How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[archie mac]

How old are you, archie_mac?

Younger than the Waugh twins

 

[Richard]

You can't on the one hand respect these past greats' knowledge of the game then, when they express an opinion which doesn't suit your argument decry them as falling foul of hero worship, etc. Were Geoff Lawson or someone else who Lillee mentored the only one making these comments, I would believe that argument, but the evidence is oretty overwhelming in terms of the opinions of his contemporaries.

If I didn't think these people fell foul of hero-worship (and not always that - sometimes other things along those lines), I'd take their word that Lillee was the best seamer ever.

As it is, however, I respect their knowledge, but don't have to take everything they say and form my own opinions based on that - I do have a mind of my own. I'll look at these testimonies and decide for myself how much I want to base on them.

 

[Richard]

To disagree with these players is one thing. The way you are belittling their opinion and denigrating their intelligence is a whole other thing, and it's starting to sound like a bad joke mate.

I've tried not to do such a thing, but sometimes there is virtually no other way to say what you mean.

The reason I don't agree with someone who says Lillee was the best seamer ever is because I think they're judging too much on face-value and not looking below the surface enough. There's really no other way of saying that.

 

[Swervy]

I've tried not to do such a thing, but sometimes there is virtually no other way to say what you mean.

The reason I don't agree with someone who says Lillee was the best seamer ever is because I think they're judging too much on face-value and not looking below the surface enough. There's really no other way of saying that.

but what exactly do you see below the surface may I ask?

 

[Richard]

Not so. It was some of the hardest fought cricket. There was no respite. Viv, Imran and Lillee attest to this amongst others. They had to play hard or face KP's wrath and the fact that there was no safety net to fall back into. Google and find out more about WSC.

I could probably never find-out more about WSC than I already know.

I couldn't care less how hard-fought it was, as I've said many times. There was nothing at stake - wow, the wrath of Kerry Packer! This is nothing compared to playing for your country.

 

[Richard]

but what exactly do you see below the surface may I ask?

The real deeds, rather than the attitude, the aura, then the deeds.

IMO.

 

[Richard]

You have decided these things yourself, no one else has ever said this in any book I have ever read

Of course they haven't, I've said this earlier in the thread haven't I? Judging things on such factors is rarely a conscious decision, it's on impluse and subconsciously.

Unknown does not =unable so is a silly argument as far as I am concerned and it would seem meaningless to all of those people who rate Lillee No.1

Unknown < known-and-good. There are bowlers who achieved more in their careers than Lillee and IMO it's a silly argument to rank such bowlers below Lillee, regardless anything outside his actual bowling deeds which Lillee may have had going for him.

 

[Swervy]

The real deeds, rather than the attitude, the aura, then the deeds.

IMO.

but you only assume that many of us go by attitude, aura, then lastly the deeds.

I mean, if it was all on this macho business that you go on about, we would be think Andre Nel was the second coming....and I certainly don't think that

 

[Swervy]

Of course they haven't, I've said this earlier in the thread haven't I? Judging things on such factors is rarely a conscious decision, it's on impluse and subconsciously.

Unknown < known-and-good. There are bowlers who achieved more in their careers than Lillee and IMO it's a silly argument to rank such bowlers below Lillee, regardless anything outside his actual bowling deeds which Lillee may have had going for him.

Unfortunately for you, the impact of a player on his contempories and the general public is an integral part in the assessment of a player. Sure there was an aura about the guy, but that would have meant nothing if he wasnt a truly great bowler...and when you are talking about the truly great bowlers, there is little to differentiate between then, and so separating them basically comes down to opinion. I dont think anyone has a problem with you not saying he was the greatest or whatever, the problem I see is a) your reasoning and b) the lack of respect you have for others opinions (and that is including some of the most respected commentators and minds on the game)

Its probably this attitude which is riling a few people

 

[Richard]

but you only assume that many of us go by attitude, aura, then lastly the deeds.

I mean, if it was all on this macho business that you go on about, we would be think Andre Nel was the second coming....and I certainly don't think that

I do assume, and it seems to me a reasonable assumption, otherwise I wouldn't assume it. I've seen a great many examples of it in other cases, too, it's a pretty common trend.

It's not just about macho, it's about macho combined with ability making a top-10 bowler look like a top-1 bowler in some eyes.

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately for you, the impact of a player on his contempories and the general public is an integral part in the assessment of a player. Sure there was an aura about the guy, but that would have meant nothing if he wasnt a truly great bowler...and when you are talking about the truly great bowlers, there is little to differentiate between then, and so separating them basically comes down to opinion. I dont think anyone has a problem with you not saying he was the greatest or whatever, the problem I see is a) your reasoning and b) the lack of respect you have for others opinions (and that is including some of the most respected commentators and minds on the game)

Its probably this attitude which is riling a few people

The thing is, there is something to separate Lillee and the Marshalls, Ambroses, McGraths etc of this World - it's just that many people overlook it due, IMO, to the aura.

I'm not for one second disputing that aura has a part to play in the impact a player has on the public, his contemporaries, etc. However, that is not being discussed in this case - one thing and only one thing is, this being achievements as a bowler. And in this respect Lillee does not top the tree, he merely falls into the top-10 or so.

 

[Ikki]

I've tried not to do such a thing, but sometimes there is virtually no other way to say what you mean.

The reason I don't agree with someone who says Lillee was the best seamer ever is because I think they're judging too much on face-value and not looking below the surface enough. There's really no other way of saying that.

LOL, Richard my friend, the players in question are so close to each other statistically that it does become a really misguided route to argue that 3 lonely tests distinguish one guy from the other, even when there are arguments in those 3 tests as well.

The fact that these guys that are judging them were his contemporaries or, even more aptly put, his adversaries and yet they judge him so highly is hardly something you or I, as fans, can really denigrate against. Especially when using the line "because they're judging on face value". If anything, that's what we're doing, not them who actually played alongside him or against him. If anything, they have a closer view, then we get our say.

You and I may be able to argue about music we like, but mostly composers of the music can judge each other better. The same thing with cricket. Their are aspects to bowling, that only the best may have knowledge of or appreciate better than we do. Most of his main competitors who vie for this title consider him the greatest, and that says a lot and simply cannot be ignored because you think it's a judgment based on 'face-value'.

 

[Richard]

If I'd ever read a true, cogent explanation, maybe I might be swayed. Personally, all I've ever heard of is the stuff Sean (archie) has been saying "they all said he was #1" - never actually read any of this stuff. I must do so sometime, and if people can tell me why Lillee was so good (and I can see clearly that there's no starry-eyed [for want of a better term] interference) then maybe I might come around to him being so.

All I've ever been able to discern up to now, though, is that he was a "complete" bowler, able to bowl everything a seamer could wish for - well, yeah, so were several others; had the macho, aggressive attitude which counts more on some people than it does on me; was the best bowler in his team pretty much from first game to last; fought back from horrific injuries (magnificent achievement though this is, it doesn't actually say anything about him as a bowler); and was very much a standout early on in his career when times by-and-large were bare.

This, to me, does not overrule the fact that others achieved more in their careers than he did.

 

[Ikki]

We've heard plenty from before and some now mate. About how he was the best when it was always him. How he did it tough when he was suffering from stress fractures. How he did against the best.

The thing with averages are that 2 people may take 4/80 but one will be in a situation where his 4/80 was fought more harder or the scenario demanded more guile. You can't appreciate that in the stats simply by looking at career averages. And only those who watched may appreciate that, or those who were playing the at the same time. Yet you would have us believe that they've been bewitched by showmanship.

All I've ever heard of Lillee was how he was a fighter and the most complete. One does not become a fighter just by looking tough, or as exemplified before Andre Nel might lay claim to the second coming... But one gains that status for showing up in hard moments, back to the wall and coming up trumps. One isn't a complete bowler simply because he can bowl all types, but to bowl them and get wickets or to take advantage of their variation. As said, if this voice weren't so comprehensive I wouldn't be swayed as much.

I mean, you saw me with regards to Sobers, and how I questioned the bowling aspects of his legacy. Lillee's stacks up very very well and this endorsement by most of his fellow peers - especially the ones that played against him - sways the argument much more than 3 tests ever could.

 

[Richard]

If you say Lillee's abilty to show-up when the going gets tough sets him apart, you are in effect criticising Marshall and the like for failing to do so as often.

Which, to me, is utter rubbish.

 

[Ikki]

If you say Lillee's abilty to show-up when the going gets tough sets him apart, you are in effect criticising Marshall and the like for failing to do so as often.

Which, to me, is utter rubbish.

I'm just giving you an example of an intangible fact that won't be reflected in the numbers game. I can't speak for these other all-time great bowlers, in their own right, but they seem to rate such a characteristic highly. On the same note, I don't see why that has to be a criticism on Marshall's part just because it is extra praise on Lillee's.

 

[Engle]

The thing is, there is something to separate Lillee and the Marshalls, Ambroses, McGraths etc of this World - it's just that many people overlook it due, IMO, to the aura.

I'm not for one second disputing that aura has a part to play in the impact a player has on the public, his contemporaries, etc. However, that is not being discussed in this case - one thing and only one thing is, this being achievements as a bowler. And in this respect Lillee does not top the tree, he merely falls into the top-10 or so.

Aura, demeanor, attitude does have something to do with the game especially for a fast bowler. The game starts off with the fast bowler. Besides getting wkts, he has to ensure a fire-and-brimstone, never-give-up, give-all-you-got, tough-as-nails attitude permeates throughout the team.
A spin bowler may not be able to do this (guile is his weapon), nor batsmen generally or wktkeepers.

Beyond getting wkts, it's the fast bowlers job to exhort his team and makes this ability a valuable asset over another fastie who may have the greater talent.

 

[Richard]

I'm just giving you an example of an intangible fact that won't be reflected in the numbers game. I can't speak for these other all-time great bowlers, in their own right, but they seem to rate such a characteristic highly. On the same note, I don't see why that has to be a criticism on Marshall's part just because it is extra praise on Lillee's.

If Lillee was superior that essentially means someone else wasn't tip-top in that respect. Which I think is completely ridiculous TBH - you don't get as good as Marshall, Holding, Garner, Hadlee, Imran etc. got by being a quitter even if just to the tiniest extent.

 

[Richard]

Aura, demeanor, attitude does have something to do with the game especially for a fast bowler. The game starts off with the fast bowler. Besides getting wkts, he has to ensure a fire-and-brimstone, never-give-up, give-all-you-got, tough-as-nails attitude permeates throughout the team.
A spin bowler may not be able to do this (guile is his weapon), nor batsmen generally or wktkeepers.

Beyond getting wkts, it's the fast bowlers job to exhort his team and makes this ability a valuable asset over another fastie who may have the greater talent.

This is all about being a team-man and a good all-round cricketer, but not to the actual feats as a bowler. No-one's denied that the whole Lillee package is more than just the bowler - all I (and I imagine most others) have said is that the bowler is perhaps a little overestimated due to the rest of the package and one or two other things.

 

[Ikki]

If Lillee was superior that essentially means someone else wasn't tip-top in that respect. Which I think is completely ridiculous TBH - you don't get as good as Marshall, Holding, Garner, Hadlee, Imran etc. got by being a quitter even if just to the tiniest extent.

Again, just because Lillee was more of a fighter - their own words, I believe - does not mean the other gentlemen weren't. But then again, you have another thing like 'talent'. Just because X test bowler had more talent doesn't mean Y bowler hadn't any. And really, their class of talent is very high. So within that class, when Y bowler exclaims that X bowler is more talented, it's really a very serious statement.