Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Pothas]

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.

This is all that needs to be said really.

 

[Ikki]

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?

Your post is pathetic, and I am calling you out on it. All people are biased and all look for the best in their own. I don't mind that and I don't call people biased, with the implication I am not. Unlike you. If you have been around here long enough, or read my posts long enough, you'd know I have no problem with bias - just as long as we all know we are.

However, if one person is implementing a certain measure they consider important in one instance concerning players they like; they should consider it in all instances because those same distinctions should always be used. And I have always done that. If there has been confusion, I have always explained it out of courtesy too. I don't mind being called biased, I despise the implication that I am dishonest.

Now I have never made any arguments with regards to minnows using different standards for like players/scenarios. When I suggest using them/ignoring them, it has been the same across the board. The fact that you can't even go through my posts to prove it shows how pathetic your post is. If I am such an abuser, notorious, fixer then you should prove it; simply just to shut me up.

As I said, put up or shut up. FTR I am reporting your post on the grounds of it being an insulting lie.

 

[Top_Cat]

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?

I'll be honest and say all I thought when I read this post was that Ikki gazed upon Hayden before fondling him.

 

[DingDong]

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?

i agree with this i usually skip over ikki's posts because they are so blatantly biased

 

[Spark]

I'll be honest and say all I thought when I read this post was that Ikki gazed upon Hayden before fondling him.

 

[Pothas]

Think someone needs to calm down.

 

[smash84]

I'll be honest and say all I thought when I read this post was that Ikki gazed upon Hayden before fondling him.

 

[Cevno]

I'll be honest and say all I thought when I read this post was that Ikki gazed upon Hayden before fondling him.

!

 

[Migara]

i agree with this i usually skip over ikki's posts because they are so blatantly biased

 

[Ikki]

...of all people.

I'll be honest and say all I thought when I read this post was that Ikki gazed upon Hayden before fondling him.

 

[Top_Cat]

:jealous:

 

[hang on]

perhaps because imran's greatness as a bowler did not extend to a large portion of his career...the early part. he had already been on the scene for about a decade before he really came into his own as an outright great fast bowler.

not the case for lillee.

 

[smash84]

perhaps because imran's greatness as a bowler did not extend to a large portion of his career...the early part. he had already been on the scene for about a decade before he really came into his own as an outright great fast bowler.

not the case for lillee.

hmmm......actually never thought of it that way but that is a good hypothesis.

 

[hang on]

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.

nope. cricketing superpower in terms of playing ability and performances is not necessarily equivalent to clout in the running of the game. and, by virtue of sheer numbers, i don't think pak has ever been a cricketing superpower in that sense relative to india. and also because tendulkar was quite clearly the better player in all forms of the game.

and, i have the feeling that kallis will be considered the greater batsman 10 years from now.

 

[Metal Quality]

perhaps because imran's greatness as a bowler did not extend to a large portion of his career...the early part. he had already been on the scene for about a decade before he really came into his own as an outright great fast bowler.

not the case for lillee.

I don't think so. He wasn't that great in the last 3-4 years after his peak either. He was still very good compared to his early career but not that special. Its just the peak of his career that really stands out kind of like Waqar.

 

[smash84]

not really. Imran was arguably the finest bowler in the world from 1980-88. If you call that a peak then I am fine with it but he was very good for a long period of time (unlike Waqar Younis)

 

[Metal Quality]

i agree with this i usually skip over ikki's posts because they are so blatantly biased

Just read the whole thread but geez I actually thought the guy's argument in this thread about minnows was a good one.

My answer would be the same to be honest to answer the original question by the OP. SL were minnow standards in those days. Khan's average takes a big hit and drops down to 24 without SL.

I was wondering after looking at his average as to why Imran Khan wasn't spoken as highly of as a bowler in his time compared to Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee etc. Then after I looked in details and figured out the SL hole it made sense.

So that would be my answer. But if the question by OP was that why its a guaranteed thing that Lillie is above Imran, I don't think it really is. I would rate Lillie higher as well but only slightly. Lillie is just rated high in general a lot because of aesthetics. Kind of like Wasim Akram for example. A whole lot of your casual fan calls Wasim Akram the greatest bowler even though anybody with enough knowledge of statistics would know that when you compare his average to the value of wickets he took he ends up having one of the worst records of an ATG bowler. But that still doesn't stop people from calling him the greatest now does it? IMO that's kind of the case with Lillee. But one thing I would say that differentiates Lillee and Akram is the value of wickets Lillee took. He might not have gotten it as cheaply as other ATG bowlers but the batsmen he did dismiss were quite valuable and in that sense I think he could give even Hadlee competition.

Anyhow the point I was trying to make is that I really don't think that its anything guaranteed about Lilee being rated higher than Imran among people that actually know the game. You can tell that just by reading this thread a lot of people are rating Imran higher.

 

[Metal Quality]

not really. Imran was arguably the finest bowler in the world from 1980-88. If you call that a peak then I am fine with it but he was very good for a long period of time (unlike Waqar Younis)

He averaged over 27 from 87-91 which is still very good but not great so yes I would describe that as peak which I would say ended around 85-86.

The reason I think he ended up with better stats than Waqar is because of Waqar's bad form around the end of his career. I believe he even struggled with a spot in his team around that point.

 

[smash84]

He averaged over 27 from 87-91 which is still very good but not great so yes I would describe that as peak which I would say ended around 85-86.

The reason I think he ended up with better stats than Waqar is because of Waqar's bad form around the end of his career. I believe he even struggled with a spot in his team around that point.

In the 2 years 1987 and 88 Imran averaged less than 25. It is only 89 onwards that he fell away and was only playing because of the WC.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...7;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Metal Quality]

In the 2 years 1987 and 88 Imran averaged less than 25. It is only 89 onwards that he fell away and was only playing because of the WC.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He was playing tests only because of the WC? Either ways that's no excuse.

I didn't mean he completely declined around 86-87, I meant that's when his decline actually started around then and got worse from then on.