Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Ikki]

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

Sorry, I edited my post a few times.

Lillee's average is better - just - and his SR is several points superior. Basically, Lillee's figures are even better than Hadlee's when you account for the same things - SL and WSC. Lillee also had World XI series which would improve his figures even more - IIRC avg of 23 and 48-49 SR. If you think Imran is as good as/better than Lillee then basically you think the same re Hadlee too.

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

I didn't make the claim that Imran was a one-trick pony or anything did I? Although I'd say that Imran, unlike Lillee, didn't have to adjust his bowling completely because of injuries - and didn't have success in the earlier part of his career when he was bowling differently - and he probably never really had much of a support crew until the end of his career where he was bowling less. They're different. Imran had many tools, not sure I'd say he was well-rounded in the same way Lillee was though.

 

[smash84]

Sorry, I edited my post a few times.

Lillee's average is better - just - and his SR is several points superior. Basically, Lillee's figures are even better than Hadlee's when you account for the same things - SL and WSC. Lillee also had World XI series which would improve his figures even more - IIRC avg of 23 and 48-49 SR. If you think Imran is as good as/better than Lillee then basically you think the same re Hadlee too.

Yes I do.

I didn't make the claim that Imran was a one-trick pony or anything did I? Although I'd say that Imran, unlike Lillee, didn't have to adjust his bowling completely because of injuries - and didn't have success in the earlier part of his career when he was bowling differently - and he probably never really had much of a support crew until the end of his career where he was bowling less. They're different. Imran had many tools, not sure I'd say he was well-rounded in the same way Lillee was though.

What are you trying to say here?

 

[Prince EWS]

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.



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.

Excluding performances against an entire side that was a regular part of the Test calender in a serious analysis is outright lazy if not intellectually dishonest. Sri Lanka did have a weaker batting side than most - between '71 and '92 they averaged 27.50 rpw with the bat compared to the global batting average at the time of 32.67 - but they weren't an irrelevance. While performances against them must be taken into context (like performances against any side) flatly excluding them is entirely unfair. They were, statistically, a 16% worse batting side than average during Imran's career but Imran's average against them is 36% better than his career average (and more than 50% better than the global average against them), meaning his performances against them were still absolutely exceptional even accounting for the quality of the side. He deserves credit for these performances.

New Zealand were only fractionally better with the bat during Lillee's career (27.95) than Sri Lanka were during Imran's (27.50) so should we exclude them as well? Or is Lillee's less impressive version of Imran's minnow bashing somehow admissible for other reasons (being Australian etc etc)?

 

[Furball]

You've answered your own question.

 

[ankitj]

So I gather that if you do about 8 to 10 things with respect to stat picking, Lillee's average becomes better than Imran, Hadlee and Marshall.

 

[Howe_zat]

So I gather that if you do about 8 to 10 things with respect to stat picking, Lillee's average becomes better than Imran, Hadlee and Marshall.

The important thing to remember is that these things are crucial when it comes to Ikki's favourite players.

--

Ikki, if you want to say Lillee was better, and the statistics are entirely besides the point, go nuts, there's nothing wrong with that. When you decide that a certain statistical process is absolutely necessary, but only when it benefits someone you like, that's when you look silly.

 

[smash84]

Excluding performances against an entire side that was a regular part of the Test calender in a serious analysis is outright lazy if not intellectually dishonest. Sri Lanka did have a weaker batting side than most - between '71 and '92 they averaged 27.50 rpw with the bat compared to the global batting average at the time of 32.67 - but they weren't an irrelevance. While performances against them must be taken into context (like performances against any side) flatly excluding them is entirely unfair. They were, statistically, a 16% worse batting side than average during Imran's career but Imran's average against them is 36% better than his career average (and more than 50% better than the global average against them), meaning his performances against them were still absolutely exceptional even accounting for the quality of the side. He deserves credit for these performances.

New Zealand were only fractionally better with the bat during Lillee's career (27.95) than Sri Lanka were during Imran's (27.50) so should we exclude them as well? Or is Lillee's less impressive version of Imran's minnow bashing somehow admissible for other reasons (being Australian etc etc)?

So I gather that if you do about 8 to 10 things with respect to stat picking, Lillee's average becomes better than Imran, Hadlee and Marshall.

The important thing to remember is that these things are crucial when it comes to Ikki's favourite players.

--

Ikki, if you want to say Lillee was better, and the statistics are entirely besides the point, go nuts, there's nothing wrong with that. When you decide that a certain statistical process is absolutely necessary, but only when it benefits someone you like, that's when you look silly.

Scathing

 

[karan316]

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.

Subcontinent tracks are mostly spin friendly and doesn't offer much to the faster bowlers, I was raising this point because there would have been a huge difference in Lillee's overall record had he played more cricket on subcontinent pitches,

Imran has performed well in matches played in the subcontinent and outside the subcontinent,
whereas Lillee has played mostly in Australia and England,
60 out of his 70 matches are in Australia and England.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The important thing to remember is that these things are crucial when it comes to Ikki's favourite players.

What things? I thought they just had to be Australian.

 

[Howe_zat]

Subcontinent tracks are mostly spin friendly and doesn't offer much to the faster bowlers, I was raising this point because there would have been a huge difference in Lillee's overall record had he played more cricket on subcontinent pitches,

Imran has performed well in matches played in the subcontinent and outside the subcontinent,
whereas Lillee has played mostly in Australia and England,
60 out of his 70 matches are in Australia and England.

1. Saying subcontinental tracks are harder to bowl on for fast bowlers is a massive, mostly incorrect generalisation, and when it comes to Imran, an evidently untrue one. For various reasons, Imran had a better time of it in Asia.

2. You can't just have "doing well" as the same thing, wherever. Lillee's record is better than Imran's outside of Asia by a notable margin.

3. Where someone performs is entirely relative to how important it was for them to play there - i.e. how many Tests they had to play. Lillee has to be taken mostly on performances outside Asia because that's where he happened to play the vast majority of his matches - you can't judge him by not doing something he was never expected to do. For Imran, obviously, bowling in Asia is vastly more important. You've made it sound as though the subcontinent was half the world when it blatantly isn't - For Lillee it was much less and for Imran it was a lot more.

4. If we can take anything from your point, it's that Lillee's record in Asia has sample size problems. It's not really much proof of anything.

 

[Furball]

Subcontinent tracks are mostly spin friendly and doesn't offer much to the faster bowlers, I was raising this point because there would have been a huge difference in Lillee's overall record had he played more cricket on subcontinent pitches,

Imran has performed well in matches played in the subcontinent and outside the subcontinent,
whereas Lillee has played mostly in Australia and England,
60 out of his 70 matches are in Australia and England.

Evidently you either can't read properly or haven't bothered reading my post because what you've said is a pile of rubbish.

 

[Fusion]

Subcontinent tracks are mostly spin friendly and doesn't offer much to the faster bowlers, I was raising this point because there would have been a huge difference in Lillee's overall record had he played more cricket on subcontinent pitches,

Imran has performed well in matches played in the subcontinent and outside the subcontinent,
whereas Lillee has played mostly in Australia and England,
60 out of his 70 matches are in Australia and England.

The point is that Lillee excelled in conditions that he had to face, just like Imran excelled in conditions that he had to face. I have no doubt that if the conditions were reversed, each man would’ve adapted and still had similar stats.

To answer the OP’s question, I don’t know why Lille is ranked clearly ahead of Imran – but there’s no doubt that he is by both fans and professionals. I can understand that. People form their own judgments after viewing players and if they think Lillee is superior, there’s nothing too shock worthy in that assessment, even though I disagree. What does perplex me is that often people don’t even rate Imran in the top echelons of ATG bowlers. You don’t often see Imran mentioned in a top 5 or top 10 greatest bowlers list, even though Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee are almost always included. I think Imran’s outstanding reputation as a great all-rounder works to his disadvantage in this regard. Many people only see him as a great all-rounder, and not a player who in his prime was arguably the best fast bowler in the world. I would pick Imran in my all-time XI purely as a bowler, his batting only adds to his value.

 

[Furball]

To answer the OP’s question, I don’t know why Lille is ranked clearly ahead of Imran – but there’s no doubt that he is by both fans and professionals. I can understand that. People form their own judgments after viewing players and if they think Lillee is superior, there’s nothing too shock worthy in that assessment, even though I disagree. What does perplex me is that often people don’t even rate Imran in the top echelons of ATG bowlers. You don’t often see Imran mentioned in a top 5 or top 10 greatest bowlers list, even though Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee are almost always included. I think Imran’s outstanding reputation as a great all-rounder works to his disadvantage in this regard. Many people only see him as a great all-rounder, and not a player who in his prime was arguably the best fast bowler in the world. I would pick Imran in my all-time XI purely as a bowler, his batting only adds to his value.

I think a lot of that has to do with how his contemporaries viewed him, particularly in the media, and it reflects where the centre of the cricketing universe would have been at the time of Imran's career. I doubt that there were many writers in England and Australia who would have watched Imran's home exploits or cared a great deal about them because even as recently as the 1980s events in the subcontinent wouldn't have carried great significance. The cricketing media would largely have been centred around England and Australia; from a cursory glance at his statistics Imran performed well but not superlatively when Pakistan visited either country, which doesn't help his legacy when you look at Lillee's Ashes exploits (which are always going to play a huge role in a player's legacy, for another example see Warne vs Muralitharan), Hadlee's success in both countries, and the superstar status of the West Indian team.

Imran's exploits mostly came at home, and unfortunately that earns him a lot less credit in terms of his legacy than his contemporaries who performed better than Imran where they'd be noticed most.

edit: we're seeing a reversal of this now as the centre of the cricketing universe, in terms of fanbase, money and the media is moving towards the subcontinent and in particular India, which is why you get people on here knocking a player's record because "they've not done it in the subcontinent." Because to them, the subcontinent is the centre of their cricketing universe, in the same way that for most of history England and Australia have tended to be the centre of the cricketing universe, which is reflected subconsciously in the legacy certain past players have in relation to their contemporaries. I think Gavaskar suffers from the same unintentional bias that Imran suffered from, although to a lesser degree because Gavaskar does have more noteworthy performances.

 

[Fusion]

That's as good an explanation as any GF. Though one would've thought Imran's exploits against the best team of his era, the Windies, would've garnered more respect for him from the fans and media in general.

 

[Lostman]

Nice post GF

 

[dhillon28]

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.

yes very good point, and that is why i feel the same leniency should be afforded to the likes of Sehwag, Laxman who pile on a truck load of runs in India whilst great players like Ponting, Gilchrist, struggle on these supposedly easier batting tracks.

 

[Furball]

Although having posted all of that, he did play County Cricket for 17 years and took over 500 FC wickets and scored nearly 9,000 FC runs. So it's not like he wouldn't have been a household name for English cricketing journalists - although again, his exploits in England weren't as impressive as Hadlee or Marshall.

 

[ankitj]

edit: we're seeing a reversal of this now as the centre of the cricketing universe, in terms of fanbase, money and the media is moving towards the subcontinent and in particular India, which is why you get people on here knocking a player's record because "they've not done it in the subcontinent." Because to them, the subcontinent is the centre of their cricketing universe, in the same way that for most of history England and Australia have tended to be the centre of the cricketing universe, which is reflected subconsciously in the legacy certain past players have in relation to their contemporaries. I think Gavaskar suffers from the same unintentional bias that Imran suffered from, although to a lesser degree because Gavaskar does have more noteworthy performances.

I disagree with quite a bit and hear me out here. I might know a thing or two about sub-continent fans (or more specifically Indian fans) And I intend to talk about the common fan and not the minority that has access to internet and statguru.

While the money and power might have shifted to India, the Indian fans still feel a complex wrt other cricketing nations, particularly Aus and SA currently and WI earlier (England don't yet get the respect they deserve because of the absence of stars). And this whole thing of living in a complex has its roots in the colonial rule IMO. So what the Indian public seeks is instant gratification from any sporting achievements. Winning the world cup, Tendulkar being hailed the greatest batsman, Dhoni being called the best leader etc are all gratifying things from a patriotic pride POV. And this extends to other fields too - Amartya Sen winning Nobel, Kalpana Chawla becoming first woman in space, Vickram Pandit becoming CEO of world's largest global bank etc are reassurances that Indians can achieve anything.

But does that extend to performances in India being rated more? No. There is a strong sense of complex about not being good enough abroad. No one remembers Ambrose's poor record in or against India, Warne's poor record against India doesn't come in way of them rating him at par or above Murali. On the other hand, half of them don't rate Sehwag because he has failed in seaming conditions and absolutely no one thinks Kumble is even a comparison with other great bowlers because he sucked outside sub-continent despite having a stellar record in India.

And also the OP doesn't typify an Indian fan. For a typical Indian fan in any Pakistani vs non-Pakistani, latter is the winner because Pakistanis are over-rated and cheaters (Wasim Akram is an exception, he receives unconditional reverence).

 

[keeper]

What a fascinating post.

Does the need for instant gratification only extend to Indian successes or does it also explain the strong passion for sports that they don't participate in or have a cultural link to - European football, F1 etc?

 

[ankitj]

What a fascinating post.

Hope it's not sarcastic. I had half a mind to delete all that without posting.

Does the need for instant gratification only extend to Indian successes or does it also explain the strong passion for sports that they don't participate in or have a cultural link to - European football, F1 etc?

There's zilch passion among the masses. There might be a very small minority in metros that has been exposed to these sports that might take some interest.