Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[G.I.Joe]

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.

This is an open forum, and I'll reply to what I see fit. What I do find disturbing is that you'd choose to have a go at me for essentially agreeing with you on one point while apparently having the temerity to disagree on another. How rude of me.

 

[Burgey]

Now you're getting it. Good.

 

[hang on]

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

not at all. but the claim of bias is certainly valid if there is a considerable amount of stats cherrypicking - no names here - to contrive a statistical foundation to prove that lillee is better.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Burgey, you're incorrigible.

 

[archie mac]

not at all. but the claim of bias is certainly valid if there is a considerable amount of stats cherrypicking - no names here - to contrive a statistical foundation to prove that lillee is better.

Never been one for stats although Bradman's are hard to argue with

I am more inclined to go with expert opinion and my own eyes where possible, but fair to say would be happy with either in my all time team

 

[smash84]

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

haha.....tbf to Burgey even I thought you were supporting my point

 

[Burgey]

This is an open forum, and I'll reply to what I see fit. What I do find disturbing is that you'd choose to have a go at me for essentially agreeing with you on one point while apparently having the temerity to disagree on another. How rude of me.

haha.....tbf to Burgey even I thought you were supporting my point

Yeah ****!

 

[karan316]

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

No,but if you don't have proper reasons or facts to say that Lillee was better, than you are biased. I m not saying that everyone who feels Lillee was better are biased, some people are having their reasons to think that way, but some are just being biased.

 

[archie mac]

No,but if you don't have proper reasons or facts to say that Lillee was better, than you are biased. I m not saying that everyone who feels Lillee was better are biased, some people are having their reasons to think that way, but some are just being biased.

That is a sweeping statement tbh mate, I think you need to name names and give examples, unless you also think the same of some of the Imran supporters?

 

[smash84]

That is a sweeping statement tbh mate, I think you need to name names and give examples, unless you also think the same of some of the Imran supporters?

I am an unbiased supporter of Imran

 

[archie mac]

I am an unbiased supporter of Imran

No **** Sherlock

 

[smash84]

haha.....glad to know people agree with me

 

[Jono]

WTF does that mean?

I think he's getting at the fact that Ikki discards "common cricketing opinion" as irrelevant or mistaken when discussion is based on Sobers and how good an allrounder he was, but when it is based on Lillee, he's happy to rely on the "common cricketing opinion" to justify why Lillee is better than Imran.

It's a good point.

 

[subshakerz]

Statistically Imran is just better, and all of the filtering that Ikki wants to do, nothing can dispute that.

Yes.

If one was playing in the SC, then Imran would be the choice, other wise I and most would go with D.L.

What if they were playing in the WI?

 

[Burgey]

Depends if one of them had a busted back I suppose.

 

[smash84]

Depends if one of them had a busted back I suppose.

Imran's record in WI is absolutely brilliant. His record in Pakistan against them is even better.

Lillee's record against the WI at his own home ground is an avg a shade under 28. Chances are that he would have been equally or less effective in WI. So Imran should still be better in the WI

 

[Burgey]

Imran's record in WI is absolutely brilliant. His record in Pakistan against them is even better.

Lillee's record against the WI at his own home ground is an avg a shade under 28. Chances are that he would have been equally or less effective in WI. So Imran should still be better in the WI

That's crap. The fact is you cannot know. Lillee broke down with a back injury on your there, though he took it with him.

 

[subshakerz]

That's crap. The fact is you cannot know. Lillee broke down with a back injury on your there, though he took it with him.

Its logical, if Lillee wasnt that successful against the WI on his own pitches, why would he be much better in their own den, regardless of that test in 73?

 

[Furball]

Its logical, if Lillee wasnt that successful against the WI on his own pitches, why would he be much better in their own den, regardless of that test in 73?

That's not logical at all.

 

[Burgey]

Its logical, if Lillee wasnt that successful against the WI on his own pitches, why would he be much better in their own den, regardless of that test in 73?

More like regardless that they had different players? That he was faster then? The pitches may have suited him? You don't know. I don't know.

I don't see why this is such a difficult concession to make. I mean, I'm happy to say Imran's bowling record here isn't that great at least in part because he toured here a couple of times when he either could not bowl or wasn't at his best through injury or age.

Look, Michael Vaughan toured here in 03 and scored a zillion at an insane average. By the logic you want to use, had he never played Australia in England, you would say "Well, he averaged so much away, he surely would have gone better at home". He didn't, as we know. But say he was injured in 05, would you say it's logical he would dominate at home because he did out here?

The truth is you can't know.

I mean, if it's that hard a concession to make, you should pop over to the insecure thread.