Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[Migara]

How do you know that mate? You look at stats and sure Marshall was better, I'd argue he's top two or three all-time. But to say he was waaay better than Lillee is pap, sorry.

FMD you can't be universally rated as highly as Lillee is by those who played with and against him, yet have people who weren't a twinkle in their father's eyes say he was **** because they've looked something up on stats guru. That's ****ing dire. Ask any one who played against him - if they took liberties against him, didn't think he was capable of the sublime as much as anyone who's bowled quick over the years, or if they rated anyone else waaaay better than him. None of them will.

I can't believe a ****ing decimal point or whatever means so much to some people here (when it suits them of course) that they discount the views of those who saw and/ or played with and against these blokes to a ridiculouos extent.

They were both great bowlers, as is Garner. I'd argue each of Lillee and Marshall were more complete than Garner, in that they had a wider array of skills in terms of swing, seam etc. But Garner brought other things to the table as well.

I'm biased, but I'd take Lillee over Garner in tests (not ODIs though). Bloke was amazing. Of course though, he failed in 3 tests in Pakistan and one in SL, which makes Mohd Sami and Lasith Malinga better than him, or something like that.

I dunno, I give up. The **** could bowl. End of.

This is nothing more than an ugly rant. So I am not responding to any of this. Just enjoy being in my ignore list.

 

[zaremba]

Interesting, having seen them both bowl (though I was young admittedly) I don't recall Garner moving the ball around much. I remember him yorking a zillion blokes, and of course he moved it as alarmingly as anyone ever has vertically. Also had immaculate control. Great bowler.

Spot on, every word.

Despite the odd allegation of bias and deployment of an ignore list, this thread is going surprisingly well. Have loved the contributions of Matt79, Teja and Burgey among others.

 

[Burgey]

This is nothing more than an ugly rant. So I am not responding to any of this. Just enjoy being in my ignore list.

Haha. Love it. I posted today in OT about being reminded not to take on another psych case.. took three ****ing hours, and here it is!

Have to neck myself now. If I knew I was going on your ignore list I'd have said what I really thought of you and personally abused you.

But since I didn't, I won't.

Keep them stats coming brother. One day we won't need to watch cricket, just read pie charts.

WAC.

 

[Ikki]

How do you know that mate? You look at stats and sure Marshall was better, I'd argue he's top two or three all-time. But to say he was waaay better than Lillee is pap, sorry.

FMD you can't be universally rated as highly as Lillee is by those who played with and against him, yet have people who weren't a twinkle in their father's eyes say he was **** because they've looked something up on stats guru. That's ****ing dire. Ask any one who played against him - if they took liberties against him, didn't think he was capable of the sublime as much as anyone who's bowled quick over the years, or if they rated anyone else waaaay better than him. None of them will.

I can't believe a ****ing decimal point or whatever means so much to some people here (when it suits them of course) that they discount the views of those who saw and/ or played with and against these blokes to a ridiculouos extent.

They were both great bowlers, as is Garner. I'd argue each of Lillee and Marshall were more complete than Garner, in that they had a wider array of skills in terms of swing, seam etc. But Garner brought other things to the table as well.

I'm biased, but I'd take Lillee over Garner in tests (not ODIs though). Bloke was amazing. Of course though, he failed in 3 tests in Pakistan and one in SL, which makes Mohd Sami and Lasith Malinga better than him, or something like that.

I dunno, I give up. The **** could bowl. End of.

Haha, quality rant.

This is nothing more than an ugly rant. So I am not responding to any of this. Just enjoy being in my ignore list.

Can you add me too?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Can you add me too?

 

[Migara]

Can you add me too?

Do you deserve even that?

 

[Furball]

Both of you, cut out the personal stuff.

 

[zaremba]

Both of you, cut out the personal stuff.

Horse x bolted = stable door flapping uselessly

Edit: well done GF on putting a stop to that bloody GSC thread - door shut, horse safely still inside

 

[Burgey]

Both of you, cut out the personal stuff.

Yeah you two. Come on.

 

[Debris]

As mentioned above, I voted Lillee based on the opinion of his peers. So many of them rate him as the greatest bowler they faced or have seen. Couldn't split them otherwise.

 

[archie mac]

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

I just wonder if you ever watched them both? In fact I don't need to ask, only someone who never watched them both would make such a silly statement

I watched them both and a lot of them both live at the ground, I thought Lillee the better but can understand others saying MM, but not the crap that you spout

 

[Migara]

Only flaw in your argument is you are biased. Lillee is not even considered as the 2nd best bowler of last 50 years, where as MM is regarded as the best fast bowler ever in cricketing history. To get that distinction, there should be some gulf between them, at least in their record.

 

[Cevno]

To be fair Lillee played 90 % of his test career in Australia and England and thejn except newzealand where he played 5 tests ,he did not play pretty much else where. Not ecen in the west indies or in India.

To be classified as the most complete bowler ever ,i would have thought he would have done well everywhere ,a bit like Mcgrath or Akram and adapted everywhere. But since he did not play much anywhere else ,it leaves a lot to the realms of speculation.Though no fault of his ,i do not know how he can be more complete a bowler than Mcgrath,Akram or Ambrose.

And btw,reading this thread and the others about bowlers am i the only one here that rates Akram in the same bracket as your , Lillee's,garner,Holding,Ambrose,Marshall etc....?

 

[GotSpin]

To be fair Lillee played 90 % of his test career in Australia and England and thejn except newzealand where he played 5 tests ,he did not play pretty much else where. Not ecen in the west indies or in India.

To be classified as the most complete bowler ever ,i would have thought he would have done well everywhere ,a bit like Mcgrath or Akram and adapted everywhere. But since he did not play much anywhere else ,it leaves a lot to the realms of speculation.Though no fault of his ,i do not know how he can be more complete a bowler than Mcgrath,Akram or Ambrose.

And btw,reading this thread and the others about bowlers am i the only one here that rates Akram in the same bracket as your , Lillee's,garner,Holding,Ambrose,Marshall etc....?

Feel its always harsh to judge a bowler on something he could not achieve but not from a fault of his own

 

[Cevno]

Feel its always harsh to judge a bowler on something he could not achieve but not from a fault of his own

Certainly.

But then if u do not consider that being a neccessity for being the most complete bowler ,then it would be unfair on those who have achieved it like Mcgrath,Akram and Ambrose etc...

 

[archie mac]

Only flaw in your argument is you are biased. Lillee is not even considered as the 2nd best bowler of last 50 years, where as MM is regarded as the best fast bowler ever in cricketing history. To get that distinction, there should be some gulf between them, at least in their record.

MM is rated very highly on this site and I fully agree, but I would imagine he is ranked below DKL in many lists, by well known experts. Bradman and Benaud and Hadlee for three

Can you produce me these lists that have Marshall as the best fast bowler of all time?

Why am I bias??????

 

[GotSpin]

Certainly.

But then if u do not consider that being a neccessity for being the most complete bowler ,then it would be unfair on those who have achieved it like Mcgrath,Akram and Ambrose etc...

He was a complete bowler in terms of what he achieved though

 

[Cevno]

As for the Garner Vs Lillee debate ,it is very tough,a bit like the Ambrose vs MCgrath one.

And picking one over the other is equally as tough.
I voted for Garner weeks back ,but by the very very slightest of margins.

Garner was the more miserly of the two ,extremely accurate and used his height to his advantage getting bounce and being fearsome in that respect.His go to ball was the yorker ,and he got not only tailenders but established Batsmen like Botham ,wessells ,and Kim Hughes in lot of trouble with his bouncer yorker combinations many a time.Contrary to popular notion he also got some movement of the wicket ,specially when the wicket was green ,like in newzealand according to the reports of his exploits. He was also despite being a extremely scary bowler a gentle human being with a smile always on his face.

Lillee on the other hand was more aggressive ,the quicker of the two by a slight margin but less accurate.His USP was swing in the air ,Which combined with pace was lethal.His action was more refined than the rawness of Garner ,so was his is run up. What also shows the contrast in the two bowlers style is that Garner got a lot more batsmen in terms of ratio bowled or LBW,while Lillee got a more in terms of ratio caught and caught by the wicketkeeper usually rod marsh.
Lillee also like a stereotype fast bowler was more of a showman and more controversial .Though at the same time he was a extreme hard worker who bounced back from a very serious career threatening injury eraly in his career.

Both were greats ,so it extremely hard to split with decisiveness like the Mcgrath-Ambrose one .But one thing i would say that in all time stakes i would have Mcgrath and Ambrose ahead of the two in this thread by a narrrow margin.

 

[archie mac]

Just on Akram, I think him the best left arm fast bowler of all time, and certainly earns the title great bowler

 

[Teja.]

MM is rated very highly on this site and I fully agree, but I would imagine he is ranked below DKL in many lists, by well known experts. Bradman and Benaud and Hadlee for three

Can you produce me these lists that have Marshall as the best fast bowler of all time?

IMO. Lillee and Marshall are both as eligible to claim the 'best after Barnes' title as any bowler can be. DKL is rated as better than Marshall in many lists, but It would be a fallacy to claim Marshall isn't as highly rated by other experts.

What is most unique about Lillee to me is his destructive streak, seven 10W Halls in 71 games is prodigious bordering on freakish. Garner is the more consistent bowler with the better Yorker and use of Bounce though Lillee had better diversity in his weaponry. I'd back Lillee over any other fast bowler to run through an opposition order on a flat pitch.(With the exception of a young Waqar Younis of course)

Jeff Thomson for one rates Marshall above Lillee.

P.S.:-People should listen more to what those three experts you mentioned have to say about the second greatest batsman ever too.