Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[silentstriker]

I have a lot of respect for Chappell as a player and would have him over Sunny (though of course its hard to compare openers vs. middle order, I think Chappell is a better overall package). Obviously as has been said, Sunny may make more all time XIs because of the nature of their positions.

As for Lillle vs. Imran...Lilllee has always been the 'fast bowlers fast bowler', like Wasim in many ways. It's who other fast bowlers want to emulate due to their ability to do so many things with the ball that others can't. Now does that make him objectively better? I don't know but there's something to be said about reputation and intimidation (both of which Lillee had in spades) getting your team wickets.

I know most people have Lillee as better than McGrath, and while I disagree, I can totally see why - he has an aura that's hard to match. IMO Lillee was probably a better bowler than Imran but Imran definitely the better overall package IMO (batting, captaincy, etc).

 

[Ikki]

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.

And the other way round? They generally aren't ever compared. Not in so far as I have read.

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

Who is Lillee, even?

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.

And you got a proper reply you had no answer to. Don't hide behind your silence. If you've read my posts you'd also know what I think of Tendulkar and my stance on using popular opinion. In fact, it was answered in this very thread. It's becoming clear to me you read what you like, irrespective of what is said.

 

[hang on]

Who is Lillee, even?

the apotheosis of all things good and great, evidently.

 

[Furball]

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)?

 

[bagapath]

And the other way round? They generally aren't ever compared. Not in so far as I have read.

sunny was no 10 in espn legends list. chappell was no.17. that is a good start for gavaskar's case.

he also made it to benaud's and cricinfo's XIs (2nd). chappell didnt make it to either. even if you want to attribute the second point to their specific roles (opener vs middle order) the espn legends list is a good enough indicator of sunny's legacy. if you can show one, even one, list where chappell is rated above gavaskar then we can consider them as equals. if you can show two, then we can assume chappell was rated higher than gavaskar. but there is none. zilch.

btw, even cmj rated gavaskar above chappell.

 

[Burgey]

sunny was no 10 in espn legends list. chappell was no.17. that is a good start for gavaskar's case.

he also made it to benaud's and cricinfo's XIs (2nd). chappell didnt make it to either. even if you want to attribute the second point to their specific roles (opener vs middle order) the espn legends list is a good enough indicator of sunny's legacy. if you can show one, even one, list where chappell is rated above gavaskar then we can consider them as equals. if you can show two, then we can assume chappell was rated higher than gavaskar. but there is none. zilch.

btw, even cmj rated gavaskar above chappell.

I think Chappell is a better player than Gavaskar, not that that means anything though. Just saying.

CMJ never saw him bat in Australia then.

Edit: out of interest, where did Lillee rate compared with Marshall and Imran in ESPN's Legends of Cricket, seeing as that's a measure you're comfortable using?

 

[hang on]

sunny was no 10 in espn legends list. chappell was no.17. that is a good start for gavaskar's case.

it also did have warne at 4!

 

[Sanz]

I think Chappell is a better player than Gavaskar, not that that means anything though. Just saying.

CMJ never saw him bat in Australia then.

Why would you say that ?

 

[hang on]

Why would you say that ?

because, i suspect, gavaskar wasn't much cop against lillee and co. at their best. however, he did well enough against the second tier ones.

 

[Burgey]

because, i suspect, gavaskar wasn't much cop against lillee and co. at their best. however, he did well enough against the second tier ones.

Ind33d.

See, I find it interesting that it's ok to make the perfectly reasonable point that Marshall > Lillee and others because he bowled better on flat pitches in the subcontinent yet not mention that Gavaskar had the benefit of playing the West Indies on those same flat pitches whereas Chappell dealt with them in Perth and Brisbane.

Just saying.

 

[bagapath]

I think Chappell is a better player than Gavaskar, not that that means anything though. Just saying.

CMJ never saw him bat in Australia then.

Edit: out of interest, where did Lillee rate compared with Marshall and Imran in ESPN's Legends of Cricket, seeing as that's a measure you're comfortable using?

i make up my own mind in all such discussions burgey. expert opinion is not something i use to split players i have seen. if you say chappell is better than gavaskar i wont try to beat you down using cmj's list or espn's list.

the reason i brought up those lists was to explain to posters who are using expert opinion as the final word to rate lillee above imran that such calls have to be consistent in every discussion we take part in. if you say lillee was better than imran because experts say so, then gavaskar should be deemed better than chappell. one cant twist the facts whenever it suits you and use such measures arbitrarily.

and yes. cmj may not have seen gavaskar bat in australia. that goes with my earlier argument that lillee's high rating by experts will boil down to the fact that they didnt see imran bowl in pakistan so they dont realize how great he was.

for all practical purposes gavaskar = chappell; lillee = imran. gavaskar and lillee get rated above only because of the colored glasses experts wear.

 

[Burgey]

i make up my own mind in all such discussions burgey. expert opinion is not something i use to split players i have seen. if you say chappell is better than gavaskar i wont try to beat you down using cmj's list or espn's list.

the reason i brought up those lists was to explain to posters who are using expert opinion as the final word to rate lillee above imran that such calls have to be consistent in every discussion we take part in. if you say lillee was better than imran because experts say so then gavaskar should be deemed better than chappell. one cant twist the facts whenever it suits you and use such measures arbitrarily.

and yes. cmj may not have seen gavaskar bat in australia. that goes with my earlier argument that lillee's high rating by experts will boil down to the fact they didnt see imran bowl in pakistan so they dont realize how great he was.

for all practical purposes gavaskar = chappell; lillee = imran. gavaskar and lillee get rated above only because of the colored glasses experts wear.

Ah I see what you mean. I thought that was not your normal go

It transpires we were making the same point from the opposite examples.

 

[Sanz]

because, i suspect, gavaskar wasn't much cop against lillee and co. at their best. however, he did well enough against the second tier ones.

I disagree with that. It is difficult to bat in Australia (or in most away series) regardless of who you are up against. It is cherry picking of his performance in 2 tests where Gavaskar did not do well.

 

[intcricket]

Its a matter of POV and the weight people attach to it. To claim that Lillee is a better bowler than Imran, is like saying Steve Waugh is a better batsman than Rahul Dravid and Shane Warne is a better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan.

 

[ankitj]

I think Chappell is a better player than Gavaskar, not that that means anything though. Just saying.

CMJ never saw him bat in Australia then.

Edit: out of interest, where did Lillee rate compared with Marshall and Imran in ESPN's Legends of Cricket, seeing as that's a measure you're comfortable using?

Here's the full list: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/16644-espns-legends-cricket.html For some reason, wikipedia has taken off the entry on ESPN legends of cricket.

FTR, since I started the entire Chappell - Gavaskar discussion, I rate Chappell > Gavaskar. My reason for raising this as an example was exactly same as Bagapath's

EDIT: and here's the article on wisden 5 cricketers selection for the interested ones: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/153387.html

 

[Ikki]

sunny was no 10 in espn legends list. chappell was no.17. that is a good start for gavaskar's case.

he also made it to benaud's and cricinfo's XIs (2nd). chappell didnt make it to either. even if you want to attribute the second point to their specific roles (opener vs middle order) the espn legends list is a good enough indicator of sunny's legacy. if you can show one, even one, list where chappell is rated above gavaskar then we can consider them as equals. if you can show two, then we can assume chappell was rated higher than gavaskar. but there is none. zilch.

btw, even cmj rated gavaskar above chappell.

It's actually a very poor one once you look at the voting system. I don't know who voted who or if that was ever revealed but if nationalistic bias is taken into account it is pretty safe to say that the Australian voting block was split between several players whereas it is probably safe in assuming the Indian one was voting for Gavaskar. They got 5 picks each, so how many of them would have been non-Indians? Few I would be betting.

The other point is irrelevant; they aren't going for the same position. I don't even see any special accomplishment - like Lillee or Viv had - that Gavaskar had and Chappell didn't. In fact, Chappell went to WSC and was marvelous and scored against great attacks.

I am not saying Sunny is not a highly rated cricketer, but the assertion that he is better than Chappell based on the proof given is poor to say the least. It started with a desperate attempt from ankit to try to find a double-standard.

 

[ankitj]

It started with a desperate attempt from ankit to try to find a double-standard.

How about Bob Simpson vs Gavaskar? Popular opinion? Statisitcs?

Drop the pretence of being objective, and no one shall mind what you say in these comparison discussions.

 

[Ikki]

How about Bob Simpson vs Gavaskar? Popular opinion? Statisitcs?

Drop the pretence of being objective, and no one shall mind what you say in these comparison discussions.

I don't understand; just because I don't rate Gavaskar doesn't mean I can't claim consensus on a certain issue?

You don't really follow my posting so you end up looking silly because of it. I don't like the way Gavaskar batted; I've rated Hayden and Sehwag over him in general when I know the grand majority would consider otherwise. I've done this outwardly. It also shows how utterly lost you are when the thread you linked is a Pre-Packer world XI. Haha, how bloody desperate.

 

[Fusion]

It's actually a very poor one once you look at the voting system. I don't know who voted who or if that was ever revealed but if nationalistic bias is taken into account it is pretty safe to say that the Australian voting block was split between several players whereas it is probably safe in assuming the Indian one was voting for Gavaskar. They got 5 picks each, so how many of them would have been non-Indians? Few I would be betting.

Wow. So let me summarize a typical debate with Ikki:

Random Poster: The record shows that player A is better than Ikki’s preferred player.
Ikki: Well if you filter out these 50 different instances that I decided were not relevant (and coincidentally hurt the record of my player) then you will clearly see that my guy is better. Duh!

Random Poster: The experts rate player A better!
Ikki: That’s because they’re biased, otherwise you will clearly see that my guy is better. Duh!

I think you bring a lot to this forum Ikki, I really do. Your posts generate debate, which is a good thing for a forum IMO. You're also a good debater and force the other side to really research and articulate their points well. However, your filtering of stats and dismissal of anything that goes against your favorite players is really frustrating and causes people to immediately disregard your opinion as biased. That's a shame really because you do (sometimes ) make some excellent points.

 

[Ikki]

Wow. So let me summarize a typical debate with Ikki:

Random Poster: The record shows that player A is better than Ikki’s preferred player.
Ikki: Well if you filter out these 50 different instances that I decided were not relevant (and coincidentally hurt the record of my player) then you will clearly see that my guy is better. Duh!

Except that's BS and a cop out. Which things did I filter out that didn't matter? Minnows? Samples of 4 or less innings? Make a retort to a point that was actually brought up. Thanks.

Random Poster: The experts rate player A better!
Ikki: That’s because they’re biased, otherwise you will clearly see that my guy is better. Duh!

Ankit's point revolves around a roundabout comparison of players - not any 2 players directly - where each judge got 5 votes each. The majority of them picked Bradman and Sobers, so generally 3 real choices. Just who apart from Indians are going to rate Gavaskar one of the top 5 cricketers of all time? A great batsman, but the assertion that he is one of the top 5 cricketers of all time is a stretch to say the least. Let's not blind ourselves to the obvious. To then use this method of polling as evidence in a direct comparison between players is further grating, if not disingenuous.

I think you bring a lot to this forum Ikki, I really do. Your posts generate debate, which is a good thing for a forum IMO. You're also a good debater and force the other side to really research and articulate their points well. However, your filtering of stats and dismissal of anything that goes against your favorite players is really frustrating and causes people to immediately disregard your opinion as biased. That's a shame really because you do (sometimes ) make some excellent points.

I have to say, it is nice to to hear if someone thinks your posts are worthwhile, but that means no more to me than a critique of my posts would without proper reference. As I said, if you have a particular gripe with a measure I've used, then say so. If you can't justify a gripe then your point is irrelevant to me. It is incredible how when I bring up a point for a subcontinental cricketer (or non-Australian cricketer) and use these same measures there is no hoo-hah; yet when it is an Australian it gets the same reactions from the same corners.

Frankly - and I say this to be honest, not to offend you - I have very little regard for someone's opinion if they can't pinpoint their disagreement with me and resort to vague references of bias. I would much rather someone provide a legitimate gripe specific to a point I've brought than vague praise in order to placate me in some way.

Again, I invite you to discuss/argue a measure I've used that you think is illogical, flawed or not proper for use. For me, it doesn't matter if I disagree with someone 10/10 times on players or teams, only that their arguments hold water. I am not interested in discussions just to agree with people.