Ambrose vs. Lillee in Tests. Who was better?

[Richard]

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!

So was Ambrose.

Stop responding to what you'd like me to have said rather than what I've said.

 

[Richard]

Give me one name of a contemporary who did not rate Lillee the best or near enough to it?

No-one didn't rate him near enough to the best, because it'd take a complete fool to think he wasn't near to being the best. He wasn't the best, though, because there was at least 1 (Marshall), possibly 4 or 5 (Hadlee, Garner, Imran, Holding) who did what he did and more.

So 355 wickets was all for show, and no Bangas or Zims to help the ave

Where have I tried to detract from the number of wickets he took? I've said that people sometimes factor in the "show" aspect of things too much (plus the bravery and dedication in the recovery from injury), to add to those wickets, and rate him as better than people who did not possess the attitude (or have to overcome the hardships) but whose deeds were actually more notable.

 

[Richard]

Plenty?

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

So you're seriously saying you've not heard the countless people who argue Marshall at the very least was better than Lillee?

I don't know exact names, because I've not even bothered taking note, so common are they.

 

[Richard]

He went to Pakistan for one 3 Test series so on that basis he could not bowl

One Test in SL at the end of his career and a serious back injury in the Windies.

NO! I have never, once said he couldn't bowl. I've said we don't know for certain he could. As others have said pretty well, purely and simply for several there is a known, for Lillee there is an unknown.

I am not having this conversation again, because you never give any ground (although tbf neither do I)

I don't, because I believe I know what I'm on about.

 

[JBH001]

FWIW, I think Lillee was better than Ambrose. However, I do not think he was better than, say, Marshall, McGrath, and Hadlee (to name 3).

Also, as I said earlier, some people do seem to rate Lillee higher than the facts warrant.

 

[Burgey]

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.

And plenty don't - usually those who saw him bowl.

Both great bowlers imo - can't really separate them tbh.

On the cutters thing - from about 79-80 onwards, Lillee developed great cutters, both leg and off. And rather just standing the seam up, you could see him rolling his fingers over the seam as he did it.

Recall him bolwing a succession of leg cutters to Boycott in 79-80 which Boycs watched really closely in his inimitable style. After about 4 overs of them, Boycs lets another one go - unfortunately it was a perfectly disguised off cutter which bowled him with his bat above his head.

Ambrose clearly had the better yorker, particularly early in his career. He seemed to use it less and less as his career went on though. Awesome control and that wicked bounce.

As I said, I find it very hard to separate them tbh.

 

[archie mac]

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

This is what I find so frustrating, if you and others would have watched Lillee we would not be having this debate, there is a thread on here called 'Hear, hear, led me your hear' if you base all of cricket knowledge on stats, you will have a very poor understanding of cricketing ability. Listen to people who were around at the time (not me ), but people who were around such as Gideon Haigh and Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell and Imran and Hadlee and just about everyone else who watched this great bowler. Give this crap away about he failed in the subcontinent, it is such a lame argument

 

[Richard]

FWIW, I think Lillee was better than Ambrose. However, I do not think he was better than, say, Marshall, McGrath, and Hadlee (to name 3).

Also, as I said earlier, some people do seem to rate Lillee higher than the facts warrant.

I'd argue that Ambrose > McGrath myself.

 

[Richard]

This is what I find so frustrating, if you and others would have watched Lillee we would not be having this debate, there is a thread on here called 'Hear, hear, led me your hear' if you base all of cricket knowledge on stats, you will have a very poor understanding of cricketing ability. Listen to people who were around at the time (not me ), but people who were around such as Gideon Haigh and Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell and Imran and Hadlee and just about everyone else who watched this great bowler. Give this crap away about he failed in the subcontinent, it is such a lame argument

As I say - you and many people like you seem to completely ignore the fact that testimonies can be biased by emotion. Heck, Lillee himself not long ago argued that Brett Lee was a better Test bowler than Craig McDermott, Jason Gillespie, Damien Fleming, Paul Reiffel and Stuart Clark. That, to me, makes precisely no sense whatsoever. You cannot blindly accept testimonies, you have to assess the reasons. Ian Chappell and Richard Hadlee, for instance, both have very obvious reasons for rating Lillee, and hence I'm not going to accept he was the best just because they said so. Other people said Marshall was the better, and I see more reason to believe them.

I thought you and Gideon Haigh were the same age, too?

 

[JBMAC]

This is what I find so frustrating, if you and others would have watched Lillee we would not be having this debate, there is a thread on here called 'Hear, hear, led me your hear' if you base all of cricket knowledge on stats, you will have a very poor understanding of cricketing ability. Listen to people who were around at the time (not me ), but people who were around such as Gideon Haigh and Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell and Imran and Hadlee and just about everyone else who watched this great bowler. Give this crap away about he failed in the subcontinent, it is such a lame argument

Go for it AM...I did see them both play right through their respective careers and YOU are right!

 

[Richard]

And plenty don't - usually those who saw him bowl.

Both great bowlers imo - can't really separate them tbh.

On the cutters thing - from about 79-80 onwards, Lillee developed great cutters, both leg and off. And rather just standing the seam up, you could see him rolling his fingers over the seam as he did it.

Recall him bolwing a succession of leg cutters to Boycott in 79-80 which Boycs watched really closely in his inimitable style. After about 4 overs of them, Boycs lets another one go - unfortunately it was a perfectly disguised off cutter which bowled him with his bat above his head.

Ambrose clearly had the better yorker, particularly early in his career. He seemed to use it less and less as his career went on though. Awesome control and that wicked bounce.

As I said, I find it very hard to separate them tbh.

There were people who saw Lillee bowl who argued that there have been several superior to him. Normally, too, they're people like me who set more stall by how someone bowled than their attitude.

I never once said Lillee couldn't bowl cutters, and that's something that annoyed me about Swervy's earlier post. Just that Ambrose bowled them better than just about anyone could ever possibly dream of doing.

 

[Anil]

lillee ahead of ambrose for me...

 

[archie mac]

As I say - you and many people like you seem to completely ignore the fact that testimonies can be biased by emotion. Heck, Lillee himself not long ago argued that Brett Lee was a better Test bowler than Craig McDermott, Jason Gillespie, Damien Fleming, Paul Reiffel and Stuart Clark. That, to me, makes precisely no sense whatsoever. You cannot blindly accept testimonies, you have to assess the reasons. Ian Chappell and Richard Hadlee, for instance, both have very obvious reasons for rating Lillee, and hence I'm not going to accept he was the best just because they said so. Other people said Marshall was the better, and I see more reason to believe them.

I thought you and Gideon Haigh were the same age, too?

Hey Haigh is at least 300 days older

I not sure what Lillee says about Blee has to do with his (Lillee) bowling, I will never run out of contemporaries who thought Lillee the best of his time, including Marshall.

I will say that I also rate Marshall as one of the all time great bowlers

 

[Richard]

The point about Lillee rating Bing Lee so highly is that testimonies from those who are in many ways experts are not always reliable.

Richard Hadlee, good an analyst as he is, had a hero in Lillee, modelled himself on him and looked-up to him hugely. This, IMO, is bound to influence how he rates him, especially in comparison to himself.

Ian Chappell and Lillee had much in common, and Lillee, undoubtedly, would have run through a brick wall for Chappell. For this reason, Chappell is bound to love him to bits. He retired, meanwhile, a full 5 years before Marshall's first real foray in 1980.

As for Lillee on Lee, there's always been something big between them. Lee has seeked-out Lillee for many solutions to problems. Lillee has done all he can to help Lee, and has had some impact beyond doubt. Lee has been a faithful pupil - Lillee is bound to love that. But for that to mean he rates him above the aforementioned? Can only put it down to personal emotional response, rather than rational assessment of credentials.

The same applies to many, many people's assessment of Lillee, and countless other players (including, for instance, Trumper, Mailey, Sobers, IVA Richards, Warne and Murali). I'm absolutely convinced that had I watched Lillee's career (and many others) I'd be of the exact same mindset I am now. We are who we are, and there were people who rated people using the credentials I use. Perhaps, and only perhaps, people like me and Manan (ss) have become slightly more common as the years have rolled by.

 

[silentstriker]

By the way, I am not some Lillee hater. I have him in my top ten easily all time. Whether he can break top five, I am not sure. He is close. I don't see him overtaking Marshall though in my estimation though unless someone shows me something I've completely missed.

 

[Richard]

Anyone who doesn't rate Lillee in top 10 (or something along those lines) is clearly crazy. It goes without saying, IMO, that he was around said mark. People like you and me can easily come across as "Lillee haters" just because we don't rate him as the best. For anyone, though, it goes without saying that he was a magnificent bowler and such a thing is so obvious we barely need to say it.

Well, actually, you could probably say anyone bar Shoaib\BhupinderSingh.

 

[adharcric]

This is what I find so frustrating, if you and others would have watched Lillee we would not be having this debate, there is a thread on here called 'Hear, hear, led me your hear' if you base all of cricket knowledge on stats, you will have a very poor understanding of cricketing ability. Listen to people who were around at the time (not me ), but people who were around such as Gideon Haigh and Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell and Imran and Hadlee and just about everyone else who watched this great bowler. Give this crap away about he failed in the subcontinent, it is such a lame argument

It's not all about stats but it's definitely not all about testimonies either. Wally Hammond called Amar Singh the best bowler in the world. Let's put him in the top 10, shall we?

 

[archie mac]

It's not all about stats but it's definitely not all about testimonies either. Wally Hammond called Amar Singh the best bowler in the world. Let's put him in the top 10, shall we?

Wally was a great batsman, I have not read his opinion on AS, but as the vast majority of the players from Hammonds era do not rate AS as highly, I think we can leave him out of the top 10.

In FOTs case almost all bar a very tiny proportion do rate him as the best, so I think we can rate him right in the very top class of fast bowlers

 

[JBMAC]

Anyone who doesn't rate Lillee in top 10 (or something along those lines) is clearly crazy. It goes without saying, IMO, that he was around said mark. People like you and me can easily come across as "Lillee haters" just because we don't rate him as the best. For anyone, though, it goes without saying that he was a magnificent bowler and such a thing is so obvious we barely need to say it.

Well, actually, you could probably say anyone bar Shoaib\BhupinderSingh.

You do not come across as "Lillee Haters"...The object of this thread is Ambrose vs Lillee NOT whether one or the other is the best of ALL time....The posting s seem to have lost their way...( BTW The BEST of All time to my way of thinking was Keith Miller)

 

[Richard]

Wally was a great batsman, I have not read his opinion on AS, but as the vast majority of the players from Hammonds era do not rate AS as highly, I think we can leave him out of the top 10.

In FOTs case almost all bar a very tiny proportion do rate him as the best, so I think we can rate him right in the very top class of fast bowlers

FOTs?