How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Richard]

I've never really claimed X-bowler (Marshall say) was neccessarily more talented than Lillee, TBH, just that there were unequivocally those who achieved more than Lillee.

And there were, there's no two ways about that. Is this Lillee's fault? Not wholly (though partly - he missed a series in India by preferring WSC, and that could have done him a World of good) but that doesn't matter. One could argue it's not Shane Bond's fault he's been injured so much (and that too is a moot-point, it's very possible that it actually is) and that without being so he'd probably be right up there in the Marshall\Hadlee\Lillee class.

But he's not, and Lillee did not achieve what some other bowlers did, and that's the way it is.

 

[Swervy]

I've never really claimed X-bowler (Marshall say) was neccessarily more talented than Lillee, TBH, just that there were unequivocally those who achieved more than Lillee.

And there were, there's no two ways about that. Is this Lillee's fault? Not wholly (though partly - he missed a series in India by preferring WSC, and that could have done him a World of good) but that doesn't matter. One could argue it's not Shane Bond's fault he's been injured so much (and that too is a moot-point, it's very possible that it actually is) and that without being so he'd probably be right up there in the Marshall\Hadlee\Lillee class.

But he's not, and Lillee did not achieve what some other bowlers did, and that's the way it is.

surely it depends on what you yourself class as acheiving more

 

[Richard]

How is success in 5 countries not achieving more than success in 3?

 

[Swervy]

How is success in 5 countries not achieving more than success in 3?

define success.

I guess Don Bradman did nowt then given his success in 2 countries

 

[silentstriker]

define success.

I guess Don Bradman did nowt then given his success in 2 countries

If Don had averaged 55 and only in two countries, it would be right to rate him lower than those that did similar things but did them in six countries.

 

[archie mac]

If Don had averaged 55 and only in two countries, you may have a point.

If Bradman only played three Tests in say SA and failed he would still be the greatest batsman ever

And if Hammond failed in his only 3 Tests in Pakistan (no such thing when he did play) I would not mark him any lower

Silly, silly argument

 

[silentstriker]

If Bradman only played three Tests in say SA and failed he would still be the greatest batsman ever

Yup, since his average would still be almost 2x anyone else.

And if Hammond failed in his only 3 Tests in Pakistan (no such thing when he did play) I would not mark him any lower

Sure, but if someone else did everything he did + did well in Pakistan, I'd certainly give that as additional points to the other guy.

 

[archie mac]

Sure, but if someone else did everything he did + did well in Pakistan, I'd certainly give that as additional points to the other guy.

I would just think that too small a sample; but hey I am a fair and reasonable person (just kidding mate )

 

[silentstriker]

I would just think that too small a sample; but hey I am a fair and reasonable person (just kidding mate )

Of course, it can certainly be. Therefore, as I've been saying, you can call them 'unproven', rather than 'failure.'

 

[Ikki]

I've never really claimed X-bowler (Marshall say) was neccessarily more talented than Lillee, TBH, just that there were unequivocally those who achieved more than Lillee.

And there were, there's no two ways about that. Is this Lillee's fault? Not wholly (though partly - he missed a series in India by preferring WSC, and that could have done him a World of good) but that doesn't matter. One could argue it's not Shane Bond's fault he's been injured so much (and that too is a moot-point, it's very possible that it actually is) and that without being so he'd probably be right up there in the Marshall\Hadlee\Lillee class.

But he's not, and Lillee did not achieve what some other bowlers did, and that's the way it is.

One could make that forecast that had Bond not been injured he'd have competed in the top echelon of bowlers and I don't find it such an absurd prediction at all. But Lillee is already in his own right comparable to these bowlers, 3 tests, in those circumstances, don't cut it for me and I am amazed it does for you.

The comparison would be apt if for example Shane Bond right now was so good, yet was injured so often, nevertheless, and his contemporaries thought him the best bowler of their class, or ever. Yes, that would be something.

But Lillee, EVEN when you take into account those 3 tests racks up as one of the greatest ever, so it's hardly a talking point or blind prediction.

 

[vic_orthdox]

A slow dead pitch is a slow dead pitch, no matter where it is.

A bad bowling performance is a bad bowling performance, no matter where it is.

 

[Richard]

Indeed both are, but a slow, dead pitch in Sri Lanka is more of a challenge to an English bowler than a slow, dead pitch in England.

No disputing that, surely?

 

[Richard]

One could make that forecast that had Bond not been injured he'd have competed in the top echelon of bowlers and I don't find it such an absurd prediction at all. But Lillee is already in his own right comparable to these bowlers, 3 tests, in those circumstances, don't cut it for me and I am amazed it does for you.

The comparison would be apt if for example Shane Bond right now was so good, yet was injured so often, nevertheless, and his contemporaries thought him the best bowler of their class, or ever. Yes, that would be something.

But Lillee, EVEN when you take into account those 3 tests racks up as one of the greatest ever, so it's hardly a talking point or blind prediction.

As I've said - it's not a case of those 3 Tests counting for a great deal. If Lillee had missed that tour too, he'd still have had a lesser career than the Marshalls etc. because others had played in the subcontinent and he had not.

It is simply a case of proven vs unproven. There are bowlers who achieved more in their careers than Lillee did.

 

[Engle]

Of all the criteria used to rate a fast bowler, this one surely must rank at the bottom somewhere, if at all.

Show me a current cricketer, ex-cricketer, current fast bowler, ex-fast bowler, commentator, author or anyone with some semblance of credibility who uses this criteria that you do.

 

[silentstriker]

Of all the criteria used to rate a fast bowler, this one surely must rank at the bottom somewhere, if at all.

Show me a current cricketer, ex-cricketer, current fast bowler, ex-fast bowler, commentator, author or anyone with some semblance of credibility who uses this criteria that you do.

Wait, you are claiming doing well in more countries is not a good criteria for a bowler?

 

[Engle]

If you answer my question, I'll answer yours

 

[Richard]

I see no ex-cricketer who has a semblence of credibility who has made a point of judging by such standards (though my sample-size is small, I'm not writing-off every single ex-cricketer). I see plenty of people on this board who have a great deal of credibility who do so, however.

Which just means some people don't judge by the standards that I think they should.

 

[SJS]

It really is a question of a bowler not doing well in four consecutive innings. If those four innings happen to be all of a whole series then thats it.

It may not be difficult to find four cnsecutive innings of other great bowlers with pretty poor figures. The fact that they may not be all of a series doesnt change the basic fact that it is four consecutive innings with poor result.

 

[Engle]

Since there IS no answer to my qs, I'll still endeavor to answer yours

On the Pak tour 1979-80, the fast bowlers performance:
Lillee 3 wkts @ 101
Dymock 1 wkt @ 129

Imran 6 wkts @ 24
Sarfraz 2 wkts @ 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking Marshall's best tour of Pak in 1986-7, the fast bowlers performance
Gray 14 wkts @ 16.21
Marshall 16 wkts @ 16.62
Walsh 11 wkts @ 17.72

Imran 18 wkts @ 11.02
WasimA 6 wkts @ 18.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now go ahead and tell me what your conclusions are ?

 

[Ikki]

As I've said - it's not a case of those 3 Tests counting for a great deal. If Lillee had missed that tour too, he'd still have had a lesser career than the Marshalls etc. because others had played in the subcontinent and he had not.

It is simply a case of proven vs unproven. There are bowlers who achieved more in their careers than Lillee did.

The point is what are you proving? Lillee already performed in like conditions, it isn't as if there is some mystical power in Pakistan that holds bowlers back.

By that account, Test players who've scored less runs, because they've played less tests, are automatically inferior to those with similar ratios, just because the others have played more.