How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[neville cardus]

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 )

He wasn't in the best of health, either.

 

[neville cardus]

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

I don't know...

 

[SJS]

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

Absolutely.

You could almost add a leg spinner to those two

 

[archie mac]

That's a most refreshing statement.



Why the angry emoticon?

Well I want Hill to be the legend but not going to happen

 

[Richard]

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.

Gough was more of a swing-bowler than Caddick too, doesn't mean Caddick wasn't one. Just because you didn't equate Lillee with being a swing-bowler doesn't mean he wasn't. Most people didn't equate Caddick with being one either, FTM, but he certainly was.

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

Well the one that immediately comes to mind is Mark Nicholas when England (and Darren Gough in particular) were swinging out West Indies at Headingley in 2000, when he said (this is word-for-word): "doesn't matter if he was Malcolm Marshall, or Dennis Lillee, the great bowlers, the great swing-bowlers of the era"

 

[Richard]

And no, outswingers and leg cutters are not 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

I'm well aware that they have nothing in common so far as the technique to bowl them is concerned (same with the inswinger and the off-cutter) but they move in the same direction, and that's what I meant. They have the same effect, that they hit or beat the outside-edge.

 

[neville cardus]

Absolutely. He wasnt dramatically quicker than Orielly if you ask me. None of the older accounts I have read talk of his pace in terms that indicate that he was fast medium as the term is understood today.

He was of Hammond's pace.

 

[neville cardus]

Well I want Hill to be the legend but not going to happen

I'd love you to start emailing me a few rough drafts and thoughts.

 

[Swervy]

I'm well aware that they have nothing in common so far as the technique to bowl them is concerned (same with the inswinger and the off-cutter) but they move in the same direction, and that's what I meant. They have the same effect, that they hit or beat the outside-edge.

I wasnt even talking about the technique used by the bowler. Each of them moves differently, the skill required by the batsman to deal with those types of delivery are different

 

[Swervy]

Gough was more of a swing-bowler than Caddick too, doesn't mean Caddick wasn't one. Just because you didn't equate Lillee with being a swing-bowler doesn't mean he wasn't. Most people didn't equate Caddick with being one either, FTM, but he certainly was.

Well the one that immediately comes to mind is Mark Nicholas when England (and Darren Gough in particular) were swinging out West Indies at Headingley in 2000, when he said (this is word-for-word): "doesn't matter if he was Malcolm Marshall, or Dennis Lillee, the great bowlers, the great swing-bowlers of the era"

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


Where is he OFTEN known as being what you said he was?

 

[Goughy]

Gough was more of a swing-bowler than Caddick too, doesn't mean Caddick wasn't one. Just because you didn't equate Lillee with being a swing-bowler doesn't mean he wasn't. Most people didn't equate Caddick with being one either, FTM, but he certainly was.

Yes but Caddick was a swing bowler. He could bowl it lethally and was known for it.

To explain, Caddick was a swing bowler (a fact you seem to think revolutionary) where as someone like Angus Fraser was a seam bowler.

Lillee WAS NOT a swing bowler.

You cannot get the ball to swing when you are banging the ball in half way down the track. Given he is universally recognised as the supreme technition of bowling cutters it makes it incorrect (not up for discussion) to label him as mainly a swing bowler.

One area Lillee is known for is that he got the ball to reverse swing into the right handers on occassion but you are talking about orthadox outswing.

Well the one that immediately comes to mind is Mark Nicholas when England (and Darren Gough in particular) were swinging out West Indies at Headingley in 2000, when he said (this is word-for-word): "doesn't matter if he was Malcolm Marshall, or Dennis Lillee, the great bowlers, the great swing-bowlers of the era"

Wow, thats a powerful source. A throwaway comment in the commentary booth.

 

[Richard]

I never once said he was mainly a swing-bowler. But it'd be completely wrong to say that his armoury did not include the orthodox outswinger. It may not have been his most famous trait. He banged many balls in too short to swing, yes. But when he pitched it full, he could and did bowl outswingers, when the ball was in the right condition. I've never heard anyone say he didn't.

His outswinger may not have been as commonplace as one from, say, Richard Hadlee, but I am at a loss to see how the fact that it was not his most common delivery means he wasn't a swing-bowler in any way, shape or form.

 

[Richard]

I wasnt even talking about the technique used by the bowler. Each of them moves differently, the skill required by the batsman to deal with those types of delivery are different

Nonsense. The full outswinger and the full ball that moves away off the pitch are virtually identical, and require absolutely no different measures in order to (attempt to) deal with them.

 

[Swervy]

Nonsense. The full outswinger and the full ball that moves away off the pitch are virtually identical, and require absolutely no different measures in order to (attempt to) deal with them.

you are kidding right.

 

[Richard]

No, wrong.

I'm kidding left.

 

[Swervy]

No, wrong.

I'm kidding left.

useful post

 

[Richard]

More useful than yours. At least I made something vaguely resembling a joke, rather than your "you're wrong because I say you're kidding even though I've given no good reason as to why so".

 

[Swervy]

More useful than yours. At least I made something vaguely resembling a joke, rather than your "you're wrong because I say you're kidding even though I've given no good reason as to why so".

 

[Richard]

useful post

Indeed.

 

[Swervy]

Indeed.

yeah...good innit