Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Ikki]

The only place where Lillee has done away from home is in England. That is it. NZ were a minnow in Lillee's time and Lillee is wicketless in 2 innings in the WI going for over 4 runs an over there. His average in Pakistan is 101 and that in SL is 36. See for yourself. Now if you exclude the minnows from Lillee's record then the only place he has done well is at home and in England. Nothing special about that.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Lillee played in an era where the SC was not an oft toured destination and for various reasons in his career (one important one being WSC) it meant even less for him. I agree with you that when you compare purely Test records then Lillee looks to have big holes in his Test record but when you consider his career as a whole, the line-ups he played against then points like he didn't tour SL anymore are just plain stupid. If NZ are minnows, WTF is SL then? Lillee played in WI in WSC (23 wickets - avg 28.48, sr 38.5).

The real mystery IMO is Pakistan. Because they were legitimately good side and those were tough conditions. However, he didn't play enough there (his home record against them is fine) and looking at 4 innings to say he averaged 100+ is straw clutching. It's a fact, but it doesn't go near explaining how he would have done because Lillee was supreme against the best. Why would Pakistan be any different? The only "bad" records he has are played where has 1, 2 or 4 innings - those are the samples you're using to beat him with. In any conditions he had 6 or more innings against a team he was fantastic.

You can't judge Lillee by the same cookie-cutter arguments you have for everybody else. He had a different kind of career. You look at extrinsic evidence and try to gauge. Even as his Test record stands he is at best a few points off the likes of Hadlee and Marshall (and even Hadlee is flattered by SL, otherwise, only Marshall). The fact that damn near everybody named Lillee the best has to say something here. This is not like Sobers where the guy has pitiful bowling stats and you have world-wide consensus to deal with. Lillee has great stats, great matches, and has a great consensus as the best - even amongst the very bowlers mentioned here.

 

[ankitj]

And ikki, I will give you a tenable statistical argument in favour of Lillee. Lillee in general picked very high value wickets and therefore the difference between him and others is not as big as it appears from either overall or peak averages. That will be much better than this whole "remove SL" argument that you are trying to push through.

 

[Burgey]

Yes, one of the series was in his injury days when he could not bowl in a 4 or 5 test series and his last series there was around the 89 or 90 where he was clearly past it.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Before that he had played 8 test matches in Australia and did a decent job. Not sensational. Would have loved to see him bowl in the 1983-84 series in Australia when he would have been at his peak but could not due to injury.

Yeah I recall that series. I think he had shin splints or something similar.

It was a weird series. Aside from Lillee-Marsh-Chappell bowing out, it gave us an obscene amount of runs from Graham Yallop of all people. By obscene, I mean out of all proportion to anything else he did.

It also gave us a great moment in commentary when Richie criticised (I think) Hafeez for dropping a catch at fine leg. Hafeez had a seriously disfigured right hand, and was essentially one handed.

 

[Ikki]

Er what? Lillee has the poorest overall average of the lot. He neither had a peak even comparable to others' peaks. The two combined don't help you argue a case for Lillee stastically. It doesn't allow you to say that his stats were affected because of poor run of form at some stage or because his career was too long (which it wasn't). That's why I pulled those stats. Thought it was obvious.

2 of the 3 batsmen you named happened to play SL quite a bit and therefore the difference in their average is practically none when you account for that. And even if it wasn't, it should still make a difference for the second sample (i.e. the non-peak period) because their averages are so close that if their peaks are distant then their non-peaks would be too. Otherwise their averages wouldn't be close. That sample is the best reflection on Marshall - he didn't play minnows and he still had an awesome record.

And no, During his long peak, Murali averaged 18-19. Only if you remove, ahem, "minnows", he comes close to his overall average. But if you remove "minnows" from overall average too, the peak is again significantly better. And btw, you are confusing me with Howe_zat. I did not say anything to the affect of Murali being near his career averages proved his long peak was brilliant

It was you who showed that long period of Murali's which was pretty much an average of 20 (a few points less IIRC) and you said that that average for such a long period showed without a doubt for you that he was the greatest. Then I showed you that a lot of that average is accounted for in his demolition of minnows otherwise it is basically the same average as his career average. Howe did say it shows how great his career averages are, I remember that. My point is, you picked someone as the greatest bowler ever because their average was, what, only a couple points higher than their career average (and you included his minnow record there). Too bad for Lillee that he didn't play the minnow teams enough I guess - maybe he could have averaged 21-22 in his peak period and been the best.

 

[Ikki]

And ikki, I will give you a tenable statistical argument in favour of Lillee. Lillee in general picked very high value wickets and therefore the difference between him and others is not as big as it appears from either overall or peak averages. That will be much better that this whole "remove SL" argument that you are trying to push through.

That is a good argument - and true - but the SL one still goes because they were, well, crap. Not just a crap batting line-up but a crap bowling one too. At least NZ had some mettle and had some notable results. Ironically, Imran was relatively bad against them; even worse away from home. In fact, his record away is not that good compared to other ATGs - and he actually has enough of a sample against all.

 

[ankitj]

Cribb's standardize averages FTW. Be done with minnows.

 

[Ikki]

And so even with Cribb's stats (remember, they don't include WSC or his early World XI series) it makes them within half a run of each other, not even considering the value argument. So, what was it about "untenable arguments for Lillee"? I didn't know half a run was the border line between tenable and untenable arguments. As I said before, it is simply laughable to say there aren't tenable arguments for Lillee. I think it would be laughable to claim that there were no tenable arguments for Imran, as well. Anyone with any decent understanding of cricket averages should never utter such a sentence when we are talking about players this close. Even if you hadn't touched their averages at all there should be many tenable arguments. In fact, it shouldn't even be about strict stats anymore when they are with a couple runs or balls of each other; but things like how they did against the best, how they did in certain conditions () and how they were viewed by their contemporaries.

That's how I gauge players; when they are in a certain statistical ballpark I look to other things. It's why I rate Lillee ahead of McGrath, even though based on a lot of the arguments in this thread I shouldn't. And I'd say McGrath has a better case. It also answers the OPs question - which is a not a general question but a question of the consensus currently held. In 10 years time there'll be threads like this re Kallis and Tendulkar.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I'll freely admit that my valuing system is pretty harsh on players who missed Tests to play WSC. It's a Test rating system. If you want to add in performances outside Tests when you rate players then it's not a good list to follow blindly at all, especially when it comes to the longevity measure.

I don't really see any statistical case for Lillee at all though, tbh. I'm definitely open to the "these players were of extremely similar standards and trying to choose between them is just splitting the tiniest of hairs" argument but if you do actually want to split the tiniest of hairs I don't think any statistical measure will tell you anything other than Imran being just a fraction better - in Tests anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

You can't judge Lillee by the same cookie-cutter arguments you have for everybody else. He had a different kind of career. You look at extrinsic evidence and try to gauge. .

That's what we are saying. Using the statistical side is obviously to Lillee disadvantage. You can spin it any way you like, but given that their overall records are somewhat similar I will always go for a bowler who displayed proven success in the SC and did better against the WI, home and away. Your argument is essentially, he was the best in the WSC which lasted just 2 years and 16 matches (not completely true, and you know its not a fair argument either since Imran didnt get the chance to face the same lineups, and Marshall/Hadlee were not established, but anyways) and a lot of people considered him the best, therefore he deserves to be exempted from having any points taken from the gaps in his record. Your lack of objectivity is so clear that it is pointless to pursue any argument, sadly.

If we are going to judge Lillee using special standards, do the same with Imran and lets just compare Lillee with the full bowling career of Imran 75-88 and then Imran completely blows Lillee out of the water.

And you never answered on his lack of a good yorker and weakness against tailenders, are those not legitimate problems when comparing him to Imran who had no such issues?

 

[archie mac]

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

Lillee not well rounded

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.

Please tell us about the three Tests in Pakistan and the one in SL


I am a Lillee fan, in case anyone was wondering

I watched them both but living in Aust. I watched most of Lillee's career in Aust and England. I thought him the greatest ever fast bowler and so did almost everyone who's opinon counts (unlike mine) including Imran.

I remember watching Imran bowling and Ian Chappell commentating. Imran was hit for two fours in a row through the covers and took away third slip to plug the hole.

Chappelli said that was the difference in his opinion between Lillee and Imran, the former always wanted to attack, was always asking his captain for another slip.

Not saying Imran was not correct to try and dry up the runs and put pressure on the batsman - he was a fine captain - just find it interesting is all

 

[archie mac]

If we are going to judge Lillee using special standards, do the same with Imran and lets just compare Lillee with the full bowling career of Imran 75-88 and then Imran completely blows Lillee out of the water.

And you never answered on his lack of a good yorker and weakness against tailenders, are those not legitimate problems when comparing him to Imran who had no such issues?

Did not have a great yorker is true but had a better leg cutter than Imran so perhaps that evens things out

tbh I would rather my strike bowler claim the top six rather than the bottom three. Again his lack of a yorker may be the reason. I remember him beating the bat time and again of tail enders and the commentators saying that is he perfect ball to a quality batsman but these blokes have no hope of laying wood on them.

 

[hang on]

stats aside - and on this one, imran is definitely on par with lillee, which no amount of finagling will gainsay - lillee is certainly the second greatest fast bowler i have had the great privilege of watching. he was the real deal in terms of pace, strategy, aggression, adaptability and, of course, the moustache (it is movember, after all).

however, all said and done, marshall still remains primus inter pares.

 

[Sanz]

Lillee not well rounded



Please tell us about the three Tests in Pakistan and the one in SL


I am a Lillee fan, in case anyone was wondering

I watched them both but living in Aust. I watched most of Lillee's career in Aust and England. I thought him the greatest ever fast bowler and so did almost everyone who's opinon counts (unlike mine) including Imran.

I remember watching Imran bowling and Ian Chappell commentating. Imran was hit for two fours in a row through the covers and took away third slip to plug the hole.

Chappelli said that was the difference in his opinion between Lillee and Imran, the former always wanted to attack, was always asking his captain for another slip.

Not saying Imran was not correct to try and dry up the runs and put pressure on the batsman - he was a fine captain - just find it interesting is all

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. I think most of us have problem when you are going to use stats as the main criteria and say that Lillee is the better bowler statistically.

 

[ankitj]

I retract my statement that putting Lillee ahead of Imran is barely tenable. I got carried away with the difference between the peak averages. Lille did in general take higher quality wickets apparently, so the gap closes even though Imran is ahead even if by very little. Add to that the fact that Imran had a more rounded record and that Imran played on for a significantly part of his career as primarily a batsman, affected his record. Considering this, statistical argument for putting Lillee over Imran is weak if not entirely untenable.

I'm done with this topic. It would go in circles forever.

 

[smash84]

I don't really see any statistical case for Lillee at all though, tbh. I'm definitely open to the "these players were of extremely similar standards and trying to choose between them is just splitting the tiniest of hairs" argument but if you do actually want to split the tiniest of hairs I don't think any statistical measure will tell you anything other than Imran being just a fraction better - in Tests anyway.

This

Lillee not well rounded



Please tell us about the three Tests in Pakistan and the one in SL


I am a Lillee fan, in case anyone was wondering

I watched them both but living in Aust. I watched most of Lillee's career in Aust and England. I thought him the greatest ever fast bowler and so did almost everyone who's opinon counts (unlike mine) including Imran.

I remember watching Imran bowling and Ian Chappell commentating. Imran was hit for two fours in a row through the covers and took away third slip to plug the hole.

Chappelli said that was the difference in his opinion between Lillee and Imran, the former always wanted to attack, was always asking his captain for another slip.

Not saying Imran was not correct to try and dry up the runs and put pressure on the batsman - he was a fine captain - just find it interesting is all

The whole point here is to say that if you look at statistical measures Lillee doesn't come out on top. I am ok with the fact if you saw Lillee bowl and thought he was a better bowler for aesthetics, attitude, or whatever.

 

[Burgey]

That's why it's always nice to watch people play, isn't it? If you didn't watch you'd look at the stats and think Kallis is a better batsman than Ponting.

 

[ankitj]

40 match moving averages. Just for fun.

 

[smash84]

I reckon these are the last 40 matches of Imran's career.

 

[ankitj]

I reckon these are the last 40 matches of Imran's career.

40 match moving average will start from their 40th match onwards obviously. For Imran, the chart covers 40th to 88th match, for Lillee 40th to 70th etc.

 

[Prince EWS]

That measure is going to go completely over heaps of people's heads, ankit.