Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[ankitj]

haha, my bad then

40 match moving average is the average of 40 consecutive matches at different stages. After 50th match, for example, it is the average in match #11 through to match #50. Reason for posting that was to see if the large difference in peaks is compensated by similarly large difference in troughs. Clearly it isn't; it doesn't have to mathematically. Lengths of peaks and troughs also play a part.

EDIT: I find these charts interesting and I am inclined to do it for the great bowlers of 90's too. Just that I am out of touch with VB to write automated programs to do this. So it will be some manual work.

 

[Burgey]

haha, my bad then

40 match moving average is the average of 40 consecutive matches at different stages. After 50th match, for example, it is the average in match #11 through to match #50. Reason for posting that was to see if the large difference in peaks is compensated by similarly large difference in troughs. Clearly it isn't; it doesn't have to mathematically. Lengths of peaks and troughs also play a part.

EDIT: I find these charts interesting and I am inclined to do it for the great bowlers of 90's too. Just that I am out of touch with VB to write automated programs to do this. So it will be some manual work.

Except if one of the number only plays 20 because it's the end of his career. I don't mean that in this case btw, I mean it in general.

 

[Ikki]

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.

The thing is that success in the SC is only a legitimate concern for me when you talk about Pakistan. They were, for a time, only second to the WIndies and their home conditions were notoriously difficult. That is a fine gripe to have. However, I am not stupid, and neither are many cricket historians/pundits, and we can gauge in some way how much that should hinder him. For Lillee, for the same reasons you stated earlier for Imran not facing his own team, faced far better line-ups and decimated them. You take the WSC, the World XI tour earlier in his career, and his record against WIndies in the Test arena and you have 31 matches against some of the greatest batting line-ups of all time. That is 31 of 89 Tests, a huge proportion to play against that kind of batsmen. I am not sure there is a bowler in history who faced as many great batsmen, in different teams, for so many matches.

I put the stats of those matches together and his figures are:

WSC: 15 Tests, 79 wickets - avg 23.91, sr 42.1
World XI: 4 Tests, 24 wickets - avg 20.08, sr 39.1
WI-Tests: 12 Tests, 55 wickets - avg 27.74, sr 48.6

Overall: 31 Tests, 158 wickets, - avg 24.67, sr 42.5


This, against batsmen like Richards (Viv), Richards (Barry), Gavaskar, Sobers, Abbas, Fredericks, Rowe, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Haynes, Greenidge, Pollock (Graeme), Kanhai, Amiss, Miandad, Rice, etc.

When you look at that, arguments re him not playing in the SC enough or questioning how good he was just wither away.

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?

And how about we look at Lillee not suffering stress fractures on tour, not breaking down and having to invent himself? You can't, it happened and he might have had a different career altogether. Whilst I take that Imran was simply not good in the beginning of his career, one must appreciate that those are the kinds of things that spur players to improve and become great. You essentially want us to cut out his learning phase and cut right to when he was ATG class and at his peak.

What would you say if I said we should cut out Steve Waugh's earlier stints with the bat where he was more of an all-rounder and only look at those periods when he was an established batsman? What if we just remove the period where Sangakkara learned his trade with the bat whilst he had gloves, and just look at the matches where he was a specialist bat only? How much do you want to slide? In the end, these are reasons why Waugh is not compared with Tendulkar, Sangakarra isn't seen as the 2nd best batsman after Bradman and Imran didn't get the same adulation that Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee got.

People like yourself can argue as much as they like with players like these. As I touched on earlier, I am sure there will be Kallis fans in 10 years from now, asking why he isn't seen as better than Tendulkar. That is why, unless you've seen the players in question and simply disagree, I tend to make room for contemporary opinion. Unless you've watched a lot of the matches you can't gauge the nuances that made certain players better. In one match, 4/100 is better than 4/90, and only those who appreciate the context of that match can make such a claim. Lillee, for various reasons, got a crapload of praise for how he went. I am sure a lot of that had to do with striking big wickets in big matches at trying times.

Anyway, I didn't see your point re Yorker. I am not sure if Lillee had a bad yorker or a great one since I haven't viewed a lot of him on tape. Nor does it really matter to me frankly.

----

For interest's sake I added his WSC/World XI matches to his career Test figures and it becomes this:

458 wickets in 89 matches (5.15 wickets per match) - avg 23.72, sr 49.1

 

[Burgey]

But Gavaskar was gash in Australia when not facing a numpty attack.

 

[subshakerz]

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

Nope. Lillee lacked a good yorker. thats clearly a bowling weakness. Imran did not.

But both of them were masters of the leg cutter, Lillee maybe moreso, but certainly not a bowling weakness of Imran, especially after returning from his injury in 85.

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.

Yet Marshall, Imran, Hadlee and others hd no trouble with the top six and the tail. You need different tactics and the example you gave clearly shows a good yorker would have improved Lillee even moreso/

 

[Burgey]

Nope. Lillee lacked a good yorker. thats clearly a bowling weakness. Imran did not.

But both of them were masters of the leg cutter, Lillee maybe moreso, but certainly not a bowling weakness of Imran, especially after returning from his injury in 85.



Yet Marshall, Imran, Hadlee and others hd no trouble with the top six and the tail. You need different tactics and the example you gave clearly shows a good yorker would have improved Lillee even moreso/

So you're saying Imran could bowl every ball Lillee could?

 

[abmk]

Nope. Lillee lacked a good yorker. thats clearly a bowling weakness. Imran did not.

But both of them were masters of the leg cutter, Lillee maybe moreso, but certainly not a bowling weakness of Imran, especially after returning from his injury in 85.

I don't see Lillee's and Imran's leg-cutters being anywhere near close. Lillee was far better at it. Imran developed a decent one in the later stages of his career, but still nowhere near Lilllee's. Even then his stock delivery was the one coming into the righties and he used the leg-cutter sparingly

 

[subshakerz]

And how about we look at Lillee not suffering stress fractures on tour, not breaking down and having to invent himself? You can't, it happened and he might have had a different career altogether. Whilst I take that Imran was simply not good in the beginning of his career, one must appreciate that those are the kinds of things that spur players to improve and become great. You essentially want us to cut out his learning phase and cut right to when he was ATG class and at his peak.

You do realize Imran nearly tore his shin bone apart in 83, couldnt bowl for two years, and came back as succesful as ever?

You do realize that Imran's learning phase was from 75-79, which I included in the period mentioned, when he transformed himself from a medium pacer to a fastman, reinvented his action moreso than any other major fast bowler in history,and then achieved a higher peak than any other post-war bowler?

Lillee is not exclusive is having faced such challenges.

Anyway, I didn't see your point re Yorker. I am not sure if Lillee had a bad yorker or a great one since I haven't viewed a lot of him on tape. Nor does it really matter to me frankly.

You should care, if you truly claim that Lillee is a more skilful bowler. His own captain and keeper admit he didnt have a good yorker. So why is it irrelevant?

 

[Burgey]

You do realize Imran nearly tore his shin bone apart in 83, couldnt bowl for two years, and came back as succesful as ever?

You do realize that Imran's learning phase was from 75-79, which I included in the period mentioned, when he transformed himself from a medium pacer to a fastman, reinvented his action moreso than any other major fast bowler in history,and then achieved a higher peak than any other post-war bowler?

Lillee is not exclusive is having faced such challenges.



You should care, if you truly claim that Lillee is a more skilful bowler. His own captain and keeper admit he didnt have a good yorker. So why is it irrelevant?

So Imran Khan could bowl every type of ball in a superlative fashion? Is that what you're saying?

 

[subshakerz]

I don't see Lillee's and Imran's leg-cutters being anywhere near close. Lillee was far better at it. Imran developed a decent one in the later stages of his career, but still nowhere near Lilllee's. Even then his stock delivery was the one coming into the righties and he used the leg-cutter sparingly

And Imran had a much better inswinger than Lillee, that doesnt mean that inswing was a weakness of Lillee's, correct?

If we talk about bowling skills, every bowler has different strengths, but you cant claim that a lack of a bowling skill (decent yorker) is the same as one bowler being better at a certain skill (leg-cutter, inswing).

 

[Ikki]

You do realize Imran nearly tore his shin bone apart in 83, couldnt bowl for two years, and came back as succesful as ever?

You do realize that Imran's learning phase was from 75-79, which I included in the period mentioned, when he transformed himself from a medium pacer to a fastman, reinvented his action moreso than any other major fast bowler in history,and then achieved a higher peak than any other post-war bowler?

Lillee is not exclusive is having faced such challenges.

Lillee had stress fractures in his back in multiple places. Walking properly would have been a feat, nevermind being a cricket bowler - or further, an ATG bowler.

Lillee's injuries in that regard is different to Imran's as he had to completely change the way he bowled. He could no longer be the fire and brim stone pacer he used to be, but he had to be methodical. Imran's injury didn't stop him from bowling faster, it was a technical problem when resolved which actually made him bowl faster. Lillee had a physical barrier he had to work around for the rest of his career, and he did it with his brain.

This illustrates something about Lillee I am not aware of any other great pace bowlers; his adaptability, even to the extreme, to reinvent himself. Imagine Waqar Younis breaking down and starting to bowl like McGrath.

You should care, if you truly claim that Lillee is a more skilful bowler. His own captain and keeper admit he didnt have a good yorker. So why is it irrelevant?

And how does that curtail that claim? No one bowler is perfect at everything.

 

[Burgey]

And Imran had a much better inswinger than Lillee, that doesnt mean that inswing was a weakness of Lillee's, correct?

If we talk about bowling skills, every bowler has different strengths, but you cant claim that a lack of a bowling skill (decent yorker) is the same as one bowler being better at a certain skill (leg-cutter, inswing).

You don't think having a better inswinger helps you bowl a better Yorker?

 

[smash84]

Lillee had stress fractures in his back in multiple places. Walking properly would have been a feat, nevermind being a cricket bowler - or further, an ATG bowler.

Lillee's injuries in that regard is different to Imran's as he had to completely change the way he bowled. He could no longer be the fire and brim stone pacer he used to be, but he had to be methodical. Imran's injury didn't stop him from bowling faster, it was a technical problem when resolved which actually made him bowl faster. Lillee had a physical barrier he had to work around for the rest of his career, and he did it with his brain.

This illustrates something about Lillee I am not aware of any other great pace bowlers; his adaptability, even to the extreme, to reinvent himself. Imagine Waqar Younis breaking down and starting to bowl like McGrath.
.

What? An injury that does not allow you to bowl for 2 years and then it gives you mega strength to bowl express pace?

You don't think having a better inswinger helps you bowl a better Yorker?

Why would it? Srinath had a good inswinger IIRC yet he didn't have great yorker. On the other hand Wasim had a great outswinger but a great yorker. They require different skills.

 

[Burgey]

What? An injury that does not allow you to bowl for 2 years and then it gives you mega strength to bowl express pace?



Why would it? Srinath had a good inswinger IIRC yet he didn't have great yorker. On the other hand Wasim had a great outswinger but a great yorker. They require different skills.

Lol no.

 

[smash84]

Lol no.

What?

 

[Burgey]

What?

Your Yorker is more likely to beat the batsman if it moves, especially in. If it does that you're a bigger chance of hitting the stumps.

Just as you're a better chance of getting an edge if your length ball on off stump moves away.

 

[smash84]

Your Yorker is more likely to beat the batsman if it moves, especially in. If it does that you're a bigger chance of hitting the stumps.

Just as you're a better chance of getting an edge if your length ball on off stump moves away.

Not really. I remember a program on TV just before the 1999 WC and Wasim saying that in his opinion the most lethal yorker was the outswinging yorker but according to him it was the most difficult to bowl.

 

[Ikki]

What? An injury that does not allow you to bowl for 2 years and then it gives you mega strength to bowl express pace?

That's not what I said - or meant. I am saying Imran's injury, whilst serious, didn't stop him from coming back, changing his action and bowling faster than ever before.

Lillee's injuries were so serious that the prognosis was instant retirement. He had stress fractures in his back in 3 places. Lillee then embarked on novel training methods allowing him to come back but in a limited way. He had to shorten his run-up and change his action. He could no longer bowl at that pace he was famous for, but he not only coped he flourished.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yorker has a greater reliance on application of length to it, while swing isn't defined by length to the extent of the former. Akram himself believed that a good swing bowler wouldn't necessarily be a good yorker bowler. He mentioned that in a program where he also suggested that the key to bowling a good yorker was to (counter-intuitively) aim for the top of the stumps rather than the base.

 

[Burgey]

Not really. I remember a program on TV just before the 1999 WC and Wasim saying that in his opinion the most lethal yorker was the outswinging yorker but according to him it was the most difficult to bowl.

I imagine it is. But earlier you said bowling swing and bowling a Yorker were different skills. Now you're agreeing they compliment each other and one makes the other more difficult to play.

I'm telling you, whilst any well pitched Yorker is difficult to get away, unless you are coming from Garner-like height, it's sideways movement with the length that will trouble decent players, not the length of that type of ball alone.