How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[The Sean]

Lillee was actually our best performing quick! Imran did well, though Sarfraz had a poor series as well.

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/AUS_IN_PAK/AUS_PAK_1979-80_TEST_AVS.html

 

[archie mac]

Lillee was actually our best performing quick! Imran did well, though Sarfraz had a poor series as well.

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/AUS_IN_PAK/AUS_PAK_1979-80_TEST_AVS.html

Thanks for that, I remember reading that Imran told Lillee he missed one Test because he knew the wicket would be flat, and he only played in another because he needed the money.

I love the way people discount Lillee's whole career (maybe a little Exaggerated ) because of these 3 Tests and 1 in Sri Lanka

 

[Perm]

I love the way people discount Lillee's whole career (maybe a little Exaggerated ) because of these 3 Tests and 1 in Sri Lanka

No, they do it to point out an obvious flaw in Lillee's career, much like they do with Warne in India and Muralitharan in Australia. They are just showing that he failed to perform in a particular area (in this case the subcontinent).

 

[archie mac]

No, they do it to point out an obvious flaw in Lillee's career, much like they do with Warne in India and Muralitharan in Australia. They are just showing that he failed to perform in a particular area (in this case the subcontinent).

I do know that, but 4 Tests on flat wickets give me a break, he had a couple of poor series in Aust. so I am sure that can happen to anyone. People seem to make out that Indian wickets are made out of different material then the rest of the world, surely they are turf?

SCG was a turner for a long time and Adelaide has been flat on a number of occasions, I don't assume Murali is a poor bowler because he is yet to destroy Aust in this country. He may just set that right this season, I hope so, I would like to see some close Tests

 

[Matt79]

Some excerpts about what Lillee had to say about that series in Pakistan, in his 2003 autobiography:
"The opening Test was staged at the National Stadium in Karachi and warning bells began to ring... Good lbw decisions were being knocked back, not one or two but six or seven early on. We had been told Javed [Miandad] had been out lbw only a couple of times in his entire career in Pakistan, a remarkable statistic... I must have had Zaheer out several times. He was badly out of touch but must have realised that as long as he kept his pads in front he would be fine. It was a nightmare because the wicket was so slow it wasn't carrying. Having a batsman caught in the slips or behind was almost impossible."

"I was so frustrated at having appeals turned down that, finally, I turned to the umpire and asked how I was going to get a wicket. He looked me in the eye and said, "If you knock the wickets over, Mr Lillee, I will have to give him out".

"[At the second test] Greg used all 11 of us as bowlers in that match, even Rod Marsh, who bowled 10 overs".

"Two nights before the [Third] Test... I had a very hot curry. The effects of the meal hit me within a few hours of getting back to the hotel. Greg [Chappell] was very concerned and somehow got hold of a doctor in the early hours of the morning... I wasn't the first nor was I the last to fall sick on the sub-continent in those days. A lot of players went down with bad stomachs on tours of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I was just one of many so it was nothing new to play while or after being ill... Ill or not I still bowled 42 overs in that innings and took my first wickets of the tour... As a footnote, there were three lbws out of seven wickets in our first innings while we, once more, did not get one [when bowling]. The series split was 10-1."

"It was tough but Pakistan was not all bad. I liked the different culture and I got on really well with Majid Khan. He remains a great mate from the game, as do Wasim Raja and Imran."

Now obviously a player using an autobiography to blame everyone but themselves for poor form is not a new or rare occurrence, but he makes some interesting points, IMO.

 

[Engle]

If you put a bunch of fast bowlers together in an All-Time XI, Lillee would emerge as their natural leader

 

[adharcric]

Lillee wouldn't make my all-time XI. Excellent bowler though.

 

[silentstriker]

I do know that, but 4 Tests on flat wickets give me a break, he had a couple of poor series in Aust. so I am sure that can happen to anyone. People seem to make out that Indian wickets are made out of different material then the rest of the world, surely they are turf?

SCG was a turner for a long time and Adelaide has been flat on a number of occasions, I don't assume Murali is a poor bowler because he is yet to destroy Aust in this country. He may just set that right this season, I hope so, I would like to see some close Tests

Regardless of whether he did poorly or not, at best he is unproven. So either way, it counts against him. So compared to bowlers who have similar records everywhere else, but are also proven in more places than he is, it does count against him. Sorry.

 

[Fusion]

I rank Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, and Ambrose above him. Since he makes my top 5, I would easily clas**** him as "excellent".

 

[Jono]

See, what I don't understand is if someone doesn't think Lillee is one of the 3-5 best fast bowlers, or shouldn't make an all-time XI, that means they don't think they're a great. Its clearly not the case.

Similar things are seen when someone doesn't have Sachin in their all-time XI, or Warne. Not being the best ever doesn't mean you weren't an absolute freak and legend of the game.

Lillee to me isn't as good as Marshall or McGrath, but he's still a legend, and one of the best ever.

 

[archie mac]

Regardless of whether he did poorly or not, at best he is unproven. So either way, it counts against him. So compared to bowlers who have similar records everywhere else, but are also proven in more places than he is, it does count against him. Sorry.

NO! You can't take that tiny sample and suggest it proves a point, it is simply wrong. Ponting has not played well in India, yet you would only have to look at his technique on all wickets and see that it is just a coincidence that he is yet to perform in India

 

[Jono]

SS is right Archie... only if you are taking everything from a statistical aspect.

If bowler A has an identical record with bowler B everywhere in the world, on any surface, except in one country where bowler A's record is far superior than bowler B... clearly, if judging solely on statistics, bowler A is the better bowler. So, with regards to what SS is claiming, he's correct. Even if the sample is small.

But when you take other aspects of that player's ability/contribution/aura and whatever other extrinsic variables exist in cricket, then it possibly counters the one statistical difference that may exist.

 

[archie mac]

SS is right Archie... only if you are taking everything from a statistical aspect.

If bowler A has an identical record with bowler B everywhere in the world, on any surface, except in one country where bowler A's record is far superior than bowler B... clearly, if judging solely on statistics, bowler A is the better bowler. So, with regards to what SS is claiming, he's correct. Even if the sample is small.

But when you take other aspects of that player's ability/contribution/aura and whatever other extrinsic variables exist in cricket, then it possibly counters the one statistical difference that may exist.

So if McGrath had one poor series in Bangladesh (his only series in that country), and than some bowler in the future had the same average but claimed a 5for in Banga he is the better bowler. Nah I don't buy it, in fact I think it silly

 

[silentstriker]

NO! You can't take that tiny sample and suggest it proves a point, it is simply wrong. Ponting has not played well in India, yet you would only have to look at his technique on all wickets and see that it is just a coincidence that he is yet to perform in India

I said he could be unproven at best. Meaning, if you remove the Tests in Pakistan from the record, he would be unproven rather than bad in the subcontinent.

And Ponting has had a lot more than 3 Tests in India, so his situation is not similar at all.

 

[silentstriker]

So if McGrath had one poor series in Bangladesh (his only series in that country), and than some bowler in the future had the same average but claimed a 5for in Banga he is the better bowler. Nah I don't buy it, in fact I think it silly

If you replace Bangladesh with a Test standard country, and he played on similarly flat tracks as McGrath has, and if he specialized in the top order wickets like McGrath has, then yes, he would be better.

 

[Richard]

I do know that, but 4 Tests on flat wickets give me a break, he had a couple of poor series in Aust. so I am sure that can happen to anyone. People seem to make out that Indian wickets are made out of different material then the rest of the world, surely they are turf?

SCG was a turner for a long time and Adelaide has been flat on a number of occasions, I don't assume Murali is a poor bowler because he is yet to destroy Aust in this country. He may just set that right this season, I hope so, I would like to see some close Tests

It's not just to do with wickets, there are many things that are different in the subcontinent to Australia or England. Pitches are not the only reason why the subcontinent is considered the ultimate challenge for a seam-bowler.

If a bowler lacks success in the subcontinent while his contemporaries have such a thing to their name, the bowler lacking success (even if he's not played a single game) cannot be considered better than those with success to their names.

IMO.

 

[Richard]

I don't want to be a stick in the mud here, but isn't Lillee's time only the 70's and 80's? Or was he secretly Carl Rackemann and Scott Muller?

Cricket changed (though more in England than anywhere else) in 1970, and IMO 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s are best treated as a set the way the 1940s, 50s and 60s are.

Otherwise you could argue that Ray Lindwall was a better bowler than Lillee too (in fact FS Trueman did).

 

[Richard]

Garner and Holding? Great bowlers no question, but I'm hard pressed to see how they'd be considered better than Lillee. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the list either, but I think all of their cases are stronger than Big Bird and Whispering Death.

No disrespect to either of them - as I say, both great bowlers.

Holding and Garner had everything in their armouries Lillee had (Holding especially) and achieved more success than he did.

I can't see how neither deserve to be considered alongside him.

 

[JBH001]

Not to say that I think Big Bird and Whispering Death better than Lillee, but maybe the reason they are not considered that way waas because they worked in a pack and Lillee did not - therefore, apart from the cricketing arguments, there is also the angle of sheer exposure and standing out.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, exactly. As I've always said about Lillee, there was so much besides his bowling ability that stood-out about him - his aggression, his persona, the fact that he was pretty much from debut to final game better than any other bowler in his side (something virtually no-one else has ever achieved) and above all the fact that he overcame injuries that would have broken the careers of pretty much anyone else.

So that means, IMO, he often gets credit for being a better bowler than those who did a much quieter job, even if the quieter types did it better.