Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[vcs]

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.

I don't see how you can conclude that if you did not watch the games in question. The stats definitely don't prove any superiority either way, in my opinion.

 

[Matt79]

Btw, I'm going to have to add Keith and O'Reilly to the spelling list in my signature.

 

[Top_Cat]

Tough choice, both greats. Garner because he had a better record for South Australia.

Okay seriously, Lillee. Reckon he was a touch more likely to get something out of a dead deck.

 

[Ikki]

Lillee also played a World XI early on in his career in a 5 test series (of which he played 4) and decimated them for 8/29 in his best inning. He averaged 20 and struck at 39 for the series.

YouTube - Dennis Lillee: 8-29 against World 11

 

[Sir Alex]

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.

What is the stat I made up? I demand an explanation. You just can't go on belittling members like that.

The fact is that he averages more than 2 points than Lilee, of course he strikes at much higher rate than him. But he takes more wickets per match as well. So prima facie from those stats it is impossible to conclusively say one completely dominated the other.

I feel both were equally good. And since I give more weightage to average, I regarded Garner's to be bit more impressive.

Please don't give me 'maintained over longer period' argument. We are talking about just 7 more matches not 70. And if their longer test match figures are anything to go by, there is nothing that suggests Garner couldn't have emulated in 14 matches what he did in 7.

 

[Sir Alex]

Lillee also played a World XI early on in his career in a 5 test series (of which he played 4) and decimated them for 8/29 in his best inning. He averaged 20 and struck at 39 for the series.

YouTube - Dennis Lillee: 8-29 against World 11

Thanks for the vid. But you forget the topic specifically says 'Test matches'

 

[Ikki]

I don't see how you can conclude that if you did not watch the games in question. The stats definitely don't prove any superiority either way, in my opinion.

I meant it as a general statement not that that is exactly what happened. For example 2/46 might be better average-wise to 5/130, but it's very unlikely to actually affect the match as much.

 

[Ikki]

Thanks for the vid. But you forget the topic specifically says 'Test matches'

That was a Test match.

 

[Sir Alex]

That was a Test match.

Says who?

 

[vic_orthdox]

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

Please try and avoid aggressive generalisations such as the above in the future.

When I care what you think I'll let you know.

This is unacceptable, Ikki. You've received warnings over this type of posting before, please heed it.

 

[Ikki]

What is the stat I made up? I demand an explanation. You just can't go on belittling members like that.

The fact is that he averages more than 2 points than Lilee, of course he strikes at much higher rate than him. But he takes more wickets per match as well. So prima facie from those stats it is impossible to conclusively say one completely dominated the other.

I feel both were equally good. And since I give more weightage to average, I regarded Garner's to be bit more impressive.

Please don't give me 'maintained over longer period' argument. We are talking about just 7 more matches not 70. And if their longer test match figures are anything to go by, there is nothing that suggests Garner couldn't have emulated in 14 matches what he did in 7.

I don't know the exact # of innings they played since I can't find a full list of the matches. So 0.2 wickets per match practically nothing. Lillee played in the weakest team of the 3 so it's likely he did bowl less innings - in fact, I'd wager that he took more wickets per innings. Especially since he was the number 1 bowler in his team and also has a much superior SR to Garner; whereas Garner's SR is quite inferior and is about 3rd in his team.

And it's not just 7 more matches; as if we are comparing 100 to 107, it's 7 vs 14 - 200%/twice as many. Maybe you think Imran was the best out of all since he has the best ratios, regardless that he only played 5 matches? Knowing you, you will.

Anyway, you make up plenty of arguments out of thin air. I think we know you well enough by now.

 

[Ikki]

Please try and avoid aggressive generalisations such as the above in the future.

This is unacceptable, Ikki. You've received warnings over this type of posting before, please heed it.

Excuse me? I make a point, get his irrelevant reply and I can't say I don't care for his opinion? I don't. I didn't know not caring about people's opinions was against the forum rules.

Says who?

The format was Tests. Says who? Like an authority? They're as much tests as WSC series were.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Excuse me? I make a point, get his irrelevant reply and I can't say I don't care for his opinion? I don't. I didn't know not caring about people's opinions was against the forum rules.

You can't have not noticed the talk in recent times about trying to improve the forum atmosphere. Posts such as yours in that instance do not in any way assist that.

 

[Sir Alex]

I don't know the exact # of innings they played since I can't find a full list of the matches. So 0.2 wickets per match practically nothing. Lillee played in the weakest team of the 3 so it's likely he did bowl less in his innings. Especially since he was the number 1 bowler in his team and also has a much superior SR to Garner; whereas Garner's SR is quite inferior and is about 3rd in his team.

And it's not just 7 more matches; as if we are comparing 100 to 107, it's 7 vs 14 - 200%/twice as many. Maybe you think Imran was the best out of all since he has the best ratios, regardless than he only played 5 matches?

Anyway, you make up plenty of arguments out of thin air. I think we know you well enough by now.

I see you haven't the balls to back up your accusation that I made up stats, and instead continuing personal attacks. I also see that you've started referring to yourself in the plural.

The rest of your post consists of argument which indeed have merit, but aren't sufficiently strong enough to conclusively say Lilee was vastly superior to Garner in that series.

 

[Ikki]

You can't have not noticed the talk in recent times about trying to improve the forum atmosphere. Posts such as yours in that instance do not in any way assist that.

I'm on and off a lot so I am not sure what in particular you are talking about. I recall one thread where the talk was about post-counts and not being condescending to new members but that is about it.

However, unless I make that reply, would you have even censured him? I doubt it.

The way I see it, I made a point about the opinion of Lillee's contemporaries. The reason they're important is because they were "there" and played with/against him. Whether someone on this forum agrees or not is irrelevant to me. I am never going to say, well "X on CW doesn't agree, so I'm putting stock in that".

I apologise for my tone but there are a few members going around inciting these kinds of replies.

 

[Sir Alex]

Excuse me? I make a point, get his irrelevant reply and I can't say I don't care for his opinion? I don't. I didn't know not caring about people's opinions was against the forum rules.



The format was Tests. Says who? Like an authority? They're as much tests as WSC series were.

WSC aren't tests in the first place. Just because they were played over 5 days doesn't qualify them as such.

 

[Ikki]

I see you haven't the balls to back up your accusation that I made up stats, and instead continuing personal attacks. I also see that you've started referring to yourself in the plural.

The rest of your post consists of argument which indeed have merit, but aren't sufficiently strong enough to conclusively say Lilee was vastly superior to Garner in that series.

No one made the argument that Lillee was vastly superior - see, you just made up a fact in this very post.

He was superior however. And Garner was not his equal nor better than him.

WSC aren't tests in the first place. Just because they were played over 5 days doesn't qualify them as such.

You're talking about the fact that they are recognised or not. I am talking about the format of the match. Since we were discussing WSC, I brought those up since they are relevant in a similar way.

For me it's irrelevant that they're not recognised as Tests, because the players and cricket playing/played in that time are above the standard of many of the Tests played throughout history that have been recognised.

It shows just how good Lillee routinely was against the best batsmen of his time, not only separately in their countries but when they were bunched up in star-studded teams. These things matter much more for me, and others I'd wager, than his lack of tests in certain countries.

 

[Sir Alex]

No one made the argument that Lillee was vastly superior - see, you just made up a fact in this very post.

He was superior however. And Garner was not his equal nor better than him.



You're talking about the fact that they are recognised or not. I am talking about the format of the match. Since we were discussing WSC, I brought those up since they are relevant in a similar way.

For me it's irrelevant that they're not recognised as Tests, because the players and cricket playing/played in that time are above the standard of many of the Tests played throughout history that have been recognised.

It shows just how good Lillee routinely was against the best batsmen of his time, not only separately in their countries but when they were bunched up in star-studded teams. These things matter much more for me, and others I'd wager, than his lack of tests in certain countries.

Still nothing about backing up 'made up stats' I see.

As I said before, your arguments that Lilee was superior to Garner isn't a fact, it's only an opinion and one which I don't agree with.

I have big issues with arbitrarily selecting a few guys from different countries, giving them contracts, put them in different teams on some criteria and then make them play each other and brand those as test matches.

Sorry but for me, getting to play for your own country or AoC (in Windies case) is one of the biggest qualifiers for test cricket. Something which gets vastly diluted when you have Rest of The World XIs. Also in case of other teams, just because you had players from the same country grouped together, doesn't mean they represented that country. For me, WSC is just an intra corporate tournament, funded wholly by the company which conducts it, and with teams selected on geographical basis. Nothing more nothing less.

Sorry I didn't want this thread to digress to a discussion on WSC Which was why I didn't reply to Stephen earlier.

 

[Teja.]

IMO,

I respect the aura, attitude and commitment Lillee brought to the pitch, and also that at his best, he was very possibly the best bowler to have ever bowled.(Alongside Waqar of 1990-1995)

But Garner seems to be a league ahead of him statistically. No, I'm not discerning the entire debate to a slight difference in statistics but the statistical difference Garner has over Lillee is similar to the one Ambrose has over Walsh.

Lillee's phenomenal strike rate usually explains his slightly higher average compared to other greats, but Garner's SR is even more phenomenal. I'm of the opinion that Lillee is a legendary bowler whose faliure in 4 tests in the sub-continent don't count against him, but overall he'd just make my top 10 pacers of all-time, while Bowlers like Garner and Marshall would definitely make it to the Top 5.

Again, judging purely on bowling abilities, I hope people do not consider it disrespect if I say Lillee is not as good as bowlers like Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Garner et al.

 

[stephen]

Still nothing about backing up 'made up stats' I see.

As I said before, your arguments that Lilee was superior to Garner isn't a fact, it's only an opinion and one which I don't agree with.

I have big issues with arbitrarily selecting a few guys from different countries, giving them contracts, put them in different teams on some criteria and then make them play each other and brand those as test matches.

Sorry but for me, getting to play for your own country or AoC (in Windies case) is one of the biggest qualifiers for test cricket. Something which gets vastly diluted when you have Rest of The World XIs. Also in case of other teams, just because you had players from the same country grouped together, doesn't mean they represented that country. For me, WSC is just an intra corporate tournament, funded wholly by the company which conducts it, and with teams selected on geographical basis. Nothing more nothing less.

Sorry I didn't want this thread to digress to a discussion on WSC Which was why I didn't reply to Stephen earlier.

I was wondering why you were ignoring me.

The fact is though that in WSC the players themselves all believed that the standard of cricket was the highest that they had ever played, including all of the "legit" tests. The only reason that records were not counted from them is because of cricket board politics.

Garner and Lillee were both fabulous quick bowlers. I would parochially say that Lillee was better, but there really is not huge amounts to separate them, other than subjective opinion. We will never know what Garner was capable of if he was the leader of the attack in a weak attack, just like we will never know what Hadlee was capable of if he was in a strong attack.

Statistics are important in cricket inasmuch as they assist teams win. Ultimately the purpose of statistics is to give an indication of the quality of cricket that an individual played. Once you pass a certain point however, statistics become meaningless and subjective. I mean look at how some people hold McGrath's average of 32 in South Africa against him FFS. I mean nobody other than Don Bradman and Malcolm Marshall have perfect records in their respective crafts. Even so, the Don failed occasionally. Why? Because he was a human being, not a statistical generator.

The top tier of quick bowlers in history consists of (in my mind and in no particular order):

Lohmann
SF Barnes
Spofforth
Tyson
Larwood
Lindwall
Miller
Lillee
Roberts
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Imran
Waqar
Wasim
McGrath
Davidson
Ambrose
Walsh
Adcock
Trueman
Donald
S Pollock
Hadlee
P Pollock
Bedser
Botham
Willis
Statham
Hall
Reid
Bishop

Any of these quicks on their day could run through a top quality side. Arguing which was better is like asking which model you would like to date - everyone would give a different answer because the answer is subjective. About the best that you can do is see if they were clearly better than their contemporaries, and even that is very subjective - look at McGrath (in the 90s his contemporaries were superior - in the 00s he was far superior).