Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Burgey]

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.

Wasim should have tried to prove his point by bowling cross seam Yorkers and see how many recognized batsmen he dismissed with it.

I suppose it's more a surprise ball anyway, except in pretend cricket where it's almost a stock ball in the last few overs these days.

 

[smash84]

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.

[/QUOTE]

This

@Burgey .....When did I say that the skills for bowling swing and bowling a yorker complement each other?

I only said that a swinging yorker is more lethal than a straight yorker that is all that I said.

Bowling swing and

 

[Burgey]

This

@Burgey .....When did I say that the skills for bowling swing and bowling a yorker complement each other?

I only said that a swinging yorker is more lethal than a straight yorker that is all that I said.

Bowling swing and[/QUOTE]
You didn't. You said they're different, in post 213. I'm saying the ability to swing the ball compliments a yorker.

Subshakerz, because it suits him, seems to have taken comments about Lillee not having a good yorker to mean he didn't possess one at all, which is bull****, frankly.

 

[smash84]

This

@Burgey .....When did I say that the skills for bowling swing and bowling a yorker complement each other?

I only said that a swinging yorker is more lethal than a straight yorker that is all that I said.

Bowling swing and

You didn't. You said they're different, in post 213. I'm saying the ability to swing the ball compliments a yorker.

Subshakerz, because it suits him, seems to have taken comments about Lillee not having a good yorker to mean he didn't possess one at all, which is bull****, frankly.[/QUOTE]

I think what subz meant was that Lillee had a yorker but it was useless

 

[kyear2]

Statistically Imran is just better, and all of the filtering that Ikki wants to do, nothing can dispute that.
Where I can agree with Ikki is that the disperity between Imran's home and away record is simply staggerin , also one cannont discont playing S.L as often as he did.
Both bowlers had equally devastating injuries to come back from, and that doesnt factor into how great a bowler either was. We still have to go with what they did on the pitch, other wise we have to elevate Waqar and Bishop as well.
The fact that Lille didnt adequately perform in the SC has to be held againts him when considering him a well rounded performer and if one wants to call him the best ever.
Both were great bowlers and overall when all factors are considered, one has to say that they are on the same level. If one was playing in the SC, then Imran would be the choice, other wise I and most would go with D.L.

 

[kyear2]

Once again though Ikki shows his double standards.
If you are going to say Lillee is the best because everyone says so, then you can't say in the same sentance, it only applies for Lillee but they are wrong about Sobers. Arguments deosn't work that way.
But good to see you admitted that Lille is behind Marshall, and that MM has so holes in his record and his stats wern't aided by playing minnows.

 

[smash84]

Statistically Imran is just better, and all of the filtering that Ikki wants to do, nothing can dispute that.
Where I can agree with Ikki is that the disperity between Imran's home and away record is simply staggerin , also one cannont discont playing S.L as often as he did.
Both bowlers had equally devastating injuries to come back from, and that doesnt factor into how great a bowler either was. We still have to go with what they did on the pitch, other wise we have to elevate Waqar and Bishop as well.
The fact that Lille didnt adequately perform in the SC has to be held againts him when considering him a well rounded performer and if one wants to call him the best ever.
Both were great bowlers and overall when all factors are considered, one has to say that they are on the same level. If one was playing in the SC, then Imran would be the choice, other wise I and most would go with D.L.

If two of Lillee's innings in the WI are anything to go by then Imran should be preferred to bowl in the WI as well. Lillee averaged a shade under 28 against the WI at home. His avg against the WI in WI would probably be higher. Lillee could be expected to perform better in England and Aus I suppose.

 

[Burgey]

Lillee had stress fractures in his back when he toured the West Indies.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If you are going to say Ikki is the best because everyone says so, then you can say in the same sentance, it only applies for Lillee but they are wrong about Sobers..

WTF does that mean?

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Please do your homework, Imran came back after injury in 85 at much reduced pace but with the same success, an established fact. It was a 'technical problem'? Hahahaha, his shin bone had a huge crack in it, his leg was put in a cast for six bloody months and he didnt bowl for 2 years. So please dont make things up to make it seem like Lillee was a superman and Imran an honest trier.

And like I said, Imran completely remodelled his action, the only major fast bowler to do so, and changed himself from medium pacer to fastman. He is as much an example of reinventing himself as Lillee. Check his action early on and after 80, they are completely different.

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

So please dont claim he's a 'complete bowler' when you admit he's not.

 

[archie mac]

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).

I don't think Imran had a much better inswinger than Lillee, a better one perhaps. Lillee could bowl a yorker, (I mean I can bowl one), it was just not in the class of say Joel Garner but either was Imran's.

WTF does that mean?

Not sure? I think because Lillee did not have as good a yorker as Imran than he was not as good a bowler

On that critera Garner, Kortright and Younis are the three greatest fast bowlers in history

 

[smash84]

WTF does that mean?

haha....yeah that has lot of typos in that. Initially I was also like WTF

 

[karan316]

Perhaps a poll would give a more clear-cut answer?

Assuming that an answer entirely in black or in white is what majority of forumers are looking for.

No, some of the users are saying Lillee was better just because they are biased, its better if a good discussion continues, a lot of interesting posts are coming, a poll will just kill the thread.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Wasim should have tried to prove his point by bowling cross seam Yorkers and see how many recognized batsmen he dismissed with it.

I suppose it's more a surprise ball anyway, except in pretend cricket where it's almost a stock ball in the last few overs these days.

That's irrelevant to the point I was addressing. All it means is that a good yorker bowler needs necessarily be a good swing bowler. But a good swing bowler need not necessarily be a good yorker bowler too.

 

[archie mac]

No, some of the users are saying Lillee was better just because they are biased, its better if a good discussion continues, a lot of interesting posts are coming, a poll will just kill the thread.

So if you don't think Imran the better bowler you must be biased?

 

[Burgey]

That's irrelevant to the point I was addressing. All it means is that a good yorker bowler needs necessarily be a good swing bowler. But a good swing bowler need not necessarily be a good yorker bowler too.

I am truly thrilled for you, seeing as i wasnt habing this conversation witj you to begin with.

But all right mate. You lot know best. Someone bowling gun barrel straight balls landing on the popping crease are as hard to face as someone swinging them about bowling the same length. Because regardless of what you take from the discussion, that's what it was originally about.

Or, pick up a bat and check for yourself which is the more difficult to deal with.

 

[Fusion]

No, some of the users are saying Lillee was better just because they are biased, its better if a good discussion continues, a lot of interesting posts are coming, a poll will just kill the thread.

Please stop with this line of posting. Just because people disagree with you, it does not make them biased.

 

[Burgey]

Please stop with this line of posting. Just because people disagree with you, it does not make them biased.

If you have an opinion on something like this you are biased. Just not necessarily on national lines.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I am truly thrilled for you, seeing as i wasnt habing this conversation witj you to begin with.

But all right mate. You lot know best. Someone bowling gun barrel straight balls landing on the popping crease are as hard to face as someone swinging them about bowling the same length. Because regardless of what you take from the discussion, that's what it was originally about.

Or, pick up a bat and check for yourself which is the more difficult to deal with.

You've obviously not bothered to read my post or you wouldn't still be making the assertion you have.

 

[Burgey]

You've obviously not bothered to read my post or you wouldn't still be making the assertion you have.

You're obviously exceedingly presumptuous in thinking the discussion I was having last evening was directed towards you. It wasn't, it was about a point Smiley made. What you choose to take out of it is a matter for you.