How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

*bzzt* *bzzt* *bzzt*

Never in anything apart from WSC though.

 

[Richard]

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.

I just don't understand it though - Lillee once refused to tour Pakistan purely because "it was a fast-bowler's graveyard". I can't see why Imran wouldn't completely lose respect for someone who did that.

 

[Richard]

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

Which, I'll say again, Knight never had the chance to do given he never played in one.................

 

[Richard]

or who'd never actually seen him bowl

I've seen Lillee bowl plenty and plenty. It's hard not to.

 

[Richard]

Nope

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

I have seen the whole lot of them bowl, plenty.

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.

He didn't need to swing the ball, he had enough going for him with his height and seam and cut. Ambrose rarely swung the ball either, but again - he didn't need to, he was exactly the same as Garner.

Too many people base too much on being able to do everything, and not enough on simple output.

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)

You honestly don't have a clue if you question Holding for those two instances - one at the start and one at the end, neither of which he should have been playing.

And to say Holding relied purely on pace all career is, well, ridiculous frankly. You don't take 239 wickets at 21.69, around every country in The World (excluding a whole 3 Tests in NZ where the general consensus is that the West Indians usually had to get batsmen out 3 times before it went in the book) by relying purely on pace. In fact you don't do very well at all - look at Brett Lee. Holding actually had the ability to do near enough everything you could wish of a bowler, and if you listen to him talk about how he did this and that you'll realise such a thing. Saying Holding was purely a pace merchant is just relying on stereotypes.

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

I couldn't care less whether many learnt from watching him - that doesn't mean they couldn't have done what he did even better.

In any case, to suggest Lindwall, Statham etc. weren't "complete fast bowlers" is nonsense of the highest order too.

 

[archie mac]

I have seen the whole lot of them bowl, plenty.

He didn't need to swing the ball, he had enough going for him with his height and seam and cut. Ambrose rarely swung the ball either, but again - he didn't need to, he was exactly the same as Garner.

Too many people base too much on being able to do everything, and not enough on simple output.

You honestly don't have a clue if you question Holding for those two instances - one at the start and one at the end, neither of which he should have been playing.

And to say Holding relied purely on pace all career is, well, ridiculous frankly. You don't take 239 wickets at 21.69, around every country in The World (excluding a whole 3 Tests in NZ where the general consensus is that the West Indians usually had to get batsmen out 3 times before it went in the book) by relying purely on pace. In fact you don't do very well at all - look at Brett Lee. Holding actually had the ability to do near enough everything you could wish of a bowler, and if you listen to him talk about how he did this and that you'll realise such a thing. Saying Holding was purely a pace merchant is just relying on stereotypes.

I couldn't care less whether many learnt from watching him - that doesn't mean they couldn't have done what he did even better.

In any case, to suggest Lindwall, Statham etc. weren't "complete fast bowlers" is nonsense of the highest order too.

Holding another who rates Lillee as the best

 

[silentstriker]

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.

I wouldn't call a bowler with an S/R of 50.84 (higher than most, including Lillee) a negative bowler. Not disputing the fact that he liked the short ball, but getting a wicket every 50 balls, regardless of how you do it, is exceptional.

 

[Engle]

Lindwall and Statham lacked Lillee's aggression, part of the fast bowlers armoury.

Lillee commanded greater fear and respect of his time than did Macko, who had the great fortune of riding on the backs of his immediate predecessors Roberts, Holding, Croft, Garner.

If Macko never happened, not much would have changed for WIndian cricket at the time, there were a slew of quickies who would have stepped in his shoes.

If Lillee didn't happen....well, besides the impact to Aus cricket, perhaps Imran, Hadlee would not have had the mentor to strive towards.

 

[archie mac]

I wouldn't call a bowler with an S/R of 50.84 (higher than most, including Lillee) a negative bowler. Not disputing the fact that he liked the short ball, but getting a wicket every 50 balls, regardless of how you do it, is exceptional.

Was a very good bowler, maybe the best bowler of the yorker of all, and easily the best at that type of ball I have ever watched

 

[silentstriker]

Lillee commanded greater fear and respect of his time than did Macko, who had the great fortune of riding on the backs of his immediate predecessors Roberts, Holding, Croft, Garner.

If Macko never happened, not much would have changed for WIndian cricket at the time, there were a slew of quickies who would have stepped in his shoes.

If Lillee didn't happen....well, besides the impact to Aus cricket, perhaps Imran, Hadlee would not have had the mentor to strive towards.

All of that is completely and utterly irrelevant when considering who was a better bowler. Who exactly is arguing that Lillee was not influential?

 

[Engle]

Very relevant indeed. Especially for a fast bowler. The influence he has on his team (and peers). Imran starts his article in ARV, not on the technical details of the fast bowler, but on the intangibles. The complete package. Not selectively including some aspect and ignoring others. Puzzling.

 

[silentstriker]

Very relevant indeed.

....

Not selectively including some aspect and ignoring others. Puzzling.

Those points are relevant if you discuss the influence of Lillee as a bowler, not when you discuss the quality of Lillee as a bowler. Those two are distinct arguments.

As a comparison, discussing influence of Dhoni in Indian cricket is different from discussing his quality as a player. I don't care what your reputation is. Score runs and take wickets. That's what you judge a player on. I am not qualified to discuss the influence of Lillee, and I am perfectly willing to admit it was unparalleled.

 

[Engle]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

My view is that it's the total package.

Otherwise, one could enter numbers in a computer, hit a button and find out the ' better ' bowler.

 

[Richard]

No, you couldn't, because there are things related to how good a bowler someone was that cannot be expressed numerically.

Hence, you always need more than just tapping things into a computer.

Nonetheless, it is foolish to undervalue the importance of numbers in summing-up achievements in cricket IMO.

 

[Matt79]

I just don't understand it though - Lillee once refused to tour Pakistan purely because "it was a fast-bowler's graveyard". I can't see why Imran wouldn't completely lose respect for someone who did that.

Source or link for that? I've never heard that. I'm highly dubious as to whether its true.

 

[Richard]

Thought it was widely known TBH - it was the 1981\82 tour, these three Tests.

I've always heard he turned down this tour. The only place I've ever heard it is on here, though, so I'm open to other suggestions as to why he missed it.

 

[Matt79]

Knee injury. He missed a lot of 81 and most of 82 with it. The test vs. NZ in Christchurch was the last he played until England's visit to Australia at the end of 1982.

Again, from his 2003 autobiography:
"My knee had been playing up before the tour started but in Christchurch the cartilage went and I couldn't carry on... Although the season was nearly over, I was out for a long time, missing our series in Pakistan the following September and October... Meantime, I had an operation which did not work..."

Unlike you not to check your facts before making an allegation like that tbh.

 

[The Sean]

Knee injury. He missed a lot of 81 and most of 82 with it. The test vs. NZ in Christchurch was the last he played until England's visit to Australia at the end of 1982.

Again, from his 2003 autobiography:
"My knee had been playing up before the tour started but in Christchurch the cartilage went and I couldn't carry on... Although the season was nearly over, I was out for a long time, missing our series in Pakistan the following September and October... Meantime, I had an operation which did not work..."

He had a handy year in '81 for someone who missed a lot of it, TBH.

It was a lot of 82 that he missed, and then most of the 82/83 series as well after breaking down after the first Test.

 

[Sanz]

Source or link for that? I've never heard that. I'm highly dubious as to whether its true.

Lillee described the Faislabad Pitch as 'Graveyard' of fast bowlers. Rest of all is people adding one and one and making it up as 11 instead of 2.

 

[The Sean]

He also said that it's where he'd send his mother in law to be buried.