Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[karan316]

If we compare purely on the basis of bowling,
Imran Khan has played most of his matches on subcontinent wickets which do not support fast bowlers that much. Indian pitches were worst for a fast bowler, Pakistan had a bit better pitches but overall it didn't assist the fast bowlers as much as it does in Australian or English wickets.

Imran Khan has bowled in 142 innings picking 362 wickets at an average of 22.81(Economy rate of 2.54 and Strike rate of 53.7),
On the other hand Dennis Lillee has bowled in 132 innings picking 352 wickets at an average of 23.92(Economy rate of of 2.57 and strike rate of 52)

Imran Khan has also played more number of ODIs,
He played 175 ODIs taking 182 wickets in 153 innings
compared to Lillee who played in 63 ODIs and picked 103 wickets in 63 innings.

Lillee has played just 4 matches on subcontinent pitches picking up 6 wickets.
He has played 44 matches in Australia and 16 in England.

I m aware of the fact that Lillee overcame serious injuries with his determination to play international cricket and managed to become a much better bowler despite of loosing the pace he had.

But what exactly makes him a better bowler than Imran who bowled in much more difficult conditions?

 

[Prince EWS]

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no reason at all. None based in the reality of the facts, anyway.

Imran's peak was better, he performed better across his career and his career was longer. Regardless of the varying degrees one might consider peak performances, long-term performances and longevity of impact when assessing a player, they all come up Imran.

 

[Furball]

If bowling in the subcontinent is so tough then why is Imran's away record worse when he was bowling in supposedly easier bowling conditions?

If you're going to give Imran bonus points for such a good record in the subcontinent, then his poorer record outside the subcontinent should be a black mark.

 

[NasserFan207]

Reckon they are about equal as bowlers myself.

 

[Xuhaib]

he might be a better bowler but that sub cont argument is lame. Sub cont fast bowlers learn their art on these tracks and most sub cont fast bowlers have better sub cont record then away records.

 

[Ikki]

Their overall stats need a closer looking, but it makes Imran look worse. Imran got to hammer SL whereas Lillee only had 1 inning. Furthermore, Lillee took part in WSC and if you include those matches it improves his SR to about 49-50 IIRC. Although I think there is very little between Imran and the likes of Hadlee, Marshall and Lillee; I think they are just that tiny bit better overall.

 

[smash84]

If bowling in the subcontinent is so tough then why is Imran's away record worse when he was bowling in supposedly easier bowling conditions?

If you're going to give Imran bonus points for such a good record in the subcontinent, then his poorer record outside the subcontinent should be a black mark.

Where is Imran's record so bad that it should be a black mark???

 

[smash84]

I m aware of the fact that Lillee overcame serious injuries with his determination to play international cricket and managed to become a much better bowler despite of loosing the pace he had.

But what exactly makes him a better bowler than Imran who bowled in much more difficult conditions?

Did you know of Imran's injury? He didn't bowl in international cricket for 2 years because of it.

 

[smash84]

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no reason at all.

Imran's peak was better, he performed better across his career and his career was longer. Regardless of the varying degrees one might consider peak performances, long-term performances and longevity of impact when assessing a player, they all come up Imran.

This

 

[smash84]

Their overall stats need a closer looking, but it makes Imran look worse. Imran got to hammer SL whereas Lillee only had 1 inning. Furthermore, Lillee took part in WSC and if you include those matches it improves his SR to about 49-50 IIRC. Although I think there is very little between Imran and the likes of Hadlee, Marshall and Lillee; I think they are just that tiny bit better overall.

Btw if you include Imran's WSC matches his SR and average go up too.

Although Imran played only 5 matches in WSC he still had a much lower average than Lillee and a significantly better SR too IIRC

 

[Ikki]

Btw if you include Imran's WSC matches his SR and average go up too.

Although Imran played only 5 matches in WSC he still had a much lower average than Lillee and a significantly better SR too IIRC

Well, that's the case with small sample sizes. Philander averages in the teens, too .

Generally though, his stats are inferior to Lillee's. Remove SL and Imran averages 24 and strikes at 56. Imran is in the top handful of players ever IMO (arguably only behind Bradman) and it is a testament to his ability considering how close he is to the pure ATG specialist bowlers. It's no insult being just a tiny bit off them.

 

[Furball]

Where is Imran's record so bad that it should be a black mark???

I'm just going by what our friend has said.

If we compare purely on the basis of bowling,
Imran Khan has played most of his matches on subcontinent wickets which do not support fast bowlers that much. Indian pitches were worst for a fast bowler, Pakistan had a bit better pitches but overall it didn't assist the fast bowlers as much as it does in Australian or English wickets.

Imran's record in Pakistan: 38 Tests, 163 wickets @ 19.20, SR 47.
Imran's record in the subcontinent: 51 Tests, 205 wickets @ 20.28, SR 48.8

Therefore, going by what karan has said, we'd expect Imran's record to be much better on the more bowler friendly tracks he'd face outside the subcontinent, wouldn't we?

Imran's record outside the subcontinent: 37 Tests, 157 wickets @ 26.11, SR 60.1

Er, hold on a second, I thought those pitches were supposed to be more bowler friendly?

Basically all I'm saying is that the "OMG, Imran had to suffer on dead subcontinental tracks therefore his record is even better than it looks" argument is pish.

 

[smash84]

I'm just going by what our friend has said.



Imran's record in Pakistan: 38 Tests, 163 wickets @ 19.20, SR 47.
Imran's record in the subcontinent: 51 Tests, 205 wickets @ 20.28, SR 48.8

Therefore, going by what karan has said, we'd expect Imran's record to be much better on the more bowler friendly tracks he'd face outside the subcontinent, wouldn't we?

Imran's record outside the subcontinent: 37 Tests, 157 wickets @ 26.11, SR 60.1

Er, hold on a second, I thought those pitches were supposed to be more bowler friendly?

Basically all I'm saying is that the "OMG, Imran had to suffer on dead subcontinental tracks therefore his record is even better than it looks" argument is pish.

It is only as much a good argument as saying that batting on fast and bouncy tracks is the real deal and batting on slow and flat tracks is not worth as many points.

 

[smash84]

Well, that's the case with small sample sizes. Philander averages in the teens, too .

Generally though, his stats are inferior to Lillee's. Remove SL and Imran averages 24 and strikes at 56. .

Which is what Lillee averages on the whole .

Also Lillee's economy rate is significantly higher too and he isn't as well rounded a bowler either

 

[Xuhaib]

SL arguably were the weakest side in the 80's however there batting was always test standard don't think wickets against them qualify as minnow bashing.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Why are we even comparing. Both are ATG bowlers and are about equal.

 

[Howe_zat]

It is only as much a good argument as saying that batting on fast and bouncy tracks is the real deal and batting on slow and flat tracks is not worth as many points.

You're missing the point - Furball is saying that it's a nonesense argument either way.

 

[smash84]

You're missing the point - Furball is saying that it's a nonesense argument either way.

I am not missing the point. I just mentioned another argument which is taken as a fact by so many posters around here.

I never said that whether or not the argument had any merit.

 

[Ikki]

Which is what Lillee averages on the whole .

Also Lillee's economy rate is significantly higher too and he isn't as well rounded a bowler either

No, Lillee's are better. Especially so in SR. Considering this is Tests and not ODIs their difference in ER is practically meaningless.

Lillee wasn't a well-rounded bowler? I hope you're kidding. Lillee was both a tearaway and a thinker's bowler. He bowled pretty much everything; did it with help and did it alone. Not sure there is a more complete fast bowler.

SL arguably were the weakest side in the 80's however there batting was always test standard don't think wickets against them qualify as minnow bashing.

No, they were comfortably the worst batting side of that era. Anyway, Imran played them many times, Lillee 1 inning. It skews their career averages in Imran's benefit.

 

[smash84]

No, Lillee's are better. Especially so in SR.
.

What? Lillee's ER is better? No. Look it up. Lillee is slightly better in SR.

Lillee wasn't a well-rounded bowler? I hope you're kidding. Lillee was both a tearaway and a thinker's bowler. He bowled pretty much everything; did it with help and did it alone. Not sure there is a more complete fast bowler.

Isn't that also the case with Imran. Plus Imran had the weapons to bowl on flat tracks.