Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[Migara]

Lillee. Garner was not even the best West Indian bowler of his generation. If it was Lillee vs Marshall then ... I dont know.

For a lot of Lillee's later career he had very little in the way of bowling support.

Reading this thread I'm SHOCKED and SURPRISED how people from a certain region just love to vote against Australian players. You could have an Australian bowler with 250+ wickets up against some kid from their local under 10 team in a poll and they would still vote against the Australian.

Only flaw in that argument is Marshall was waaaayyy better than Lillee.

Lillee may mot be even in top 5 pacemen of all time. If you forget about Lohman and Barnes, Marshall, McGrath, Imran, Ambrose, Trueman, Hadlee and Holding have complete records than Lillee. May be in top 10, not in top 5

 

[Son Of Coco]

Don't trust your opinion, tbh, as one who actually saw both play live. All hail statistics.

Couldn't agree more, wish some people would stick to destroying the Warne vs Murali thread to be honest.

Some of the opinions on here re: Lillee are bewildering to say the least.

 

[Matt79]

Pretty much confined to people who didn't see him play tbh.

 

[Teja.]

The opinion that Lillee failed in the four snooker tables he bowled in in the subcontinent and for that reason he is a 'green-top bully' or an 'incomplete' bowler is ridiculous.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Pretty much confined to people who didn't see him play tbh.

Yeah, that's fairly obvious.

Think both were great bowlers, but went for Lillee as he was the ultimate fast bowler back in his day. Garner had towering height, which made him awkward to play, and was very good too. Would have happily voted for either really.

 

[JBH001]

The opinion that Lillee failed in the four snooker tables he bowled in in the subcontinent and for that reason he is a 'green-top bully' or an 'incomplete' bowler is ridiculous.

Absolutely. 4 tests in the SC, 3 of them IIRC on dead wickets, should not count for much in assessing his career.

 

[Matt79]

in more general terms, I tend to think we at times place too much emphasis on a two or three run difference in bowling averages. Once we've established players are within a ballpark (say 20-24, 22-27, or whatever) the bowling average becomes pretty meaningless. Strike rate and wickets per match become more useful measurements.

The different measurements aren't unrelated obv. but the average adds in the cost per wicket element. Once we've established that they take their wickets at a similarly cheap rate, then it's the number of wickets that matter more. Eg, two bowlers who average 4 wickets a match, one averages 20.5, the other averages 23. That means that bowler A's "average" match figures was 4/82, while bowler B's was 4/92 - not quite the yawning chasm that is sometimes presented in terms of a bowlers quality.

Generally it won't change anything much - a bowler who averages 3 runs better than another will probably have a superior wickets per match and strike rate figure anyway, but I think it's a more
meaningful way of looking at things.

 

[Top_Cat]

Plus, as Goughy pointed out, Lillee's wicket-taking ability is phenomenal, significantly in excess of all other quicks. He went for a few more runs than others (hence the higher average than Garner, McG, etc.) but only Hadlee has come close to how many wickets he took per match. It's just one but it's a massive plus in his favour in my view.

About all Lillee could have done to improve his record was to bowl a bit more conservatively. But then his strikerate would have suffered and, tbh, from what I've read, Lillee always needed to be the guy who could do it all; bowl quick and aggressively with the new nurry then throttle back if the blokes at the other end went for too many which, if you're in a team with Thommo, was more likely than not!

 

[Teja.]

Plus, as Goughy pointed out, Lillee's wicket-taking ability is phenomenal, significantly in excess of all other quicks. He went for a few more runs than others (hence the higher average than Garner, McG, etc.) but only Hadlee has come close to how many wickets he took per match. It's just one but it's a massive plus in his favour in my view.

About all Lillee could have done to improve his record was to bowl a bit more conservatively. But then his strikerate would have suffered and, tbh, from what I've read, Lillee always needed to be the guy who could do it all; bowl quick and aggressively with the new nurry then throttle back if the blokes at the other end went for too many which, if you're in a team with Thommo, was more likely than not!

Lillee's wpm rate is indeed phenomenal and is definitely a massive plus in the assessment of him as a bowler

Tbf though, bowlers like Marshall, Garner, Holding et al. due to immense competition had to stay at around 4.5 wpm.

Imran was a serious bowler only till his 73rd test or so which was in the end of 1988. After that he was just a batsman who sometimes had a run with the ball. If Imran's first 73 tests alone are considered, he took 334 wickets at 21.9 and a SR of 51. Though the wicket-taking rate isn't Lillee-esque it is still pretty awesome at 4.6 wpm.

 

[Top_Cat]

Tbf though, bowlers like Marshall, Garner, Holding et al. due to immense competition had to stay at around 4.5 wpm.

Yeah, that's a good point actually.

Imran was a serious bowler only till his 73rd test or so which was in the end of 1988. After that he was just a batsman who sometimes had a run with the ball. If Imran's first 73 tests alone are considered, he took 334 wickets at 21.9 and a SR of 51. Though the wicket-taking rate isn't Lillee-esque it is still pretty awesome at 4.6 wpm.

Absolutely and he was and is rated one of the best quicks to play the Test game. Gets a mention in just about every book written by a player at the time.

 

[vcs]

Imran's record is also very "balanced", both with bat and ball, though his batting average is boosted by a high number of not outs.

 

[Jono]

haha, nice work. Saved by yt!

Haha

 

[Teja.]

Imran's record is also very "balanced", both with bat and ball, though his batting average is boosted by a high number of not outs.

True, for a period of ten years, he averaged over fifty with the bat and 19 with the ball, and those were the days when only the Gavaskars, Richards' and the Borders averaged over fifty.

 

[Slifer]

FWIW Marshall averaged around 5 wpm for most of his career (up til about test 70) and fell off after that. But even taking that into consideration he did take his 376 wkts in fewer balls/overs than Lillee.

IMO: Marshall>Mcgrath>Ambrose=Lillee>Holding=Garner>Lindwall

 

[Matt79]

The "they had to share their wickets" argument goes both ways however. Yes, Garner was unlikely to take a 10-fer because of the other three gun quicks he was bowling with. He was also unlikely to be asked to bowl to a set batsman who had his eye in and was treating the rest of the bowling attack with disdain, and knew that he just had to see Joel off, in the manner that a Hadlee or Murali (to move slightly away from the quick bowling discussion) had to. Hypothetically (because I can't be assed looking it up) Garner's average was probably sometimes saved somewhat because on days when he was bowling badly, one of the others would reliably get the wickets and Lloyd or Richards could hide him a bit. (not a knock on Garner btw, just saying pointing out that if I wanted to be a 'successful' bowler with a cracking record, I'd rather do so in a team with three other very good bowlers, than as a lone very good bowler in the side. Lillee had both - Thomson was lethal before his shoulder injury, and otherwise he had some decent, but not stellar support.

 

[Matt79]

FWIW Marshall averaged around 5 wpm for most of his career (up til about test 70) and fell off after that. But even taking that into consideration he did take his 376 wkts in fewer balls/overs than Lillee.

IMO: Marshall>Mcgrath>Ambrose=Lillee>Holding=Garner>Lindwall

As I said, often the different analysis will simply show that the commonly perceived better bowler is indeed the better bowler. Sometimes however it will give some context that a simple bowling average misses out. FWIW, I have Marshall a clear #1, Lillee at 2, then probably Ambrose, then it all gets very hard.

 

[Jono]

Why is Lillee better than McGrath in your view? I'm not saying he wasn't, but since I never saw Lillee live I'm genuinely curious. I know he was such a complete bowler, but McGrath didn't need to be complete to be absolutely brilliant.

 

[vcs]

I absolutely loved Ambrose but I reckon Marshall and McGrath are definitely better than him, Akram has a good case as well BTW. I'm reluctant to venture an opinion on Lillee not having watched him, but judging by how highly he is rated, I'd think he was better as well.

 

[Sir Alex]

The opinion that Lillee failed in the four snooker tables he bowled in in the subcontinent and for that reason he is a 'green-top bully' or an 'incomplete' bowler is ridiculous.

Yeah, would love to know the definition of 'complete' here.

 

[Jono]

I absolutely loved Ambrose but I reckon Marshall and McGrath are definitely better than him, Akram has a good case as well BTW. I'm reluctant to venture an opinion on Lillee not having watched him, but judging by how highly he is rated, I'd think he was better as well.

I don't think there is any argument that Wasim was better than Ambrose personally, unless you're saying who you preferred to watch.

What would you argue in favour of Wasim that made him better?