West Indian quicks > Australian quicks tbhVoting with my patriotism hat on. DKL deserves to be considered in the top two quicks in Australia's history. Garner is in the top 4 West Indian quicks. Very even contest IMO.
DWTA. The reason they seem better is that the great WI quicks all came at once - Hall, Roberts, Garner, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose and finally Walsh. All of these came within (mostly) a 30 year timeframe. Australia's quicks have come one at a time for a century - Spofforth, Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Lillee, Reid and McGrath are for the most part just as good as their WI counterparts but have come over a longer period of time.West Indian quicks > Australian quicks tbh
It's a travesty that anyone would discount those years in assessing anyone's overall record.Garner but had Lilee not lost out on precious peak years due to World Series Cricket, he'd end up with much more wickets which would've tilted it in his favor.
I guess travesty is perhaps a strong word, as I believe there are genuine reasons why WSC couldn't be equated to regular test matches. But I don't wish to discuss them here.It's a travesty that anyone would discount those years in assessing anyone's overall record.
I have yet to hear one argument that has been in any way convincing as to why WSC should be discounted from a player's record.I guess travesty is perhaps a strong word, as I believe there are genuine reasons why WSC couldn't be equated to regular test matches. But I don't wish to discuss them here.
Also to be noted is Garner's brilliant consistency and Lilee's ability to scythe through oppositions when on song. Garner doesn't have one ten for, while Lilee has 7 which probably indicates Lilee had to shoulder more burden than Garner through his career.
It was a bit difficult to get 10 in a match when you had 3 other top bowlers in the same side every game.Also to be noted is Garner's brilliant consistency and Lilee's ability to scythe through oppositions when on song. Garner doesn't have one ten for, while Lilee has 7 which probably indicates Lilee had to shoulder more burden than Garner through his career.
There are many. Including arbitrary World XIs.I have yet to hear one argument that has been in any way convincing as to why WSC should be discounted from a player's record.
I am genuinely interested in hearing why people believe it should be discounted.
I would argue that WSC supertests were more akin to traditional test matches than the one off test played in 2005 between Australia and the World XI.There are many. Including arbitrary World XIs.
Never mind as both have good records in World Series, Lilee has better strike rate while Garner better average.
Further, it's also to be noted while Lilee had to shoulder much burden, his place was never really in great danger owing to lack of competition from fellow fast bowlers. That was not the case with Garner, as demonstrated by only 50 odd tests over a decade long career. It's only fair to assume had he been in any other team he'd have had much more tests than that, and probably even 400 test wickets.