Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Ikki]

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.

You obviously skim read.

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.

The only reason I don't put much weight on the consensus with Sobers is that his stats are so far from the praise he got for his bowling that holding to that view is not tenable. Whatever you want to say about Lillee, his stats are more than good enough to compare with the best. I look for players to be in a certain statistical ball park and then look at contemporary opinion of them, not the other way round.

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.

See my reply to Smali. Imran's injury did not physically alter him for the rest of his career for the worse. It wasn't near an inhibition like Lillee's. Lillee had two careers in one, he wasn't merely slow for a time.

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

He is a complete bowler, as ever there was. He is not a perfect bowler, however. No one is.

 

[Ikki]

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.

It's no more cherry picking than looking at the stats as they are to be a basis. This is the inherent problem with people who seem to have an aversion to looking at stats closer - they take more accuracy in figures as a sign of stat-fixing. Not looking at stats closer one might think Mohammad Yousuf was better than Viv Richards, for instance.

I admit, sometimes abuse might occur, but nothing I posted should be construed that way. If you have any problem with any of the considerations I made, make it known; and I'll do my best to explain.

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.

It really isn't. As I said, I consider stats then opinion. It means I use the opinions to compliment what the stats say. If someone averages 5 with the bat and the average top-order batsman averages 30; then no amount of "common cricketing opinion" is going to sway me. I also told you I am fine with people disagreeing if they've watched the cricketers in question and don't really need to rely on past opinion. I do, so it is why I judge Lillee the way I do, and the same for Richards (Viv) for the same era. Even though both, prima facie, might not have the best case.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Lillee did play them in WI in the WSC in a 5 match series - (23 wickets - avg 28.48, sr 38.5).

When you look at it closely, Lillee did better than Imran in WI. Imran had a fantastic series in 88, ordinary one in 77. Lillee bowled well against the better line-up (a much better one) when they were mostly at their peak/good.

 

[Furball]

Ikki back in the thread multiquoting.

Let me tell you where I am.

I'm out.

 

[smash84]

 

[hang on]

it's no more cherry picking than looking at the stats as they are to be a basis. This is the inherent problem with people who seem to have an aversion to looking at stats closer - they take more accuracy in figures as a sign of stat-fixing. Not looking at stats closer one might think Mohammad Yousuf was better than Viv Richards, for instance.

I admit, sometimes abuse might occur, but nothing I posted should be construed that way. If you have any problem with any of the considerations I made, make it known; and I'll do my best to explain.

imran
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

lillee
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

the stats do not show lillee to be a better bowler. mind, i think, after having watched them both, that lillee was the better bowler (second only to marshall) though not by much. actually, a closer look at the stats shows imran to be a better bowler with performances in more places, and against the best team of his time. if the 'lillee bowled at a better windian lineup' argument is brought up (which i do not necessarily agree with), then imran's more complete record should counter that'.

 

[Sanz]

Lillee did play them in WI in the WSC in a 5 match series - (23 wickets - avg 28.48, sr 38.5).

When you look at it closely, Lillee did better than Imran in WI. Imran had a fantastic series in 88, ordinary one in 77. Lillee bowled well against the better line-up (a much better one) when they were mostly at their peak/good.

Firstly his SR in WSC series was 47.1 and not 38.5 and most importantly What a unique way to mislead people by again presenting misleading stats about Lillee's performance in WI. Including the supertests in WSC Lillee played 6 test matches and has an average of 34.13 and strike rate of 55 something.

Imran's stats in WI 48 wickets @ 25.12 with SR 45.7 looks even more impressive Considering that Imran did not play in WI at his peak and still has significantly better stats than Lillee in WI speaks volume of statistical superiority of Imran as a bowler

 

[Ikki]

By the same token, I can quote Mohammad Yousuf's record in the most superficial way and say it shows that the stats don't say Viv Richards is a better player.

"Stats" is not one set of statistics. It all depends on what you look at. Player X may average 60, Player Y may average 50. The former might average 100 against 2 teams and 30 against 6. The latter may average 50 against everybody. What do stats show now?

Player X and Y may both average 50 against the WIndies, but only the latter played them when they had their four ATG bowlers. What do stats show now?

I've already shown that once you include WSC/World XI matches, it improves Lillee's stats markedly - and all these matches against teams better than those found at Test level. I have already shown you that the matches Lillee played against the WIndies featured better batsmen (or at least, the line-ups Imran actually succeeded against). I have shown you more than that.

Without context and a clearer understanding of stats you may as well not use them. If you disagree about those stats, make a case. With all due respect, anyone saying "the stats do not show lillee to be a better bowler" has no business talking about stats.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah only people who distort, misrepresent and lie about stat have the right to talk about them.

 

[Ikki]

Firstly his SR in WSC series was 47.1 and not 38.5 and most importantly What a unique way to mislead people by again presenting misleading stats about Lillee's performance in WI. Including the supertests in WSC Lillee played 6 test matches and has an average of 34.13 and strike rate of 55 something.

I am talking about 1 series against WIndies in WI. Not the whole WSC record. I'll check it again since I did it manually.

Lillee played 5 Tests in WI in WSC, these are it:

1st Supertest: WSC West Indies v WSC Australia at Kingston, Feb 23-26, 1979 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - 43.2 overs, 8 wickets for 168 runs.
2nd Supertest: WSC West Indies v WSC Australia at Bridgetown, Mar 9-13, 1979 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - 27 overs. 4 wickets for 109 runs.
3rd Supertest: WSC West Indies v WSC Australia at Port of Spain, Mar 16-20, 1979 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - 53 overs, 4 wickets for 153 runs.
4th Supertest: WSC West Indies v WSC Australia at Georgetown, Mar 25-28, 1979 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - 24 overs, 1 wicket for 98 runs.
5th Supertest: WSC West Indies v WSC Australia at St John's, Apr 6-10, 1979 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - 33.2 overs, 6 wickets for 125 runs.

You're right, the record is 28.39 @ 47.1. I must have not added a game or something. Thanks for the correction.

He didn't play a 6th game in WSC as far as I know. Unless, you're talking about the 1 he did play in Tests. Which would be pretty ridiculous as that is the match he broke down with stress fractures in his back.

Imran's stats in WI 48 wickets @ 25.12 with SR 45.7 looks even more impressive Considering that Imran did not play in WI at his peak and still has significantly better stats than Lillee in WI speaks volume of statistical superiority of Imran as a bowler

Imran was a fine bowler by the latter stages of the 70s and early 80s. His record against comparable line-ups against WI show he was worse than Lillee. Imran's best series against WI in WI was 88. In 77 he was ordinary.

But that line-up was old and not the great of yore. The only notable batsmen in the first test were Haynes, Richardson and Greenidge, Richards came for the last two. And Haynes, Greenidge and Richards were at the end of their careers then - although Richards had a good year. Compare that with the line-up Lillee faced in WSC in 79 (Greenidge, Haynes, Fredericks, Rowe, Richards and Lloyd) and it is not really a contest IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah only people who distort, misrepresent and lie about stat have the right to talk about them.

Firstly, thanks for getting my mistake. Not that it changed my point, but I hate to mislead with the wrong stats. Not only do others draw the wrong conclusion, so do I; and I hate to be wrong .

Secondly, the above is poor form.

I went back to see what I did wrong and it seems the last test instead of adding 33.2 overs, I just added the 0.2. That is exactly the calculation that would get it to 38.5. Although, as I say, the conclusions drawn from the comparison doesn't change IMO.

 

[hang on]

By the same token, I can quote Mohammad Yousuf's record in the most superficial way and say it shows that the stats don't say Viv Richards is a better player.

"Stats" is not one set of statistics. It all depends on what you look at. Player X may average 60, Player Y may average 50. The former might average 100 against 2 teams and 30 against 6. The latter may average 50 against everybody. What do stats show now?

Player X and Y may both average 50 against the WIndies, but only the latter played them when they had their four ATG bowlers. What do stats show now?

I've already shown that once you include WSC/World XI matches, it improves Lillee's stats markedly - and all these matches against teams better than those found at Test level. I have already shown you that the matches Lillee played against the WIndies featured better batsmen (or at least, the line-ups Imran actually succeeded against. I have shown you more than that.

Without context and a clearer understanding of stats you may as well not use them. If you disagree about those stats, make a case. With all due respect, anyone saying "the stats do not show lillee to be a better bowler" has no business talking about stats.

regarding the part in bold. first, imran's wsc record is better, albeit over a smaller sample.

World Series Cricket Player Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

second, u have not 'shown' or demonstrated anything of the sort. u have just claimed that lillee bowled against better windian batting lineups. a rather tenuous claim.

imran, by series, against the windies:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

lillee, by series, against the windies:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

is it really that cut and dried that lillee bowled to better batting lineups throughout? it isn't, to me.

regarding the part that is underlined, the irony, the irony. exquisite.

 

[subshakerz]

See my reply to Smali. Imran's injury did not physically alter him for the rest of his career for the worse. It wasn't near an inhibition like Lillee's. Lillee had two careers in one, he wasn't merely slow for a time.

You stated that after his injury Imran's pace was unaffected or perhaps he bowled even faster, and you gave Lillee points for coming back with success after his pace was reduced. You either ignored or lied about the fact that Imran also came back at much reduced pace in 85 and was just as productive.

 

[subshakerz]

not[/B] show lillee to be a better bowler. mind, i think, after having watched them both, that lillee was the better bowler (second only to marshall) though not by much. actually, a closer look at the stats shows imran to be a better bowler with performances in more places, and against the best team of his time. if the 'lillee bowled at a better windian lineup' argument is brought up (which i do not necessarily agree with), then imran's more complete record should counter that'.

Just out of curiosity, what criteria do you use to judge Lillee as a better bowler? In terms of bowling skills or just attitude?

 

[Ikki]

You stated that after his injury Imran's pace was unaffected or perhaps he bowled even faster, and you gave Lillee points for coming back with success after his pace was reduced. You either ignored or lied about the fact that Imran also came back at much reduced pace in 85 and was just as productive.

Nope. The point was, in the beginning, that because of the circumstances they had in their careers it in effect helped them to be the bowlers they were. As you were trying to cut off the period where Imran started off and just count his peak onwards. I said, one can't assume such periods didn't contribute to their progression as bowlers - i.e. learning from your mistakes.

The point about that is you can no more guess what would have happened if Imran hadn't gone through his tribulations no more than I could with Lillee, assuming he had never gotten injured.

In your haste to simply get a reply to everything said, you touted Imran's injury as a likeness. Yet we both know the injuries were different. Who gives a **** if it only inhibited him for 1 or 2 years if after he could bowl even faster; when the other guy in question had a physical handicap for the rest of his whole life.

Even still, the whole discussion is an aside, since it doesn't matter because no matter what, you simply can't assume everything in that player's career would be the same if you took a huge chunk of when they were bad out.

 

[hang on]

Just out of curiosity, what criteria do you use to judge Lillee as a better bowler? In terms of bowling skills or just attitude?

bowling skills, primarily. skillset, aggression, tactics and adaptability.

 

[Ikki]

regarding the part in bold. first, imran's wsc record is better, albeit over a smaller sample.

World Series Cricket Player Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that's partly why it isn't better. It is a 1/3d of Lillee's. What more, he only played WI in 1 match; the rest against a decent, but not great, Australia side. Lillee had to contend with not only the WI XI but the World XI - two fantastic sides. This is what it means to actually look at the stats/facts.

second, u have not 'shown' or demonstrated anything of the sort. u have just claimed that lillee bowled against better windian batting lineups. a rather tenuous claim.

imran, by series, against the windies:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

lillee, by series, against the windies:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

is it really that cut and dried that lillee bowled to better batting lineups throughout? it isn't, to me.

regarding the part that is underlined, the irony, the irony. exquisite.

It is that cut and dried, really. Just look at the line-ups. If you're going to argue the opposite, make a point as to why. Right now you're disagreeing without making a counter point.

 

[hang on]

And that's exactly why it isn't better. It is a 1/3d of Lillee's. What more, he only played WI in 1 match; the rest against a decent, but not great, Australia side. Lillee had to contend with not only the WI XI but the World XI - two fantastic sides. This is what it means to actually look at the stats/facts.



It is that cut and dried, really. Just look at the line-ups. If you're going to argue the opposite, make a point as to why. Right now you're disagreeing without making a counter point.

i see....the sample set problem. 5 isn't too small a sample set. what is a fair set? 7? 8? such that it is taken seriously? on another tack, dare one suggest that it might be easier for a team to play and excel against a collection of individuals? we saw what happened when the world 11 (the highest rated collection of players ever, apparently) played against australia in 04 or was it 05? don't want to shift goalposts but u did mention context is important.

the stats show that he has bowled and done well against excellent windian batting lineups (thought that the stats leading to the matches themselves makes it abundantly clear...hence the links), comparable to those lillee bowled against. for starters it isn't that imran didn't bowl to kallicharan and co. even though, richardson in his pomp in the late 80s was a better batsman. second, the opening pair of haynes and greenidge (at their prime) was better than fredericks and greenidge. gomes was no slouch either and was often the glue that kept the team together. so, not cut and dried at all. perhaps the performances and ratings of the batsmen played against in each series weighted appropriately will be the easiest way to decide one way of the other. feel free to knock yourself out in that regards....after all, since u are the one who initially claimed that lillee bowled against better windian lineups, the onus is completely on u to prove that he did, not on me.

also, if one were to argue about context, it can be argued that imran had to deal with the pressure of bowling for a side facing better bowling lineups....averaged over all the series. haven't looked into this too thoroughly....perhaps someone can cast some light on this?

 

[ankitj]

Even if Imran didn't bowl to the strong WI lineups in WSC (I haven't checked that), didn't he bowl to mighty WI in official tests all through the 80's with impressive results? Lillee can at best emerge as Imran's equal in performance against WI but not better by any stretch of imagination.

 

[smash84]

the stats show that he has bowled and done well against excellent lineups (thought that the stats leading to the matches themselves makes it abundantly clear...hence the links), comparable to those lillee bowled against. for starters it isn't that imran didn't bowl to kallicharan and co. even though, richardson in his pomp in the late 80s was a better batsman. second, the opening pair of haynes and greenidge (at their prime) was better than fredericks and greenidge. gomes was no slouch either and was often the glue that kept the team together. so, not cut and dried at all. perhaps the performances and ratings of the batsmen played against in each series weighted appropriately will be the easiest way to decide one way of the other. feel free to knock yourself out in that regards....after all, since u are the one who initially claimed that lillee bowled against better windian lineups, the onus is completely on u to prove that he did, not on me.

makes sense