Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Burgey]

No actually I don't. But there isn't a lot in it.

 

[Ikki]

So is that FINALLY an admission that stats can't (and shouldn't always) be used in certain ways to prove that one player is better than another?

Er, what?

There are very few people who say this though. The great majority, without ever seeing him bowl much or seeing his stats, will just believe (rightly) that Lillee is one of the best fast bowlers of all time because he gets SO much press, compliments etc. Cricketweb is definitely not the majority view on Lillee.

I'd say Lillee gets far far more attention and praise than Marshall.

Well, yes, I was referring to posters here.

There is no sensitivity outside of here, because as you explain he is usually lauded above all other modern bowlers.

 

[smash84]

Er, what?

.

you know what I meant

 

[Ikki]

I know what you kinda mean, but that statement is arbitrary as who decides when it's proper to use them? It also insinuates that how I used them wasn't proper.

 

[subshakerz]

As far as Benaud's team was concerned, this team was a lot more balanced and credible and more representative of different era's, but from his short lists, he named a total of nine fast bolwers (3 from the all rounder list) and none were named Marshall, while all six fast bowlers named to his short list 3 were Australian and 3 were English. I wonder how many other people would name their top 9 fast bowlers of all time and not have Marshall included. Deduce what you may.

The closest to an inpartial all time xi is the one selected here and the one by Cricinfo (though still dont know how Akram made that one). All of the others are just favourite lists or opportunities to grind an axe.

Not only that, all three wicketkeepers selected were Aussies, no Alan Knott, and all three spinners were leggies, two Aussies, no Murali. So he certainly made his preferences known.

The only shocker was selecting Imran ahead of Miller, which shows to me how highly he must have rated Imran to pick him over a player close to his heart.

 

[Sanz]

Not only that, all three wicketkeepers selected were Aussies, no Alan Knott, and all three spinners were leggies, two Aussies, no Murali. So he certainly made his preferences known.

The only shocker was selecting Imran ahead of Miller, which shows to me how highly he must have rated Imran to pick him over a player close to his heart.

So when he picked Aussie players, it was because he was biased and when he picked Imran it was because he rated Imran so heavily over Miller.

It is a pathetic post to say the least especially the comment "Two Aussies, No Murali" .

 

[ankitj]

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.

I am bringing up this post after many pages, but I was curious, how do you use opinions when comparing Gavaskar with Chappell, or even Border for that matter?

 

[Ikki]

I am bringing up this post after many pages, but I was curious, how do you use opinions when comparing Gavaskar with Chappell, or even Border for that matter?

Neither of those players had a consensus of global approval as the best. From that era, it has to be Viv - essentially Lillee with the bat. Which opinions of them are you referring to?

In general, I'd say Chappell is probably the best of those 3.

 

[ankitj]

Neither of those players had a consensus of global approval as the best. From that era, it has to be Viv - essentially Lillee with the bat. Which opinions of them are you referring to?

In general, I'd say Chappell is probably the best of those 3.

I would've thought general prevailing opinion would sway your view, just like it does in case of Lillee vs Marshall. Nearly every commentator, journalist from that era rates Gavaskar the best batsman out of the three.

 

[Fusion]

I would've thought general prevailing opinion would sway your view, just like it does in case of Lillee vs Marshall. Nearly every commentator, journalist from that era rates Gavaskar the best batsman out of the three.

Do they? I would respectfully challenge you on that. I’m pretty sure Viv is considered by most journalist/peers to be the better batsman vs Gavaskar for sure, and probably better than Chappell as well. In fact, I would venture to guess that only Sobers gets higher marks than Viv as a batsman post Bradman.

 

[smash84]

Do they? I would respectfully challenge you on that. I’m pretty sure Viv is considered by most journalist/peers to be the better batsman vs Gavaskar for sure, and probably better than Chappell as well. In fact, I would venture to guess that only Sobers gets higher marks than Viv as a batsman post Bradman.

he was talking about Chappell and Border comparing with Gavaskar

 

[Teja.]

Do they? I would respectfully challenge you on that. I’m pretty sure Viv is considered by most journalist/peers to be the better batsman vs Gavaskar for sure, and probably better than Chappell as well. In fact, I would venture to guess that only Sobers gets higher marks than Viv as a batsman post Bradman.

Ankit was comparing Gavaskar with Chappell and Border.

Reckon it's obvious Viv is the best bat of that era going by general consensus.

 

[Fusion]

he was talking about Chappell and Border comparing with Gavaskar

Ankit was comparing Gavaskar with Chappell and Border.

Reckon it's obvious Viv is the best bat of that era going by general consensus.

Carry on then.

 

[Ikki]

I would've thought general prevailing opinion would sway your view, just like it does in case of Lillee vs Marshall. Nearly every commentator, journalist from that era rates Gavaskar the best batsman out of the three.

Pardon? Not that I know of. Actually, I've rarely heard Gavaskar compared with them let alone better by "every commentator". Sobers I remember came out saying Gavaskar was the best ever but that's a stretch and by some way. He also generally tended to rate players of his time more.

I'd say Viv was Lillee in terms of batsmen and Chappell was Marshall. In that the former pair had a fantastic record and had something special which made people - experts and fans alike - crow about them. The latter two were also formidable; had arguably better "stats" - or ones that tended to read better - but just didn't get the same praise as the former pair. Not that they weren't great or didn't have arguments in their own right as the greatest bowler/2nd greatest batsman but it got touted less.

Gavaskar I've read a lot of praise as an opener but not so much in direct comparison to them. As far as I'd rate them: Viv > Chappell > Gavaskar >= Border.

 

[ankitj]

Pardon? Not that I know of. Actually, I've rarely heard Gavaskar compared with them let alone better by "every commentator". Sobers I remember came out saying Gavaskar was the best ever but that's a stretch and by some way. He also generally tended to rate players of his time more.

I'd say Viv was Lillee in terms of batsmen and Chappell was Marshall. In that the former pair had a fantastic record and had something special which made people - experts and fans alike - crow about them. The latter two were also formidable; had arguably better "stats" - or ones that tended to read better - but just didn't get the same praise as the former pair. Not that they weren't great or didn't have arguments in their own right as the greatest bowler/2nd greatest batsman but it got touted less.

Gavaskar I've read a lot of praise as an opener but not so much in direct comparison to them. As far as I'd rate them: Viv > Chappell > Gavaskar >= Border.

1) Gavaskar made Benaud's XI, Chappell did not
2) Gavaskar made cricinfo's second XI, Chappell did not
3) Gavaskar was ranked 10th vs Chappell's 17th in ESPN Legends of cricket
4) Gavaskar received 12 votes vs Chappell's 0 in Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century vote

You can get away with saying that Gavaskar has less competition in opener's position in first 2 cases, but nothing comes to your rescue for last two. Enough evidence of Gavaskar being rated higher than Chappell by nearly all experts? And are they in the same "statistical ballpark"?

And nice flip to put Gavaskar >= Border in a few weeks time. Check

 

[smash84]

btw of their contemporaries who rated Chappell as the best batsmen?

Gavaskar was pretty high on the list for Roberts and Imran from the top of my head. Who else?

 

[karan316]

Pardon? Not that I know of. Actually, I've rarely heard Gavaskar compared with them let alone better by "every commentator". Sobers I remember came out saying Gavaskar was the best ever but that's a stretch and by some way. He also generally tended to rate players of his time more.

I'd say Viv was Lillee in terms of batsmen and Chappell was Marshall. In that the former pair had a fantastic record and had something special which made people - experts and fans alike - crow about them. The latter two were also formidable; had arguably better "stats" - or ones that tended to read better - but just didn't get the same praise as the former pair. Not that they weren't great or didn't have arguments in their own right as the greatest bowler/2nd greatest batsman but it got touted less.

Gavaskar I've read a lot of praise as an opener but not so much in direct comparison to them. As far as I'd rate them: Viv > Chappell > Gavaskar >= Border.

What? I can understand Viv>Gavaskar, but Chapell? I don't think so.
And secondly, Viv wasn't Lillee in terms of batsmen, Viv played in all countries and has a much complete record(you can call him an Imran or Marshall of batsmen)

 

[Ikki]

1) Gavaskar made Benaud's XI, Chappell did not
2) Gavaskar made cricinfo's second XI, Chappell did not
3) Gavaskar was ranked 10th vs Chappell's 17th in ESPN Legends of cricket
4) Gavaskar received 12 votes vs Chappell's 0 in Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century vote

You can get away with saying that Gavaskar has less competition in opener's position in first 2 cases, but nothing comes to your rescue for last two. Enough evidence of Gavaskar being rated higher than Chappell by nearly all experts? And are they in the same "statistical ballpark"?

And nice flip to put Gavaskar >= Border in a few weeks time. Check

1+2; they're not competing for the same positions.
3; that list was not compiled purely due to cricketing ability but bigger things like legacy and impact. Gavaskar was probably the first great batsman from the subcontinent; Chappell was simply another great Australian bat.
4; similar to the above. At worst, 12 people think he was better - and I have a suspicion 10 of them were Indian.

Again, I've never even heard them being directly compared.

TBF re Gavaskar and Border I am still not sure. The thing that separates them is that Gavaskar had a better record at home compared to Border - although their homes had different conditions - whereas I think Gavaskar was poor against England compared to Border. Gavaskar's accomplishments against Aus/WI in that time is a bit misleading once you delve closer into the attacks he actually faced. It's pretty close, I am not really fussed whether it is G>B G=B or G<B. Personally (meaning not what I consider others rated them as batsmen), I'd rate Border, but in my rating here I am being less partisan since I think the things that bother me about Gavaskar (i.e. his slow batting) don't bother others. I actually edited my post several times in the above; you just saw >=. In that link of me it is a thread re hall of fame, which is not a pure batting consideration - although the majority of the discussion.

 

[Ikki]

What? I can understand Viv>Gavaskar, but Chapell? I don't think so.
And secondly, Viv wasn't Lillee in terms of batsmen, Viv played in all countries and has a much complete record(you can call him an Imran or Marshall of batsmen)

Viv's record is sound re playing everywhere, my point was that on a simple read of the stats - similar to Lillee, but for different reasons - he may not have the best case and this is often brought against him.

Why not Viv > Chappell?

 

[ankitj]

I get it. You remain completely objective in your judgments