overcame back injury, played in WSC cricket, greater opposition (WIndies) and heralded an era in Aus Cricket.
Amby had it comparatively easier, coming after a bunch of fasties paved the way for him (Roberts, Holding, Croft, Garner...)

Haha, eh? That makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't matter who came before you - Ambrose had no help at all from Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft. Their careers made no impact on his. He achieved what he did at his own time, because of his own skills.

Sure, Lillee's overcoming his horrific injury was a heroic feat that few could have achieved, but it actually doesn't say anything about his ability as a bowler.

As for WSC, for me that's more of a stain than a merit on his cricket career (even if from a financial POV it was totally understandible). For one thing, it stopped him from touring the subcontinent more than once and denied him the chance to prove himself there.