How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[SJS]

For me, it's about that Lillee was not a proven bowler in the subcontinent, while others matched his deeds elsewhere and performed in the subcontinent.

Nothing more than that.

So you are saying/hinting that it is THIS fact that proves Lillee was not what he is claimed to be (greatest or whatever) ? Thats how it sounds.

 

[Richard]

It means I think those who have claimed him to be the greatest seamer ever have not taken account of something which they should take account of.

 

[Richard]

All I can say that it is a convenient shift from an earlier stand 'Lillee Failed in the subcontinent' to 'Lillee was unproven in the subcontient' and hence he is not as great as Marshall , Mcgrath etc. It is pretty much the same argument but tone and language has changed after looking completely ridiculous with the earlier suggestion.

Nope, I for one never claimed the former. I've never claimed anyone was a proven failure based on 3 Tests.

I highly doubt anyone else with much sense did either.

 

[SJS]

It means I think those who have claimed him to be the greatest seamer ever have not taken account of something which they should take account of.

Its the same thing. You think this (his tour of Pakistan) is relevant to the argument (about his being the greatest).

 

[Richard]

No. I don't. It's nothing to do with the Pakistan tour. How I can make this clearer, I don't know.

 

[SJS]

No. I don't. It's nothing to do with the Pakistan tour. How I can make this clearer, I don't know.

When you say others matched his deeds elsewhere and performed in the subcontinent. what does sub-continent and deeds in subcontinent refer to as far as Lillee is concerned ?

 

[Richard]

The fact that Lillee did not succeed there. This is fact.

"Lillee did not succeed" and "Lillee failed conclusively" are not the same thing. If Lillee had played 5 series in the subcontinent and failed in the whole lot, it's very probable only the most ridiculously partisan Australians would still be capable of claiming him the greatest seamer of all-time.

However, either of them would be damning when he is compared to other brilliant bowlers, bowlers who could do everything he could - and some even do things he couldn't (no-one, and I mean no-one, would claim Lillee was as accurate as McGrath and Ambrose; he didn't need to be, he could still be a brilliant bowler without being so, as McGrath and Ambrose didn't need to bowl big hooping outswingers like Lillee did, because they could bowl such good off-cutters and leg-cutters, and use the seam, and be brilliant bowlers with that and their phenominal accuracy). Now, only one of them can have happened, and only a fool would call him a proven failure because of a single series and a one-off Test years later. Had Lillee been a proven failure in the subcontinent, obviously, it wouldn't matter a damn to what he'd done elsewhere; and in any case, there's no reason to believe such a thing would have been likely.

But there is no two ways about the fact that Lillee did not succeed in the subcontinent, and I'll say it again, it annoys me when people tell me that, by saying that, I'm saying something I'm not.

 

[SJS]

The fact that Lillee did not succeed there. This is fact.

.

You are taxing you know but I will try to persevere.

I know he did not succeed there. I said its a fact. Read back.

My question is why this should come up when discussing whether he was the greatest or not ?

The answer should be "because his success (or failue) in the sub continent is relevant to the point being debated"

Right Richard ?

 

[Richard]

NO! Because his success or lack of success should come up when discussing whether he was the greatest or not.

Please stop ignoring the important part of what I've said and replying saying stuff I've already replied to in the previous post!

 

[SJS]

NO! Because his success or lack of success should come up when discussing whether he was the greatest or not.

Please stop ignoring the important part of what I've said and replying saying stuff I've already replied to in the previous post!

Good night Richard.

 

[Goughy]

The fact that Lillee did not succeed there. This is fact.

"Lillee did not succeed" and "Lillee failed conclusively" are not the same thing. If Lillee had played 5 series in the subcontinent and failed in the whole lot, it's very probable only the most ridiculously partisan Australians would still be capable of claiming him the greatest seamer of all-time.

However, either of them would be damning when he is compared to other brilliant bowlers, bowlers who could do everything he could - and some even do things he couldn't (no-one, and I mean no-one, would claim Lillee was as accurate as McGrath and Ambrose; he didn't need to be, he could still be a brilliant bowler without being so, as McGrath and Ambrose didn't need to bowl big hooping outswingers like Lillee did, because they could bowl such good off-cutters and leg-cutters, and use the seam, and be brilliant bowlers with that and their phenominal accuracy). Now, only one of them can have happened, and only a fool would call him a proven failure because of a single series and a one-off Test years later. Had Lillee been a proven failure in the subcontinent, obviously, it wouldn't matter a damn to what he'd done elsewhere; and in any case, there's no reason to believe such a thing would have been likely.

But there is no two ways about the fact that Lillee did not succeed in the subcontinent, and I'll say it again, it annoys me when people tell me that, by saying that, I'm saying something I'm not.

Big hooping outswingers???

No doubt he could swing the ball but he was known and feared for his ability to bowl skilled and dangerous cutters, especially the legcutter.

No quite sure where you get your info from to be the base of your opinions

 

[Richard]

Believe me, I've seen Lillee bowl outswingers plenty.

He's often known as one of the two great swing-bowlers of the era, along with Marshall.

The leg-cutter and the outswinger, of course, are similar balls.

 

[Swervy]

Believe me, I've seen Lillee bowl outswingers plenty.

He's often known as one of the two great swing-bowlers of the era, along with Marshall.

The leg-cutter and the outswinger, of course, are similar balls.

Swing bowling is something I never really equated with Lillee to be honest. I would have said Hadlee was more of a swing bowler than Lillee, unless my memory is failing me here.

And no, outswingers and leg cutters are not similar balls

 

[Goughy]

Believe me, I've seen Lillee bowl outswingers plenty.

He's often known as one of the two great swing-bowlers of the era, along with Marshall.

The leg-cutter and the outswinger, of course, are similar balls.

Apart from the way they move away from the batsman they have nothing in common.

They are held differently, require a different wrist action, deviate at different times and for different reasons.

A genuine leg-cutter is different to the ball just hitting the seam and going away. The fingers actually have to 'cut' down the side of the ball. Lillee was an expert at this

Id love to see a reference to Lillee as being alongside Marshall as the great swing bowler.

Lillee didnt pitch it enough enough to be considered a swing bowler in the main

 

[neville cardus]

Just picked up a book on Hill and his Reminiscences (spelling) of his playing days, thought I would read that and than write the chapter, will have to make sure I show respect

That's a most refreshing statement.

both greats of the game, but Trumper tbf is a legend

Why the angry emoticon?

 

[Goughy]

Lillee 8-29 vs World XI including greats like Sobers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqtMvzOPj8s&mode=related&search=

Make of this what you want. Just fun to watch and very quick (not much swing there either )

 

[neville cardus]

Hill has already done that for us all and saved us the effort.

Clem doesn't get anything like the credit due to him, an anomaly which I attribute to his relative gracelessness in a time of grace unbounded.

 

[neville cardus]

I don't remember ever reading that?

Surely you must've read of Trumper's legendary sympathy for the many bowlers who suffered at his hands? He often deliberately gave his wicket away.

 

[neville cardus]

Trumper's a hack. Haven't you seen his Test average - it's 39 for God's sake. THIRTY NINE!!

Just go and insult your avatar, why don't you?

 

[archie mac]

Surely you must've read of Trumper's legendary sympathy for the many bowlers who suffered at his hands? He often deliberately gave his wicket away.

Yes, but that was only after a ton, so hardly not trying