Is Steyn as deadly as Lillee?

[abmk]

The idea that Lillee would struggle against Sri Lanka is like saying Steyn would struggle against Bangladesh if he has 1 test against them at the end of his career and doesn't do well. SL were the minnows of the time; had he played them more he would have a better record. There's not much to really doubt that. Likewise many of Lillee's contemporaries didn't have problems in India either who weren't a great team either. Simply put, Pakistan was the team from those that had a very good side and had tough home conditions where the bowling averages were notoriously high (not in SL or India). But he only played there for 4 innings and IIRC there were murmurs also about the umpiring.

However, if a player from SC scored in that manner during the 90s and 00s he'd essentially have forgone batting against 3 of the best bowling attacks of his time (Aus, SA and WI). Context is important here. It's why no one from the time hesitates to call him the best ever (including his bowling rivals themselves). Those tests meant jack.

his one test in SL doesn't mean much. But his failure in Pak does. He didn't ANY wickets in 3 of the 4 innings he bowled and averaged 100+ in the series. That is shocking by any standards.

The bold part is not true. Many of them do, but not all. Many of them saying that is why I find him a tad over-rated tbh. But macko was the better bowler and had a more complete record IMO - he did well everywhere . If we're bringing the strength of their support bowlers in here,then hadlee did exceedingly well , more so than lillee, considering his support was not that good

 

[Burgey]

his one test in SL doesn't mean much. But his failure in Pak does. He didn't ANY wickets in 3 of the 4 innings he bowled and averaged 100+ in the series. That is shocking by any standards.

The bold part is not true. Many of them do, but not all. Many of them saying that is why I find him a tad over-rated tbh. But macko was the better bowler and had a more complete record IMO - he did well everywhere . If we're bringing the strength of their support bowlers in here,then hadlee did exceedingly well , more so than lillee, considering his support was not that good

Thomson aside, who were Lillee's support bowlers though?

A lot of his good performances came when Max Walker bowled at the other end. He had a young Lawson, Len Pascoe for a little while too. He stood out like dogs balls in our attack for a lot of his career.

He certainly lacked a Gillespie-like partner for a lot if his career.

 

[Teja.]

It's why no one from the time hesitates to call him the best ever (including his bowling rivals themselves). Those tests meant jack.

Slight exaggeration? Though Lillee definitely has the king's share, A lot of people consider the best bowler of that time to be Andy Roberts and Malcolm Marshall too tbh.

 

[stephen]

Slight exaggeration? Though Lillee definitely has the king's share, A lot of people consider the best bowler of that time to be Andy Roberts and Malcolm Marshall too tbh.

Marshall really thrived in a post-Lillee world and most people considered Roberts as a step below Lillee (which is not a poor reflection on Roberts).

What is clear is that Lillee took a lot of wickets per test. More than many other fast bowlers we consider all time great. The only one who really gets near him is Hadlee. I think that it's also clear that Lillee was the best bowler in the 70s by a decent margin.

Furthermore, I believe that the thing which lifted Lillee in the estimation of most people was how he dominated in the supertests.

 

[abmk]

Thomson aside, who were Lillee's support bowlers though?

A lot of his good performances came when Max Walker bowled at the other end. He had a young Lawson, Len Pascoe for a little while too. He stood out like dogs balls in our attack for a lot of his career.

He certainly lacked a Gillespie-like partner for a lot if his career.

yeah, he didn't have that great a support cast, agreed. But still better support by some distance, when compared to hadlee

 

[ankitj]

Furthermore, I believe that the thing which lifted Lillee in the estimation of most people was how he dominated in the supertests.

Though Lillee did very well in supertests, I think there were a few bowlers who finished with better average. Joel Garner was one.

For me, 4 fast bowlers are in a stratosphere - Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose and McGrath. Others like Trueman, Donald, Imran, Lillee and Pollock are in the next cluster. (This assuming Barnes is not classified as a fast bowler)

 

[JBH001]

Yeah, I'd have Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath in my top 3. Lillee slightly over-rated/hyped for mine.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, I'd have Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath in my top 3. Lillee slightly over-rated/hyped for mine.

But it still puzzles me that batsmen like Viv Richards and bowlers like Hadlee and Imran themselves rate Lillee very very highly.

People like Ian Chappell (who does have a good cricketing brain) rate him to be the best they saw. So does Richie Benaud. It is mind boggling the number of people who rate him so highly. There must be something about the man????

 

[Burgey]

Maybe because they, well, they faced him or played with him.

How anyone can say yet that Steyn, Morkel or anyone around now comes close to Lillee yet is beyond me. Anyone can suffer an injury that affects their career, or even ends it. It's nice to talk about it as a fun thing of course, but Steyn is still a work in progress.

 

[smash84]

To say that bowlers like Imran and Hadlee don't know anything about fast bowling or to say that Viv Richards didn't know the class of bowlers is a little hard to digest.

Listening to the greats of the game who played with Lillee and who have good cricketing brains as well tend to rate him very highly so maybe he is not over hyped after all.

But Steyn is gun. I will wait for the end of steyn's career to rate him in the pantheon of great fast bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah. Though I should have said he's a bloody impressive work in progress.

 

[smash84]

Yeah. Though I should have said he's a bloody impressive work in progress.

Indeed

 

[JBH001]

But it still puzzles me that batsmen like Viv Richards and bowlers like Hadlee and Imran themselves rate Lillee very very highly.

People like Ian Chappell (who does have a good cricketing brain) rate him to be the best they saw. So does Richie Benaud. It is mind boggling the number of people who rate him so highly. There must be something about the man????

Cricketers' estimation of their fellow players are not the be-all and end-all, IMO. Hadlee and Imran both looked up to Lillee as a teacher/mentor (in the same way Lillee looked up to McKenzie and Snow) and that might account for it; Richards never faced Marshall and I don't know what he thought of Hadlee (or if he was ever asked). IMO though, Marshall, Hadlee, and McGrath were superior bowlers. I don't know if I'd rank Ambrose and Imran as better though.

 

[MrIncredible]

U have to see Lillee bowl and understand how he had to completely rework his bowling action to

overcome wht for many, would have been a career ending injury. Many hear have probably heard this

line b4, but do not underestimate Lillee's Lion heart or his commitment to fast bowling excellence.

Arguably, others may have been better ( would only consider Mcgrath, Marshall, Hadlee,

Imran,Donald and maybe Steyn in Lillee's league), but from my time of watching cricket (70s til now)

Lillee remains the archetypical fast bowler, who passed many tools of the trade to those that followed.

 

[MrIncredible]

Cricketers' estimation of their fellow players are not the be-all and end-all, IMO. Hadlee and Imran both looked up to Lillee as a teacher/mentor (in the same way Lillee looked up to McKenzie and Snow) and that might account for it; Richards never faced Marshall and I don't know what he thought of Hadlee (or if he was ever asked). IMO though, Marshall, Hadlee, and McGrath were superior bowlers. I don't know if I'd rank Ambrose and Imran as better though.

If memory serves me ranks Malcolm up there with Lilllee. He was also quite fond of Dev

 

[smash84]

Cricketers' estimation of their fellow players are not the be-all and end-all, IMO. Hadlee and Imran both looked up to Lillee as a teacher/mentor (in the same way Lillee looked up to McKenzie and Snow) and that might account for it; Richards never faced Marshall and I don't know what he thought of Hadlee (or if he was ever asked). IMO though, Marshall, Hadlee, and McGrath were superior bowlers. I don't know if I'd rank Ambrose and Imran as better though.

Obviously they are not the be all and end all of judging a player but they do play an important part. All I am saying is that there are always nuances of the game that some people might understand better than others. His peers might rate him higher because Lillee might have intangibles (not saying that he necessarily had them) such as having an intimidatory presence on the field that gave his team an edge when he was around that bowlers of similar stature might lack.

 

[JBH001]

U have to see Lillee bowl and understand how he had to completely rework his bowling action to

overcome wht for many, would have been a career ending injury. Many hear have probably heard this

line b4, but do not underestimate Lillee's Lion heart or his commitment to fast bowling excellence.

Arguably, others may have been better ( would only consider Mcgrath, Marshall, Hadlee,

Imran,Donald and maybe Steyn in Lillee's league), but from my time of watching cricket (70s til now)

Lillee remains the archetypical fast bowler, who passed many tools of the trade to those that followed.

I don't dispute any of that. I also know of Lillee's troubles with injury. When I played in my school 1st XI I was a middle-lower order bat and 1st change pace bowler. A pretty crap one too, I might add. But I did have a book by Lillee on fast bowling and it was pretty extensive with regards to his injury and re-modelling of his action. I even tried to copy Lillee's action via the photos - which only made me more crap! (These days though I open the batting and bowl off-spinners - in lower league club cricket - and am, somewhat, better for it.) Bear in my mind, I am not taking anything away from Lillee. I just don't think Lillee was as good as Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath.

 

[fredfertang]

I think with judging Lillee there is an element, particularly amongst his contemporaries, that remains in awe of how he managed to do what he did despite his injury problems. Certainly I've always wondered just what he might have achieved otherwise - I'm not suggesting that he's overrated as a result but I believe his admirers subconsciously factor that in when making these sort of comparisons

 

[JBH001]

AWTA. The other aspect, at least to my mind, is that he looked so much like the archetype of the fast bowler. Big and strong and aggressive and obviously very masculine. I can imagine the awe his contemporaries felt when they saw him charge in was similar to the awe I felt (as a boy and as a young teenager) when watching Waqar steam in.

 

[Ikki]

If you figure in Lillee's WSC record it becomes clear just how good he was. To say he is not in the same league as Hadlee sounds silly to me. They have basically the same record.

For me they're all of a similar league but Lillee did things the others didn't. He was a success when Australia's attack was strong and also a success as a lone wolf. Hadlee and Marshall can only say they did one of those. He was a success as a speed demon and adapted to be the thinking man's bowler post injuries. He could bowl marathon spells and could also take huge hauls in innings (his 10fer per match record is quite ridiculous). All of that aside he was what the likes of Hadlee aspired to be. He transcended his art and he became something of a stereotype - of what a fast bowler ought to be. He was a matchwinner in similar terms as Warne was - in fact he was Warne's idol.

I remember an interview where Viv said after facing Lillee that he and his teammates gained heart. The assault both he and Thommo gave them built them for their future; where after facing them they felt everything else was surmountable. It's quite a big thing where the one batsman who bowlers feared happened to fear facing them.