How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Ikki]

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 ?

Interesting, to say the least.

 

[shankar]

Why is this strawman that Lillee is being judged on 3 tests being brought up again and again? All those arguing against Lillee would be glad to remove those 3 tests from his career and assume that they never happened.

 

[Richard]

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.

Please - it's not about the failure in that series. He'd barely be rated that much higher if he'd taken 15 wickets at 15 in those games, and certainly not if he'd not played them.

Lillee was not a proven force in the subcontinent, because he only played 1 full series there. End of story - that's all anyone is arguing. Or West Indies, FTM, because he only played 1 Test there too.

 

[Richard]

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 ?

That Tony Gray et al bowled better than any of the seamers in the respective Lillee series?

 

[Richard]

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.

There's no mystical power, no, but there are many things that make it different bowling on a flat pitch in your home country and bowling on a flat pitch in a place which is foreign to you (especially the subcontinent to someone not from the subcontinent). I don't see how anyone can possibly argue otherwise.

Non-seam-friendly pitches aren't the only reason touring the subcontinent is considered the ultimate challenge for a seam-bowler.

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.

Not so. But if you had someone who'd scored at 70 but had batted only in England between 2002 and 2006, I'd not rate him anywhere near as high as someone who'd scored runs all over everywhere but only at 40, even in the same period, never mind between, say, 1995 and 1999.

Cricket, since the 1950s, has been about more than just success in 2 or 3 countries.

 

[Richard]

Why is this strawman that Lillee is being judged on 3 tests being brought up again and again? All those arguing against Lillee would be glad to remove those 3 tests from his career and assume that they never happened.

I don't know, but it's bloody frustrating.

 

[funnygirl]

He is excellent ,a fanastic sight to watch .Full flowing aggressive run up and great pace and accuracy .For me ,i rate all those things as well .Not just that good old ''look at the stats '' theory .I would like to watch Lillee over some one like Mcgrath

 

[Ikki]

So I guess Sir Jack Hobbs ranks lower than Matty Hayden, because he wasn't successful in as many places.

 

[Engle]

That Tony Gray et al bowled better than any of the seamers in the respective Lillee series?

Incorrect. Cross-comparing chalk and cheese.

Lillee was the best foreign bowler of that series and 2nd best overall (arguably).
As was Marshall with his.

Hope this puts to bed once and for all any mention of that small sampling fast bowlers graveyard series.

 

[SJS]

Please - it's not about the failure in that series. He'd barely be rated that much higher if he'd taken 15 wickets at 15 in those games, and certainly not if he'd not played them.

Lillee was not a proven force in the subcontinent, because he only played 1 full series there. End of story - that's all anyone is arguing. Or West Indies, FTM, because he only played 1 Test there too.

HUH !!

How am I saying anything different. Did I talk about his failure in that series ?

What I - am - saying - is - that - four - bad - innings - could - have - happened - to - anyone ? Read my lips Richard

 

[Richard]

I know this - and I am saying: read my lips
I - am - not - making - any - judgement - on - those - failures.

It is the unprovenness that counts. Things would be exactly the same had Lillee never played those 3 Tests in Pakistan.

 

[Richard]

Incorrect. Cross-comparing chalk and cheese.

Lillee was the best foreign bowler of that series and 2nd best overall (arguably).
As was Marshall with his.

Hope this puts to bed once and for all any mention of that small sampling fast bowlers graveyard series.

No such thing. Outstanding seamers are outstanding because there is supposed to be nothing which can consign them to the graveyard.

It's presumably the case that there was more in it for the seamers in that 1986\87 series than in the 1979\80. That doesn't mean averaging 100 wasn't a poor performance.

 

[Richard]

So I guess Sir Jack Hobbs ranks lower than Matty Hayden, because he wasn't successful in as many places.

You're clearly not familiar with my argument about how good Hayden is not then.

 

[archie mac]

No such thing. Outstanding seamers are outstanding because there is supposed to be nothing which can consign them to the graveyard.

It's presumably the case that there was more in it for the seamers in that 1986\87 series than in the 1979\80. That doesn't mean averaging 100 wasn't a poor performance.

That is just not fair, some wickets no matter where they are in the world are simply graveyards/roads for fast bowlers, you could line up anyone you like and they would not do any better

Imran Khan with support from the umpires does not count

 

[SJS]

I know this - and I am saying: read my lips
I - am - not - making - any - judgement - on - those - failures.

It is the unprovenness that counts. Things would be exactly the same had Lillee never played those 3 Tests in Pakistan.

But dear Richard I wasnt saying anything about what you said on the subject. My post did not quote anyone.

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.

See.

This post just happened to be posted after your post. It was neither in response to your post nor addressed to you. Yet you chose to respond with the following quoting my post above

Please - it's not about the failure in that series. He'd barely be rated that much higher if he'd taken 15 wickets at 15 in those games, and certainly not if he'd not played them.

Lillee was not a proven force in the subcontinent, because he only played 1 full series there. End of story - that's all anyone is arguing. Or West Indies, FTM, because he only played 1 Test there too.

Why ? Oh Why ? Pray Why ?

If you can answer that sincerely without going about in circles fine otherwise just forget it. Its not important enough to waste so much time upon

 

[Richard]

That is just not fair, some wickets no matter where they are in the world are simply graveyards/roads for fast bowlers, you could line up anyone you like and they would not do any better

Imran Khan with support from the umpires does not count

There is no such thing as a graveyard wicket. An outstanding bowler can prevail regardless of the surface.

End of story.

 

[Richard]

But dear Richard I wasnt saying anything about what you said on the subject. My post did not quote anyone.


See.

This post just happened to be posted after your post. It was neither in response to your post nor addressed to you. Yet you chose to respond with the following quoting my post above



Why ? Oh Why ? Pray Why ?

If you can answer that sincerely without going about in circles fine otherwise just forget it. Its not important enough to waste so much time upon

I know it wasn't specifically directed at me but I was attempting to make a general point. It's not just me who's argued this, it's ss, it's several others. We've all said the same thing.

 

[Engle]

There is no such thing as a graveyard wicket. An outstanding bowler can prevail regardless of the surface.

End of story.

First you say :
I - am - not - making - any - judgement - on - those - failures.

Then right after that post you contradict yourself by saying :

It's presumably the case that there was more in it for the seamers in that 1986\87 series than in the 1979\80. That doesn't mean averaging 100 wasn't a poor performance

So, which is it ?
Are u making a judgement on those failures ?
Or not ?

 

[Ikki]

You're clearly not familiar with my argument about how good Hayden is not then.

Ahh, so Nasser Hussain > Sir Jack Hobbs then.

 

[archie mac]

There is no such thing as a graveyard wicket. An outstanding bowler can prevail regardless of the surface.

End of story.

You must be kidding, there have been any number of matches where bowlers had no chance, and after both sides had one innings the game was a certain draw well into the
4th day