Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[vic_orthdox]

Amazing to see Botham's figures in that period. 312 wickets in 8 years, and 24 five wicket hauls.

 

[Sir Alex]

Garner has a great average and an excellent strike rate, but an inexplicable lack of five-fors compared to the others on that list. Competing with other great bowlers is part of the reason - but Holding and Roberts have still done better than him in that respect, so it doesn't completely explain it. It makes me question whether he would have been capable of carrying an attack on his own.

Holding averages only 4.08 wickets per match during Garner's time as compared to Garner's 4.47.

Ftr Mcgrath averages 4.54 per match.

 

[vcs]

Holding averages only 4.08 wickets per match during Garner's time as compared to Garner's 4.47.

Ftr Mcgrath averages 4.54 per match.

Yeah, that's true... it shows Garner was very reliable in picking up his share of wickets per match without necessarily running through a side. A bit like comparing two batsmen - one averaging 50 with a century every 6-7 matches vs. another averaging 47 but scoring a century every 4 matches. It's not obvious which one is better.

 

[Zinzan]

Garner >>>> Lillee as a ODI bowler, but in Tests, Lillee >> Garner

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, that's true... it shows Garner was very reliable in picking up his share of wickets per match without necessarily running through a side. A bit like comparing two batsmen - one averaging 50 with a century every 6-7 matches vs. another averaging 47 but scoring a century every 4 matches. It's not obvious which one is better.

5 wickets per match is just an arbitrary assignment of greatness just like a century.

Garner had 18 four fors to in with the 7 five fors btw, almost all of them at very cheap costs.

 

[Uppercut]

I think I have to go for Lillee. Garner was unreal, but I have a bit more respect for the role Lillee played in Australia's attack.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Holding averages only 4.08 wickets per match during Garner's time as compared to Garner's 4.47.

Ftr Mcgrath averages 4.54 per match.

Yeah, but Warne bowled the majority of the overs in the second innings which probably means most of McGrath's wickets were in the first innings.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Garner's gun, but not really comparable to Lillee IMO. Lillee is one of the best of all time, arguably the best of them all. Is lauded by practically all and sundry as the complete fast bowler.

No he isn't.The complete fast bowler was Marshall.End of discussion.

 

[Sir Alex]

Lilee's dismissals

Top order 36%
Middle order 37%
Lower order 27%

Garner's dismissals

Top order 33%
Middle order 34%
Lower order 33%

Hmmm....

 

[Ikki]

No he isn't.The complete fast bowler was Marshall.End of discussion.

When I care what you think I'll let you know. I was referring to the players who played with him - including the WIndies players themselves.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Garner has a more complete record.Unlike Lillee who failed miserably in the SC due to various reasons,Garner proved himself everywhere.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, but Warne bowled the majority of the overs in the second innings which probably means most of McGrath's wickets were in the first innings.

I fail to see the connection. Both Garner and Mcgrath got to bowl about same number of balls per match.

In fact, Mcgrath had 236 balls per match on an average compared to Garner's 227.

 

[Ikki]

The only places Lillee "failed" he played 1 test in Sri Lanka and 3 in Pakistan - his record in the SC. Give me a break.

Lillee seam, swung, cut, had oodles of pace, got injured, then built on his accuracy and brains; did it in a strong attack, continued to do it in a weak one; routinely got the best batsmen out and was the most feared bowler in the world and was almost universally lauded as the greatest fast bowler of all time. For Richards to Sobers, to Imran and Hadlee; he was a stand-out; and he stood out in probably the hardest series of tests in cricket history (WSC).

 

[Sir Alex]

The only places Lillee "failed" he played 1 test in Sri Lanka and 3 in Pakistan - his record in the SC. Give me a break.

Lillee seam, swung, cut, had oodles of pace, got injured, then built on his accuracy and brains; did it in a strong attack, continued to do it in a weak one; routinely got the best batsmen out and was the most feared bowler in the world and was almost universally lauded as the greatest fast bowler of all time. For Richards to Sobers, to Imran and Hadlee; he was a stand-out; and he stood out in probably the hardest series of tests in cricket history (WSC).

Garner did equally good, if not better in the World Series as well.

Lol at calling them 'hardest ever'. Load of blah.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Oh so opinions are the criteria then.When Sobers says Gavaskar is the best bat of his time, it is irrelevant.When Viv says he would have Miandad over anyone to bat for his life, it his only his opinion.Now the same names are being brought up to hype Lillee.Not to say that he wasn't great but he did not prove himself in the SC(also struggled in WI) for whatever the reason.It is just logical that someone who performed everywhere be preferred over him.

 

[Ikki]

Garner did equally good, if not better in the World Series as well.

No he didn't.

          [B]Matches  Wickets    Runs    Overs   Maidens   Avg.    SR     ER    5WI[/B]
[B]Lillee[/B]      14      67        1800    522.1     106    26.87   53.35  3.295   4
[B]Garner[/B]       7      35        867     284.3      43    24.77   62.25  2.598   1

 

[Ikki]

Oh so opinions are the criteria then.When Sobers says Gavaskar is the best bat of his time, it is irrelevant.When Viv says he would have Miandad over anyone to bat for his life, it his only his opinion.Now the same names are being brought up to hype Lillee.Not to say that he wasn't great but he did not prove himself in the SC(also struggled in WI) for whatever the reason.It is just logical that someone who performed everywhere be preferred over him.

Whoosh.

No, opinions don't mean one was better than the other. It doesn't prove anything either way. I was responding to flibbertyjibber when he said Lillee wasn't, Marshall was and that was the end of it - as if it was a fact.

 

[Sir Alex]

No he didn't.

          [B]Matches  Wickets    Runs    Overs   Maidens   Avg.    SR     ER    5WI[/B]
[B]Lillee[/B]      14      67        1800    522.1     106    26.87   53.35  3.295   4
[B]Garner[/B]       7      35        867     284.3      43    24.77   62.25  2.598   1

Better average. More wickets per match, not his fault he didn't play in as many games as Lilee.

 

[Ikki]

Better average. More wickets per match, not his fault he didn't play in as many games as Lilee.

Slightly better average, much inferior SR, and much fewer large innings hauls that would actually affect the match. And Lillee did it for twice as many matches. Lillee was the bowler of the tournament and Garner not as good or better than him. Make up some other stat/fact.

 

[Matt79]

Lillee. For the reason that for a variety of factors I consider him second only to Malcolm Marshall as a quickie.