How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Richard]

Being rated #2 is being rated lower than Marshall, and as I say, there are quite a few who do such a thing.

 

[archie mac]

Being rated #2 is being rated lower than Marshall, and as I say, there are quite a few who do such a thing.

I did not say they rated MM No.1 some had Lindwall some had Trueman, quite a few?

I want names!

 

[Richard]

Trueman himself rated himself and Lindwall both as better than DKL.

Therefore, I kinda presume he did too with Marshall, as he was a well-known admirer of the WI seamers from Roberts to Ambrose; he was also someone who saw through the Lillee "haze" (that which IMO hoodwinked so many fine judges) very well indeed. I don't know how many others rated Lillee below such other bowlers as myself, but just because guys like me (and, for instance, ss) are unusual, and before wonderful things like internet forums were rarely heard at all, doesn't mean we didn't exist.

How many people asked Wasim Raja or Gus Logie who they thought was the better bowler anyway? Not many. The only ones whose opinions have ever been sought are those at the very top of the tree, such as the Imrans and Hadlees. And I've given my reasons as to why such guys might well rate Lillee so highly.

 

[archie mac]

Trueman himself rated himself and Lindwall both as better than DKL.

Therefore, I kinda presume he did too with Marshall, as he was a well-known admirer of the WI seamers from Roberts to Ambrose; he was also someone who saw through the Lillee "haze" (that which IMO hoodwinked so many fine judges) very well indeed. I don't know how many others rated Lillee below such other bowlers as myself, but just because guys like me (and, for instance, ss) are unusual, and before wonderful things like internet forums were rarely heard at all, doesn't mean we didn't exist.

How many people asked Wasim Raja or Gus Logie who they thought was the better bowler anyway? Not many. The only ones whose opinions have ever been sought are those at the very top of the tree, such as the Imrans and Hadlees. And I've given my reasons as to why such guys might well rate Lillee so highly.

I don't think Logie ever faced Lillee?

There is no haze mate just a fog you are having trouble seeing through

Trueman did rate Lillee the best of the modern bowlers, he just rated the players from his own generation higher, much to the frustration of all 'the moderns' he spoke on

And I don't rate Lillee No1 for that matter, that belongs to one SF Barnes

 

[Anil]

Trueman himself rated himself and Lindwall both as better than DKL.

Therefore, I kinda presume he did too with Marshall, as he was a well-known admirer of the WI seamers from Roberts to Ambrose; he was also someone who saw through the Lillee "haze" (that which IMO hoodwinked so many fine judges) very well indeed. I don't know how many others rated Lillee below such other bowlers as myself, but just because guys like me (and, for instance, ss) are unusual, and before wonderful things like internet forums were rarely heard at all, doesn't mean we didn't exist.

How many people asked Wasim Raja or Gus Logie who they thought was the better bowler anyway? Not many. The only ones whose opinions have ever been sought are those at the very top of the tree, such as the Imrans and Hadlees. And I've given my reasons as to why such guys might well rate Lillee so highly.

because they were exceptional exponents of the craft themselves and could relate intimately to minute details in judging other bowlers? because they saw him in action enough to make a judgement? or maybe they are just old foggies who make vague statements by looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses...?

 

[Richard]

Maybe, but if one is to believe Barnes was the best, he's pretty much the Bradman of bowling. You either rate him the best by far, or you rate him someone who was a nothing, just built-up by the inadequecies of his day. Me, I think it's very conceivable he was the Bradman of bowling.

Essentially, then, the interesting part, like with batting, was "who was 2nd-best?"

Personally, however, I think it insane to rate Lillee the 2nd-best bowler of all-time. Heck, it makes perfect sense to me to rate Lindwall better than him, and yes, that great undervalued man Alan Davidson too.

And as I say, for me, those who rate Lillee above all are judging on face-value because Lillee looked so good to the admiring eye. There were several who achieved more than he.

 

[archie mac]

because they were exceptional exponents of the craft themselves and could relate intimately to minute details in judging other bowlers? because they saw him in action enough to make a judgement? or maybe they are just old foggies who make vague statements by looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses...?

Not sure about the last bit But I agree with the rest

 

[Richard]

because they were exceptional exponents of the craft themselves and could relate intimately to minute details in judging other bowlers? because they saw him in action enough to make a judgement? or maybe they are just old foggies who make vague statements by looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses...?

No, because most were modest guys. Nothing to do with being old fogies, or foggies.

As I say, there are people who saw him in action and rate Marshall better, many of them.

 

[Anil]

No, because most were modest guys. Nothing to do with being old fogies, or foggies.

right, imran is about the most modest guy you'll ever see, right? , c'mon rich, you will say just about anything to cling to your "point"...

 

[Anil]

Not sure about the last bit But I agree with the rest

the last bit was just for richards' benefit, i thought he would like it if i threw in that option...

 

[Richard]

right, imran is about the most modest guy you'll ever see, right? , c'mon rich, you will say just about anything to cling to your "point"...

How often has Imran bigged himself up as a player, TBH?

 

[Anil]

How often has Imran bigged himself up as a player, TBH?

i don't know, he might or might not have in public, it is clear that he was extremely confident, to the point of arrogance given his abundant talent, during his playing days and even while commenting on the game, i see no reason why he would deliberately play down his abilities and big up others just for the sake of modesty or diplomacy or whatever....similar is the case with hadlee as well...

 

[Beleg]

richard

92 world cup speech

 

[Fusion]

Imran was extremely confident, probably to the point of being arrogant. But I don't think he ever boasted about his own abilities or talent. He also gave credit where it was due. For example, he was always full of praise for Miandad the player, even though we all know there was no love lost between the two (and to his credit, Miandad returned the praise towards Imran). I really value Imran's judgement on cricket. His opinion is one of the reasons I rate Lillee highly.

 

[Burgey]

The obvious stuff, like having all the tools, and having the attitude\aura\aggressiveness\etc. to go with it.

Guys who judge purely on that might adjudge, for instance, Adam Gilchrist to be a greater ODI batsman than Nick Knight, without even bothering to compare their actual achievements.

What achievements? the three near enough to MOTM performances in consecutive WC finals where he scored 50+ in each dig vs well.............

 

[Burgey]

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.

I read an interesting fact on Garner, and am wondering if anyone can confirm ti for me.

As we all know, he terrorised batsmen world wide for however long, but apparently, in WSC, tests, ODIs or 1st class matches, never got I Chappell out.

Seems remarkable given where Chappelli batted.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Just did a quick search on cricinfo and it seems like it's correct.

 

[social]

I just don't see, TBH, where the notion that it is near-unanimous in Lillee's case comes from. I've heard loads who rated Marshall the better bowler, and often they were people like me, who judged less by face-value and things outside the actual bowling ability, and purely on bowling ability and achievements.

or who'd never actually seen him bowl

 

[social]

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.

Nope

If you'd ever seen them bowl you'd know that:

a. Garner bowled predominantly inslant with the variation of one that held its' line. Unless a yorker, he never pitched it up. He virtually never swung the ball. Great bowler but also quite negative.

b. Holding, for virtually his entire career, relied on one thing - pace. He didnt have 10% of Lillee's variation nor 10% of his stamina. His heart was also questioned more than once (Sydney '76, NZ)

Aside from height, Lillee had everything these guys had and quite a bit more PLUS whatever variations they had in their bowling, chances are he showed them how to do it.

What you dont seem to understand Rich is that Lillee was the first complete fast bowler (pace, bounce, swing, cut, slower balls etc etc etc). Many of the greats in the 80s learnt from watching and copying him. Have a look at tapes of Hadlee, Imran, etc when they first played Oz - pace and nothing else. Then they saw Lillee and started copying his methods

 

[JBMAC]

Nope

If you'd ever seen them bowl you'd know that:

a. Garner bowled predominantly inslant with the variation of one that held its' line. Unless a yorker, he never pitched it up. He virtually never swung the ball. Great bowler but also quite negative.

b. Holding, for virtually his entire career, relied on one thing - pace. He didnt have 10% of Lillee's variation nor 10% of his stamina. His heart was also questioned more than once (Sydney '76, NZ)

Aside from height, Lillee had everything these guys had and quite a bit more PLUS whatever variations they had in their bowling, chances are he showed them how to do it.

What you dont seem to understand Rich is that Lillee was the first complete fast bowler (pace, bounce, swing, cut, slower balls etc etc etc). Many of the greats in the 80s learnt from watching and copying him. Have a look at tapes of Hadlee, Imran, etc when they first played Oz - pace and nothing else. Then they saw Lillee and started copying his methods

Having seen them all bowl throughout their careers, I feel this sums up the whole thread. The other thing Lillee brought to the Game was ....Attitude