Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Ikki]

I get it. You remain completely objective in your judgments

The insinuation is laughable; you have yet to substantiate one proper comparison between them where you place "every commentator" in going for Gavaskar. It simply doesn't exist. It's nothing like the consensus held for Lillee and Viv. Try harder.

 

[karan316]

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?

Viv>Chappell, I was disagreeing with Chappell>Gavaskar. But I think its difficult to judge between Chappell and Gavaskar, both of them have an excellent record, they have quite a lot of things in common, even right now, both of them are in the news for wrong reasons, one is a pathetic and biased commentator and the other is known for managing the players badly and making them insecure and creating problems from nowhere ,they are just making it even more difficult to compare.
Its difficult to compare them, both on and off the field

 

[Ikki]

Viv>Chappell, I was disagreeing with Chappell>Gavaskar. But I think its difficult to judge between Chappell and Gavaskar, both of them have an excellent record, they have quite a lot of things in common, even right now, both of them are in the news for wrong reasons, one is a pathetic and biased commentator and the other is known for managing the players badly and making them insecure and creating problems from nowhere ,they are just making it even more difficult to compare.
Its difficult to compare them, both on and off the field

Why Viv at all for you? As evinced by this thread; you don't seem to care about the opinion of experts. Do you think Gavaskar or Chappell over Viv?

 

[karan316]

Why Viv at all for you? As evinced by this thread; you don't seem to care about the opinion of experts. Do you think Gavaskar or Chappell over Viv?

No, I think Viv > Any other batsmen.

 

[Ikki]

No, I think Viv > Any other batsmen.

Why? Anyone can make a thread like you have about Lillee and replace Imran with Ponting, Chappell, Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers, etc.

 

[Burgey]

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?

Probably those who saw them bat in Australia against non-pop gun attacks.

It's pretty close tbh. They were very different players though.

 

[hang on]

where is this putative universal consensus that lillee was the best fast bowler of them all?

 

[kyear2]

where is this putative universal consensus that lillee was the best fast bowler of them all?

There isn't. Both he and Marshall have their fair share of fans, and while most people even if they have Lille as number one have Marshall in the top two or three, there are quite a few that think Lillee is slightly over rated.

Back to the point about Benauds team. There is an Aussie bias. To say that Rodnay Marsh is a better keeper than Knott is rediculous, especially when I dont even think he was better than even Dujon or Murray (think they are equal). The fact that Larwood by his own admission made his short list because of one series when he made Bradman look human.
The fact that he could have made short lists that didnt include Allan Knott, Malcolm Marshall and didnt even mention the name Muralitharan almost invalidates the exercise.

 

[Burgey]

There isn't. Both he and Marshall have their fair share of fans, and while most people even if they have Lille as number one have Marshall in the top two or three, there are quite a few that think Lillee is slightly over rated.

Back to the point about Benauds team. There is an Aussie bias. To say that Rodnay Marsh is a better keeper than Knott is rediculous, especially when I dont even think he was better than even Dujon or Murray (think they are equal). The fact that Larwood by his own admission made his short list because of one series when he made Bradman look human.
The fact that he could have made short lists that didnt include Allan Knott, Malcolm Marshall and didnt even mention the name Muralitharan almost invalidates the exercise.

Haha. No it doesn't.

Because its his team.

Not yours or mine. His to choose. So it can't be invalidated because the majority of people might disagree with it.

 

[hang on]

Haha. No it doesn't.

Because its his team.

Not yours or mine. His to choose. So it can't be invalidated because the majority of people might disagree with it.

sure. but the team certainly can be questioned.
personally, have no problems with it, though the omission of marshall from even the short lists is rather odd. were there any particular reasons given?

in the same way that there were more than just a few raised eyebrows when bradman's team was finally revealed.

 

[kyear2]

Haha. No it doesn't.

Because its his team.

Not yours or mine. His to choose. So it can't be invalidated because the majority of people might disagree with it.

Thats why I said almost. No Knott, Marshall or Murali from even the short list doesnt pass the smell test

 

[Hit Wicket]

Interesting thread, though too much of mindless statistics being thrown into the mix. Not that I am a fan of the extreme statistical "analysis" done here, just wanted to make a few points for those presenting statistical "arguments" :

1. Imran was an all rounder and towards the latter stages of his career did not play as a bowler. It makes no sense to compare the part of his career when he was in the team primarily as a batsman, when doing a bowling analysis.

2. Sri Lanka were no minnows with the bat. Their perennial problem was and still is the bowling department except for the Vaas and Murali phase. Roy Dias, Mendis etc. were accomplished batsmen. Imran bowled to them in the '83-'86 period when he was at his peak anyways and that average of 15 against Sri Lanka was his average against other teams as well during that time. How anyone can exclude them is beyond me!

3. Regarding the argument in the thread about home versus away - a lot of factors come into play which cannot be readily gleamed through stats. Pakistani batsmen were not exactly renowned for their touring skills and often got bowled out pretty cheaply leaving Imran to bowl with a deficit of 100-200 runs on quite a few occasions. Those kind of situations spoil the so called "stats". Anil Kumble is a classic example of how a strengthened batting line up abroad lent a new sting to his bowling overseas - not that he did not improve himself, but it did not happen in isolation.

4.Lillee skipped a couple of subcontinent tours without any injury/contract concerns - that should surely be held as a talking point even if one legitimately ignores the tours he was forced to miss due to injury and Packer.

I would pick Imran, but at the same time would have no issues if someone picked Lillee, for he has been rated as the best bowler faced by a lot of batsmen of his time who were doing a bit more than typing on a keyboard like you or I. However, to justify Lillee's pick on statistical grounds just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Hit Wicket]

BTW, I am not too familiar with the forum, so maybe some regulars can fill me in on this - is this Ikki guy some sort of wind up (no offense)? Reading through a few threads he seems keen to derail every discussion topic into some Australian versus another debate regardless where things started from. Gavaskar and Chappell? What have they got to do with this thread about Imran and Lillee?

Apologies to the mods if my asking this question is overstepping the rules of the forum.

 

[ankitj]

where things started from. Gavaskar and Chappell? What have they got to do with this thread about Imran and Lillee?

I am the guilty one on that. I was responding to ikki's assertion that he rates player who are too close statistically based on popular opinion as a justification for Lillee > all. I asked him why that doesn't apply to Gavaskar vs Chappell. He cooked something up. Even wanted to ask why he'd rate Chappell > Tendulkar given the popular opinion but decided to let it go.

 

[bagapath]

would love to know which cricket expert rated Greg C above Sunil G. not that it would be blasphemous, just that it didn't happen as far as i know.

 

[Burgey]

sure. but the team certainly can be questioned.
personally, have no problems with it, though the omission of marshall from even the short lists is rather odd. were there any particular reasons given?

in the same way that there were more than just a few raised eyebrows when bradman's team was finally revealed.

Questioning it is very different to invalidating it though.

 

[hang on]

would love to know which cricket expert rated Greg C above Sunil G. not that it would be blasphemous, just that it didn't happen as far as i know.

ikki.


jokes aside, there were some, though, frankly, the names do not roll off the tongue.

 

[smash84]

Interesting thread, though too much of mindless statistics being thrown into the mix. Not that I am a fan of the extreme statistical "analysis" done here, just wanted to make a few points for those presenting statistical "arguments" :

1. Imran was an all rounder and towards the latter stages of his career did not play as a bowler. It makes no sense to compare the part of his career when he was in the team primarily as a batsman, when doing a bowling analysis.

2. Sri Lanka were no minnows with the bat. Their perennial problem was and still is the bowling department except for the Vaas and Murali phase. Roy Dias, Mendis etc. were accomplished batsmen. Imran bowled to them in the '83-'86 period when he was at his peak anyways and that average of 15 against Sri Lanka was his average against other teams as well during that time. How anyone can exclude them is beyond me!

3. Regarding the argument in the thread about home versus away - a lot of factors come into play which cannot be readily gleamed through stats. Pakistani batsmen were not exactly renowned for their touring skills and often got bowled out pretty cheaply leaving Imran to bowl with a deficit of 100-200 runs on quite a few occasions. Those kind of situations spoil the so called "stats". Anil Kumble is a classic example of how a strengthened batting line up abroad lent a new sting to his bowling overseas - not that he did not improve himself, but it did not happen in isolation.

4.Lillee skipped a couple of subcontinent tours without any injury/contract concerns - that should surely be held as a talking point even if one legitimately ignores the tours he was forced to miss due to injury and Packer.

I would pick Imran, but at the same time would have no issues if someone picked Lillee, for he has been rated as the best bowler faced by a lot of batsmen of his time who were doing a bit more than typing on a keyboard like you or I. However, to justify Lillee's pick on statistical grounds just doesn't make any sense at all.

Hey dude. Welcome back. Seen you around after a while

 

[robelinda]

Chappell vs Gavaskar isn't so clear cut i think.

 

[kyear2]

Its much harder to compare openers to middle order batsmen. Its not fair to Chappel to say that Gavasar makes more all-time teams because the competition for opener slots is no where near as intense for muddle order (or fast bolwer for that matter) positions.
Opening is harder and more specialised and Sunny deserves credit for opeing the batting (even on those dead tracks) in that era.
Chappell was all grace and elegance and he passed the WSC test with his reputation in tact in not inhanced (though some still insisted he wasn't comfortable againts the short ball), which very few batsmen could have stated, infact only the Richards two could state the same among batsmen.
Both of them restricted their stoke play for different reasons, but both could open up when required and always played fpr their respective teams over self. Both are great players and both are in the upper echleon.