Is Steyn as deadly as Lillee?

[ankitj]

Dileep Premachandran: Dale Steyn, the gold standard of pace | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[smash84]

A great article on Steyn @ cricinfo

Dileep Premachandran: Dale Steyn, the gold standard of pace | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Dileep Premachandran: Dale Steyn, the gold standard of pace | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

You are QUITE late pal

 

[MrIncredible]

Yes, Hadlee is in general under-rated. Rarely do 'experts' on TV/media mention him. But CW does rate him more appropriately. When I put up my chosen all time XI for Cricinfo on facebook, most my friends got back to me saying Wasim should be picked above Hadlee any day! (But then Wasim is possibly the most overrated cricketer by casual followers, at least in India. I have been pounced upon for saying Marshall was a greater bowler.)

Given how mediocre NZ in 80's was, it's a startling fact that they are the only team to win at least one series against all other teams in the decade. All those wins were achieved on back of exceptional bowling performances by Hadlee. He belongs in my top 5-6 of all time.

Sorry to nit pick, but which team in the 80s did the WI not beat??

 

[ankitj]

Sorry to nit pick, but which team in the 80s did the WI not beat??

Pakistan. One of jewels in Imran's crown is not losing a series against WI as a captain.

 

[bagapath]

Pakistan. One of jewels in Imran's crown is not losing a series against WI as a captain.

that doesnt mean west indies did not beat pakistan at all in the 80s. they beat pak 1-0 in an away series in 1980-81. so your claim that new zealand is the only team that beat everyone at least once is wrong.

Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

check out the series winning game. imran played for pakistan. javed scored a 50. it was a strong pak team. but richards' twin 50s and marshall's five wickets sealed the game for windies

 

[smash84]

that doesnt mean west indies did not beat pakistan at all in the 80s. they beat pak 1-0 in an away series in 1980-81. so your claim that new zealand is the only team that beat everyone at least once is wrong.

Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

check out the series winning game. imran played for pakistan. javed scored a 50. it was a strong pak team. but richards' twin 50s and marshall's five wickets sealed the game for windies

True. It is only after Imran became captain that WI did not beat Pakistan in a series home or away. As you say it was a jewel in Imran's crown and according to Imran himself his biggest ever regret was to be unable to win the 1988 series against the WI in WI. Arguable the finest test series of the 1980s.

Recently on the MCC spirit of cricket (video posted here on cricket on youtube) Imran talked about that series. It was an all time classic series.really.

 

[ankitj]

that doesnt mean west indies did not beat pakistan at all in the 80s. they beat pak 1-0 in an away series in 1980-81. so your claim that new zealand is the only team that beat everyone at least once is wrong.

Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

check out the series winning game. imran played for pakistan. javed scored a 50. it was a strong pak team. but richards' twin 50s and marshall's five wickets sealed the game for windies

Ah ok. So I was wrong. Dammit!

 

[Francis]

I don't know why so many people here have an aversion to Lillee. By that I mean, people here seem to think he's a great by reputation more than talent, which stands as one of the most ridiculous things I've heard here.

If you ask the cricketers who played with and against him in his day, about 90% of them will say he was the best fast bowler they ever saw - guys like Botham and Dickie Bird. Benaud thinks he's the best. Bradman said he was the best he ever saw etc in terms of fast bowling. He was Hadlee's hero. Hadlee considered him #1 too.

In fact all I remember contrary to that is Jeff Thompson saying Malcolm Marshall was the best fast bowler.

Here's a few myths about Dennis Lillee.

* He got wickets largely because of Jeff Thompson. NOT TRUE. It's like the 'Warne gets wickets because of McGrath' argument (of course nobody says McGrath gets wickets because of Warne). Jeff Thompson had a brief peak in the mid 70s before injuries ruined him. Lillee got most of his wickets without a lot of help from the other end.

* Lillee is sometimes considered greater than he was because of his macho aggression. NOT TRUE. In fact, Lillee had more of a reputation for being a complete, controlled bowled once he came back from injury. He introduced cutters, slower balls, and had a renowned control of seam and swing.

It's weird how these little myths pop up around CW about players. Thus I see players like Imran Kahn (one of the greats no doubt) being rated way higher than say Hadlee or Botham, when in their day they were considered about equal. Most say Kahn was the best of the allrounders, but certainly not by much.

Do people around here know Lillee bowled more overs per match than Richard Hadlee did? Yet Hadlee gets credited for single-handedly carrying New Zealand's bowling etc. But that's just how dependent Australia were on Lillee. Ian Chappell used to get criticized heavily for over-bowling Lillee.

And look at the stuff Lillee did on bad wickets like the MCG. He gets knocked for not performing against Pakistan or whatever, but he had a huge reputation for playing better on bad wickets than he did good.

Steyn... he's the best bowler in the world right now. But people are comparing him immediately to the man most cricket experts consider the best fast bowler ever? A bit early I think.

 

[bagapath]

great post, except the very first line. this forum, as does the rest of the world, loves dennis lillee, AFAIK

I see players like Imran Kahn (one of the greats no doubt) being rated way higher than say Hadlee or Botham, when in their day they were considered about equal. Most say Kahn was the best of the allrounders, but certainly not by much.
.

Bang on! I have always maintained this stance. look at my avatar

 

[MrIncredible]

I don't know why so many people here have an aversion to Lillee. By that I mean, people here seem to think he's a great by reputation more than talent, which stands as one of the most ridiculous things I've heard here.

If you ask the cricketers who played with and against him in his day, about 90% of them will say he was the best fast bowler they ever saw - guys like Botham and Dickie Bird. Benaud thinks he's the best. Bradman said he was the best he ever saw etc in terms of fast bowling. He was Hadlee's hero. Hadlee considered him #1 too.

In fact all I remember contrary to that is Jeff Thompson saying Malcolm Marshall was the best fast bowler.

Here's a few myths about Dennis Lillee.

* He got wickets largely because of Jeff Thompson. NOT TRUE. It's like the 'Warne gets wickets because of McGrath' argument (of course nobody says McGrath gets wickets because of Warne). Jeff Thompson had a brief peak in the mid 70s before injuries ruined him. Lillee got most of his wickets without a lot of help from the other end.

* Lillee is sometimes considered greater than he was because of his macho aggression. NOT TRUE. In fact, Lillee had more of a reputation for being a complete, controlled bowled once he came back from injury. He introduced cutters, slower balls, and had a renowned control of seam and swing.

It's weird how these little myths pop up around CW about players. Thus I see players like Imran Kahn (one of the greats no doubt) being rated way higher than say Hadlee or Botham, when in their day they were considered about equal. Most say Kahn was the best of the allrounders, but certainly not by much.

Do people around here know Lillee bowled more overs per match than Richard Hadlee did? Yet Hadlee gets credited for single-handedly carrying New Zealand's bowling etc. But that's just how dependent Australia were on Lillee. Ian Chappell used to get criticized heavily for over-bowling Lillee.

And look at the stuff Lillee did on bad wickets like the MCG. He gets knocked for not performing against Pakistan or whatever, but he had a huge reputation for playing better on bad wickets than he did good.

Steyn... he's the best bowler in the world right now. But people are comparing him immediately to the man most cricket experts consider the best fast bowler ever? A bit early I think.

Very well said. I think though, its really close between a good dozen fast bowlers. In

no particular order: Trueman, Imran, Ambrose, Lillee, Mcgrath, Marshall, Hadlee, Donald etc

Steyn may yet join the select group above, but IMO there's never been and probably never

will be a clear cut greatest fast bowler.

 

[archie mac]

I don't know why so many people here have an aversion to Lillee. By that I mean, people here seem to think he's a great by reputation more than talent, which stands as one of the most ridiculous things I've heard here.

If you ask the cricketers who played with and against him in his day, about 90% of them will say he was the best fast bowler they ever saw - guys like Botham and Dickie Bird. Benaud thinks he's the best. Bradman said he was the best he ever saw etc in terms of fast bowling. He was Hadlee's hero. Hadlee considered him #1 too.

In fact all I remember contrary to that is Jeff Thompson saying Malcolm Marshall was the best fast bowler.

Here's a few myths about Dennis Lillee.

* He got wickets largely because of Jeff Thompson. NOT TRUE. It's like the 'Warne gets wickets because of McGrath' argument (of course nobody says McGrath gets wickets because of Warne). Jeff Thompson had a brief peak in the mid 70s before injuries ruined him. Lillee got most of his wickets without a lot of help from the other end.

* Lillee is sometimes considered greater than he was because of his macho aggression. NOT TRUE. In fact, Lillee had more of a reputation for being a complete, controlled bowled once he came back from injury. He introduced cutters, slower balls, and had a renowned control of seam and swing.

It's weird how these little myths pop up around CW about players. Thus I see players like Imran Kahn (one of the greats no doubt) being rated way higher than say Hadlee or Botham, when in their day they were considered about equal. Most say Kahn was the best of the allrounders, but certainly not by much.

Do people around here know Lillee bowled more overs per match than Richard Hadlee did? Yet Hadlee gets credited for single-handedly carrying New Zealand's bowling etc. But that's just how dependent Australia were on Lillee. Ian Chappell used to get criticized heavily for over-bowling Lillee.

And look at the stuff Lillee did on bad wickets like the MCG. He gets knocked for not performing against Pakistan or whatever, but he had a huge reputation for playing better on bad wickets than he did good.

Steyn... he's the best bowler in the world right now. But people are comparing him immediately to the man most cricket experts consider the best fast bowler ever? A bit early I think.

Agree with most of your post. Except the bit about the MCG very bowler friendly during a lot of Lillee's career.

Botham is one that is rated lowly by a lot of people on here, he simply played too long. As an Aussie I always feared Both a lot more then any of the other great ARs of the 70s-80s

Also Wasim imo was a great bowler, not overated in the least, I would take him over Hadlee but only by the smallest of margins (this last para not in reply to the quoted post)

 

[Burgey]

Just read Mr Fertang's great article on the first WC and thought I'd quote this from a contemporary article written about that tournament:

They [Pakistan] were always behind the clock but any lingering hopes of victory were dashed when Dennis Lillee came back for his final spell and bowled Asif before blowing away the tail. In his 12 overs Lillee took 5-34. Former England skipper Tony Lewis wrote of him "His speed and the unerring line he maintains just on or around off stump are going to make him a terribly difficult bowler to face later in the year, and when you watch his legs carry him strongly over a fast rhythmical run-up, black mane flying, the back suddenly arched and the ball projected out of a flying pivot, you wonder just what courage it took to come back to the game having suffered three stress fractures of the spine".

Not strictly on topic but a nice description of the appreciation people had, even back then, for Lillee comin back as he did.

 

[Francis]

Agree with most of your post. Except the bit about the MCG very bowler friendly during a lot of Lillee's career.

Have you heard about the famous Centenary Test where Lillee took a tenfer off a pitch where the ball wasn't bouncing above waist height. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvRFwfatujc&feature=related

 

[The Sean]

Ha ha, I daresay Archie probably HAS heard about that match.

 

[ankitj]

@Francis - that was a great post, thoroughly enjoyable to read. However I have a problem and may be it's just with me. When it comes to assessing a player, they are just words. You could write an equally convincing story for Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee - the 3 bowlers some of us are saying were a notch above Lillee (I personally like to add Ambrose to that club).

So I can't help but looking at performance, comes down to much vilified "stats". I am willing to look beyond overall bowling average too and I am willing to overlook the performances in subcontinent given Lillee played very little there. But then if he had everything so favorable (playing most games in Aus and Eng) why should he have an average that compares unfavorably to many? Also, why should his not so great record against the mighty West Indians be ignored? All those fantastic testimonies aside, Lillee has more holes in his record than some othe great bowlers. Hence I and a few others think that Lillee is a little over-admired.

 

[Francis]

Thanks for your post.

But then if he had everything so favorable (playing most games in Aus and Eng) why should he have an average that compares unfavorably to many?

A few things...

1) Lillee has an unfavourable average compared to others? Most of the bowlers you mentioned have an average around 22, 23, while Marshall was just below 21 I think. Lillee's is around 23-24. The difference is so small that it's not worth going to stats. I remember someone saying a bowler was better than another bowler a few years ago because one bowler had a better bowling average, when their bowling averages different by less than a run!

I think this is a huge problem with cricket fans when they come to analyze cricketers they never saw during their lifetime. They'll magnify any little difference in stats and make a deal out of it.

I personally think Lillee's stats compare favourably to any bowler in cricket history. It's fans who make a deal about a one or two run difference that are the problem.

2) Take Lillee at the WACCA for example. The WACCA today is a fast pitch with a fast outfield. But back in Lillee's day it was renowned as the fast bowlers pitch in the world, even more so than now. Throughout the 90s commentators used to talk about how it doesn't have the same sting it used to. Jeff Thompson used to have a field day there. However, there's a problem with fast pitches... it's easy to go for quick runs. A bad delivery, a nick that flies over the slips. We see this stuff a lot with Shaun Tait. Lillee thus has a worse average there than he has on the MCG, when tales of how bad the MCG pitch could be for fast bowlers back then are still talked about (like the centenary Test). Lillee bowled well in Perth, but you'd never know because his average was around 28.

It happens with stats. Some grounds are 350-run grounds, others are 400-run grounds, others are 250-run grounds... it skews stats.

In an ironic way Lillee might have better stats at the MCG because despite it being a tough pitch, it's easier to score runs on a pitch that favoured him. Or maybe he just bowled well on bad pitches... who knows?

3) Lillee is the most bowled fast bowler I've ever heard of. He bowled more overs per game than Richard Hadlee did for New Zealand, and Hadlee is lauded for carrying New Zealand. Likewise Lillee should be lauded for carrying the Australian bowling attack. He didn't take 40+ wickets during Botham's Ashes by having a lot of bowling competition.

Also, why should his not so great record against the mighty West Indians be ignored?

Lillee and Thompson was imperious against the West Indies in 1975/76. Thompson was enjoying his all too brief peak! That series changed the West Indies because Australia played with a fast bowling quartet that influenced them. Yes his average for that series isn't great, as in low 20s, but he terrorized the West Indies. Viv Richards only managed one century that series. Lillee tormented him.

In 1981 Lillee won a Test for Australia at the MCG, and famously bowled Richards out on the ball of the day!

And even accepting all that, if his figures are a little worse against the West Indies, a reminder from your sponsor that many cricket fans regard that team as the best team in history.

Certainly Malcolm Marshall regarded Lillee highly and always made a point to learn off him. Hadlee too... Lillee was his hero and he tried to emulate him all the time.

All those fantastic testimonies aside, Lillee has more holes in his record than some othe great bowlers. Hence I and a few others think that Lillee is a little over-admired.

I don't really see holes in his records to be honest. He has poor stats on the sub-continent, but as you say he never really played much there. I think too much is made of the few (and I mean 'few') Tests he played there. Against the West Indies? Australia won the 75/76 series 5-1 with Greg Chappell scoring more than 700 runs, and Thompson and Lillee taking the wickets.

There's plenty of factors that can skew his stats, and in all honesty, his stats are incredible, especially given the number of overs he had to bowl each Test.

 

[smash84]

It's weird how these little myths pop up around CW about players. Thus I see players like Imran Kahn (one of the greats no doubt) being rated way higher than say Hadlee or Botham, when in their day they were considered about equal. Most say Kahn was the best of the allrounders, but certainly not by much.

It is true that Imran was just marginally better than the other ARs of the 80s. Richie Benaud himself selects imran in his XI and says "I wouldn't say that he was greatly better...... but there was just something in the way that he played the game, the flair that he had"......this was why Richie had selected him over the others.

I think the reason Imran does get a lot of extra credit is because of his captaincy. Until he retired his legacy was not clear and he retired from the game after being at the helm of Pakistan cricket team for 10 years with a fantastic record. He left many great cricketers some of whom he had handpicked and others whom he had worked upon.

FTR though, Imran himself rates Lillee as the best fast bowler he ever saw.

 

[smash84]

And even accepting all that, if his figures are a little worse against the West Indies, a reminder from your sponsor that many cricket fans regard that team as the best team in history.

.

Exactly and you might want to look up Imran's performance against the WI to gauge why he is rated very highly. He never lost a series to them (almost beating them too at their home), and as captain he played 3 or 4 against them, with a much lesser side than theirs and came up as their equal if not better. That is also one of the reasons he is rated so highly because that WI team is rated by many to be the greatest in history.

 

[vcs]

@Francis - that was a great post, thoroughly enjoyable to read. However I have a problem and may be it's just with me. When it comes to assessing a player, they are just words. You could write an equally convincing story for Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee - the 3 bowlers some of us are saying were a notch above Lillee (I personally like to add Ambrose to that club).

So I can't help but looking at performance, comes down to much vilified "stats". I am willing to look beyond overall bowling average too and I am willing to overlook the performances in subcontinent given Lillee played very little there. But then if he had everything so favorable (playing most games in Aus and Eng) why should he have an average that compares unfavorably to many? Also, why should his not so great record against the mighty West Indians be ignored? All those fantastic testimonies aside, Lillee has more holes in his record than some othe great bowlers. Hence I and a few others think that Lillee is a little over-admired.

Not sure about that, do cricketers have to be perfect to be unequivocally admired? Who gets to decide what's the correct amount of admiration someone should get?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I dare say one of the reasons (upto the individual to decide how major a reason) for many of the legendary fast bowlers rating Lillee higher than the others was that he preceded them, and was thus for chronological reasons, someone to look upto for them.