Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[smash84]

the fact that lillee happens to be one of the handful of modern bowlers with a match average of 5 wickets or more must be working in his favor somewhere. also, matches in england and australia would get better coverage in his playing days. better writers on cricket hailed from those countries too. both these factors combing with the genuine awesomeness of lillee created the aura around him in the cricketing world during his playing career.

as i had said before the critics look more favorably at performances in eng, aus and west indies than in pak, sl or nz. so lillee did well in england and australia. the matches were widely covered. fantastic articles were written on him. critics called him the best ever. rest of the pacers, like hadlee and imran and marshall, took inspiration from him. he became a legend.

but, later, when that same trio got bucket loads of wickets in nz, pak and india on leading their teams to famous wins. not everyone paid them the same kind of attention. in fact, they went beyond lillee in achieving more allround success in all sorts of conditions. even after that, in my books, all four are just about the same. to answer the question, lillee is rated above imran because he played in an era when performances in england and australia got more attention. it is a bit like haq playing in this tendulkar era when india is hogging the limelight and hence sachin is called god and inzy remains a good man at best. future generations might wonder why this happened so just like we are asking why lillee was bigger than imran.

Yep. Something along the lines of what GF and Cevno posted earlier. Good analysis

 

[weldone]

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.

awta

 

[bagapath]

Yep. Something along the lines of what GF and Cevno posted earlier. Good analysis

wish i had read GF's post before writing my opinion. he has made the same point, but obviously, in better language than mine.

 

[weldone]

the fact that lillee happens to be one of the handful of modern bowlers with a match average of 5 wickets or more must be working in his favor somewhere. also, matches in england and australia would get better coverage in his playing days. better writers on cricket hailed from those countries too. both these factors combing with the genuine awesomeness of lillee created the aura around him in the cricketing world during his playing career.

as i had said before the critics look more favorably at performances in eng, aus and west indies than in pak, sl or nz. so lillee did well in england and australia. the matches were widely covered. fantastic articles were written on him. critics called him the best ever. rest of the pacers, like hadlee and imran and marshall, took inspiration from him. he became a legend.

but, later, when that same trio got bucket loads of wickets in nz, pak and india and led their teams to famous wins. not everyone paid them the same kind of attention. in fact, they went beyond lillee in achieving more allround success in all sorts of conditions. but lillee remained the epitome of fast bowling for many years even after he retired. so to answer the question, lillee is rated above imran because he played in an era when performances in england and australia got more attention. it is a bit like haq playing in this tendulkar era when india is hogging the limelight and hence sachin is called god and inzy remains a good man at best. future generations might wonder why this happened so just like we are asking why lillee was bigger than imran.

I agree with the pint you are making, but Inzy-Tendulkar is not the right comparison in this case (Pakistan was more of a cricketing super-power than India when they started playing, etc). It's more like Ricky Ponting-Jacques Kallis in my book.

 

[karan316]

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.

For your 1st point, I think its obvious that if a pitch doesn't have much pace or bounce or seam movement than it is not that good for fast bowling, and this is the case with most of the subcontinent wickets which favour only spin bowlers.

for your rest of the 3 points,
I think Lillee did well in the conditions he played in but Imran has a more complete record, he has played in all kinds of conditions unlike Lillee.
Imran deserves to be rated well ahead of Lillee whos record is limited to mostly Australia and England.

 

[Flametree]

For your 1st point, I think its obvious that if a pitch doesn't have much pace or bounce or seam movement than it is not that good for fast bowling, and this is the case with most of the subcontinent wickets which favour only spin bowlers.

But these pitches do help bowlers find reverse swing, so it isn't all one way. I think Sarfraz and Imran were the first to really use this. Chris Pringle was a later exponent....

 

[smash84]

No I didn't say they are equal. I said there are different skills involved in batting on both which are equal but the additional factor on fast and bouncy wickets is the fear of physical harm.

So the only difference between the two is the additional factor of physical harm???

 

[Shri]

So the only difference between the two is the additional factor of physical harm???

That isn't much of a point these days anyway with all the protective equipment.

 

[karan316]

But these pitches do help bowlers find reverse swing, so it isn't all one way. I think Sarfraz and Imran were the first to really use this. Chris Pringle was a later exponent....

I agree with this point, reverse swing does make a difference,
but still, Imran has a more complete record as he played in all conditions unlike Lillee.

 

[weldone]

...Imran deserves to be rated well ahead of Lillee...

You are inconsistent with your earlier comment that two greats can never ever be compared. (in the Bradman thread, remember?)

 

[Burgey]

So the only difference between the two is the additional factor of physical harm???

No there are different skills involved. So three are different. The risk of physical harm is an additional thing.

Look, if you face a good quick bowler on a fast, bouncy wicket, your adrenaline levels are comparatively through the roof (assuming state of the match is the same in both cases). It's a rush. Partly because of the physical challenge.

It doesnt mean the other conditions don't present their own challenges, they do. It's just an extra challenge to deal with IMO.

 

[Burgey]

That isn't much of a point these days anyway with all the protective equipment.

Yes it is. It's still a factor. Not as much as before, but it's still a factor.

 

[SJS]

Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

Because he was the better bowler, I guess :-)

 

[bagapath]

Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

Because he was the better bowler, I guess :-)

was he, clearly? having caught the tail end of lillee's career and imran's second half, and after reading lots about both of them in print and on the net, it is not easy for me to decide either way. marshall beats mcgrath in pace. hadlee beats steyn in accuracy. but lillee and imran are tougher to separate in simplistic terms. but i am sure SJS had a reason to post that response. I would love to hear in detail about this, sir.

 

[smash84]

Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

Because he was the better bowler, I guess :-)

would like to hear you out on this SJS

 

[vic_orthdox]

Never going to criticise Imran's SR, as it's is quite possibly the main reason why he was so good in the subcontinent. The need to build pressure is even greater in subcontinental conditions where it's harder to just snick someone off.

 

[Ikki]

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)?

It isn't; it's simply a better way to gauge them. If one has played a really weak side several times - let's put away the minnow argument for now - and another has played only 1 inning; then that will skew the comparison. I think removing them altogether is the easiest alternative. No matter how you adjust for it, once you take it into account it makes Imran's overall figures worse.

Yes I do.

That's fine I guess, it's just how you rate Imran. I disagree though.

What are you trying to say here?

I am saying what I consider a well-rounded player differs from yours; and the reasons you might consider Imran complete is totally different to what I would.

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.

When you assume I pick and choose in that regard, that makes you look silly. If I have changed this point in another comparison, do bring it up. In other words, put up or shut up.

I do the same thing in all comparisons. If one player has played a weak team far more than another, I disregard that record. If I consider them minnows, I disregard them outright unless the players in question have played them enough to consider it a reasonable sample.

 

[Ikki]

Never going to criticise Imran's SR, as it's is quite possibly the main reason why he was so good in the subcontinent. The need to build pressure is even greater in subcontinental conditions where it's harder to just snick someone off.

His SR at home is great; it is away that it is not as good.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Ginger Furball and Bagapath win this thread, IMHO. Totally agree with their explanations.

Personally speaking, Lillee vs. Imran is one of those too-close-to-call comparisons. Both clearly ATG bowlers and you just pick the man that you prefer more. I'd take Lillee by a slim margin but it's not one of the choices that I can statistically justify. Not that I feel the need to either.

 

[Howe_zat]

As if you're fair, Ikki. I won't even bother to go searching for all the times you've argued that the likes of Hayden or whoever need their stats fondly gazed upon, even though they've been boosted by minnows perhaps more than anyone.

More to the point is that the stats manipulations you do are inherently unfair at the best of times. Saying "you always remove minnows" involves firstly your subjective judgement of who was a minnow and when, and then charges on with the lazy generalisation of calling all performances, against any minnows, at any time, by anyone, anywhere, in any match situation both equal and worthless.

So don't try to hold yourself up as a paragon of fairness and rationality. Just admit you're being as biased as the rest of us. You only bother to change stats in a way that helps you out (on the off chance that they do), then claim whatever you've done is important for some cooked up reason.

There's nothing wrong with being biased and supporting your favourite players, everyone does it and discussion would be a hell of a lot less interesting if we all agreed. So protest that you're being scientific all the time when you blatantly aren't?