Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[smash84]

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.


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 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.

:::

 

[Fusion]

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.

When you arbitrarily decide to filter out stats, you do so according to your own personal criteria of what is and isn't acceptable. Can you point me to a consensus definition of what a "minnow" is please? Have you taken into account the fact that while a team may be considered minnowish overall, they may not be minnowish in ALL factors of their game? For example, refer to this post and this for excellent counter arguments to your filtering style.

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.

So it's clearly the Indian/sub-continental bias because of which Gavaskar came out ahead of Chappell? Would it then be OK for me to claim bias on the part of the Western voters that Lillee came out ahead of Imran (remember this is not just a bowler comparison, but "legends" so players as a whole) and Warne came out ahead of Murali? Instead of claiming bias, why not just accept that the majority of the experts in that exercise rated Gavaskar higher than your preferred player?

My whole point regarding your posting style is that you cherry pick stats and opinions according to what favors your opinion, not according to any established consensus in the cricketing world. I don't want to get into a long debate about the matter though as it obviously derails from the thread topic, so I'm just going to leave it at this.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There should be a separate forum for statsmongers who know nothing about cricket that can't be shown on a spreadsheet. The main point of interest on Ikki's posts is the time between the post and the final edit - 23 minutes on the last one at the last count.

 

[hang on]

on a separate note, the way the wisden 5 were chosen was ridiculous! the number of voters from each country were based on the number tests played by the country. no wonder a certain spinner was 'chosen' as one of the players of the century.

almost as bad as those polls where the sheer number of those polled from india have tendulkar as better than bradman by a landslide.

 

[ankitj]

No no no. Warne's selection in the top 5 had nothing to do with nationalistic bias. Only Gavaskar's nominations were due to bias.

 

[Migara]

Hikz!

 

[Ikki]

When you arbitrarily decide to filter out stats, you do so according to your own personal criteria of what is and isn't acceptable. Can you point me to a consensus definition of what a "minnow" is please? Have you taken into account the fact that while a team may be considered minnowish overall, they may not be minnowish in ALL factors of their game? For example, refer to this post and this for excellent counter arguments to your filtering style.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. I will explain again: if one player plays a minnow - or however you wish to define them, simply a very weak team - far more than another player than that has to be taken into account for it inflates their overall figures and skews the comparison. I simply remove them, but someone like PEWS standardised them. Which is fine, but there has to be an adjustment made. If you disagree with this, then you simply don't like any records adjusted, even if it keeps such peculiarities, which is fine, but it does not make my adjustment arbitrary.

There are also games where I am sure strong teams play like minnows but I don't remove them either. One can get into an inning by inning analysis if they wish, but I don't have the time. I am trying to be more accurate by using adjustments, but not to that degree. I am not trying to say Imran becomes incomparable to Lillee, but that the main contention of some (that Lillee has NO statistical case - is not founded on deep reflection of the stats.

So it's clearly the Indian/sub-continental bias because of which Gavaskar came out ahead of Chappell? Would it then be OK for me to claim bias on the part of the Western voters that Lillee came out ahead of Imran (remember this is not just a bowler comparison, but "legends" so players as a whole) and Warne came out ahead of Murali? Instead of claiming bias, why not just accept that the majority of the experts in that exercise rated Gavaskar higher than your preferred player?

My whole point regarding your posting style is that you cherry pick stats and opinions according to what favors your opinion, not according to any established consensus in the cricketing world. I don't want to get into a long debate about the matter though as it obviously derails from the thread topic, so I'm just going to leave it at this.

So, ironically, the very sentence you had in bold in the last quote of mine is the one you are in essence agreeing with. When I made that statement I agreed that their would be bias on both parts. HOWEVER, the Australians, even if pure bias was their cause, would be split in their vote because there were/are so many great Australian cricketers. Indians, do not have that distinction - this is not a put down but a reality. Hence this kind of polling is flawed in this regard. IIRC both Keith Miller and Lara didn't get a vote between them either.

More specifically, to Lillee: damn near everyone at the time thought he was the best. The team with the best fast bowlers for much of his career (WI) had their players almost uniformly name him the best. I think Lillee was more likely to get that kind of a varied vote. Rightly or wrongly, it is clear he was popular. Even those that may have not see him as the best in the strictest sense of ability probably gave him his dues in setting down the marker for the modern fast bowler.

 

[kyear2]

And Border, Wasim and even Jeff Thompson and many more though Malcolm was the best, everyone had their favs, doesnt prove anything definitively one way or another.

 

[bagapath]

ikki... your excuse about voting blocks and such **** is disappointing dude.

 

[bagapath]

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.
.

no they did not. they were choosing top 25 players of all time. dont get this confused with the wisden 5. for the espn legends list each judge drew up a list of 25 players. based on a simple points system the top 50 were chosen out of which the top 25 were profiled. it is very clear that gavaskar has got more respect among the voting panel than chappell; it doesnt necessarily make him a better player, just like lillee coming above imran doesnt automatically make him a superior bowler.

going by your "voting block" logic it means that ex players are also heavily biased. so lillee's legacy doesnt mean anything in his actual position in the pantheon of greats.

 

[Ikki]

ikki... your excuse about voting blocks and such **** is disappointing dude.

Unfortunately, it's a reality. It really is pretty far-fetched to consider him in the top 5 players of all time. Yet 12 people voted him so and there were 10 Indian panelists. In such a poll 1 vote can take you several places; and it is a flawed vote.

no they did not. they were choosing top 25 players of all time. dont get this confused with the wisden 5. for the espn legends list each judge drew up a list of 25 players. based on a simple points system the top 50 were chosen out of which the top 25 were profiled. it is very clear that gavaskar has got more respect among the voting panel than chappell; it doesnt necessarily make him a better player, just like lillee coming above imran doesnt automatically make him a superior bowler.

going by your "voting block" logic it means that ex players are also heavily biased. so lillee's legacy doesnt mean anything in his actual position in the pantheon of greats.

The ESPN poll had it's own problems. Apart from those at the very top garnering a lot of votes a handful of votes could take you many positions up and down. Personally, I've always taken such lists as a means to argue both the player's ability but also their legacy. If we were talking merely about two comparable bowlers/batsmen in the same era then such a poll would be more useful in using it as an argument. You are talking about an opener and a middle-order batsman that, as far as the cricket literature I've read, were pretty much never directly compared. Chappell was frequently compared to Viv and usually 2nd to him - but none else.

FYI, if Lillee was only rated by Australians this highly then I wouldn't give the opiniosn much weight. But he was rated if not idolised across the globe; from the Viv to Hadlee; the consensus is something like Sobers' where his game transgressed national borders.

Now, if you are saying Gavaskar did the same thing, then we simply won't agree.

 

[bagapath]

Unfortunately, it's a reality. It really is pretty far-fetched to consider him in the top 5 players of all time. Yet 12 people voted him so and there were 10 Indian panelists. In such a poll 1 vote can take you several places; and it is a flawed vote.



The ESPN poll had it's own problems. Apart from those at the very top garnering a lot of votes a handful of votes could take you many positions up and down. Personally, I've always taken such lists as a means to argue both the player's ability but also their legacy. If we were talking merely about two comparable bowlers/batsmen in the same era then such a poll would be more useful in using it as an argument. You are talking about an opener and a middle-order batsman that, as far as the cricket literature I've read, were pretty much never directly compared. Chappell was frequently compared to Viv and usually 2nd to him - but none else.

FYI, if Lillee was only rated by Australians this highly then I wouldn't give the opiniosn much weight. But he was rated if not idolised across the globe; from the Viv to Hadlee; the consensus is something like Sobers' where his game transgressed national borders.

Now, if you are saying Gavaskar did the same thing, then we simply won't agree.

no one selected top 5 players of all time ikki!!! you have misunderstood the voting process of the espn panel and you are forming an argument based on that wrong understanding. again, they selected 25 cricketers. like how cw selected 50 cricketers a while ago, for example. personal biases get nullified in such polls and what emerges at the end of it is a list that is more or less accurate with the universal perception of those players. gavaskar is certainly more idolized than chappell. just like lillee is idolized more than gavaskar. and lists such as the espn legends or cmj's top 100 establish such reputations that may not really be reflective of the said players' abilities. it is not true that gavaskar was way better than chappell. and it is not true that lillee was way better than imran either.

 

[Ikki]

You are referring to the ESPN list, I am the Wisden one. In the latter, they did select only 5. In the former, they selected 25; but it still has it's flaws for if the same people are voting Gavaskar highly - like in the Wisden one - it will skew the results.

You've missed my point re idolisation or being rated. There was no consensus on Gavaskar being the best or being better than Chappell. He may have been more popular in some quarters, but it wasn't for being the best. That is something both Lillee and Viv had for example.

No one is saying one player is "way' better than another FTR. Anyway, this discussion has run its course.

 

[kyear2]

Lillee was never universally or unanamously seen as the greatest, and neither was Viv. Lillee's opening partner of all people thought Marshall was better, coincidentally also thought Chappel was the best he saw.
To the best of my knowlede few players were universally seen as best of their era. Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers.

 

[kyear2]

When Cricinfo selected their all time team, and the closest to fair and unbiased I have seen, only Sobers, Bradman and Warne were consensus selections. Only 4 more were selected by 11 voters. Lille wasnt one of them.

 

[Howe_zat]

To the best of my knowlede few players were universally seen as best of their era. Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers.

Grace.

 

[Ikki]

Lillee was never universally or unanamously seen as the greatest, and neither was Viv. Lillee's opening partner of all people thought Marshall was better, coincidentally also thought Chappel was the best he saw.
To the best of my knowlede few players were universally seen as best of their era. Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers.

Except he was from those in his era and he is still the most touted name when discussing greats of the past. In fact Cricinfo had an article where the likes of Hadlee, Roberts, Rice, McGrath, Proctor, Ambrose, Walsh, Bond were asked and he was the most touted name. He was always up there or considered the best. The WI in particular used to single him out, Lloyd, Viv, Holding, Roberts held him in the highest esteem. Viv credits Lillee into challenging him into becoming the batsman he became; and was probably the only bowler he felt his equal while at the crease.

Viv too, from all around; especially from the Australian team and from Sachin to Sangakkara was worshipped. You're simply revising history.

When Cricinfo selected their all time team, and the closest to fair and unbiased I have seen, only Sobers, Bradman and Warne were consensus selections. Only 4 more were selected by 11 voters. Lille wasnt one of them.

It was actually a pretty crappily made list in the way it handled all-rounders. It was also picked by only 8 former players and 4 writers. You can say what you wish about the consensus among them, but it is a smaller sample and I don't think it is better than the ESPN or Wisden one. Not that they are perfect but better. As an aside, I think the thing that helps those 3 are 1) one is unarguable 2) there aren't a whole lot of all-rounders or spinners to split the vote as much as great fast bowlers.

The bolded part is a reference the article made to a player who was in both the 1st and 2nd XI. This is not something to tout in your argument against Lillee. All 12 could have voted for a certain player with 1 in the 1st XI and the other 11 in the 2nd XI. This only means they weren't seen as any worse than the 2nd XI, not necessarily a consensus on the best. Lillee was the highest rated fast bowler in the poll, with 48 points - more than Akram and Marshall, the other two fast bowlers, who were in amongst the 4 you mention.

 

[kyear2]

Grace.

I did think of him afterwards, and in reality he was probably the only one, as some consisdered Sutcliffe as Hobbs equal or almost, Khanai was though of by some as more talented if not better than Sobers and a few in the West Indies and around the work though Headley the better of Bradman.

But over all yes, Grace, Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers can be seen as the only players universally seen as better than their peers.
And Ikki, most touted is not indisputed or by consensus.
You totally disregarded what I said about Border and Jeff Thompson and others who all though Marshall better and I am sure there were some as well who though Hadlee or Imran his superior.
Lillee was not seen by EVERYONE in the era as being undisputably the best. He just wasn't. If you want to say more that his fair share of his Contemporaries though him better then sure, but the man who opened the bowling with him said that someone else was better. It wasnt universal. That means almost everyone, and that wasnt the case.
Btw, they never revealed the votes for the bolwers from the vote from the Cricinfo exercise.
Additionally you prefer one selection over another based purely on how you perceive the results and how they favour your arguments. I dont agree with every slection on the team either, but find me a team selected by a committee that is fairer or with more balanced a selection panel.
Lillee was great, but even by temas selected by the knowledable members of this forum, Lillee made it into the 3rd 11, or do the members here not know anything either. We also recently voted for our top 5 cricketers of all time, Marshall was #4, Lillee was not in the top 10.
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and if you want to strech it Warne, as much as you would want to put Lillee there he just isn't.

 

[Jono]

The Chappell vs. Gavaskar argument gets juicy when you consider who was the bigger tool post retirement.

Gavaskar probably takes that one I guess.

 

[Jono]

The Ikki vs. the rest argument in this thread seems to be about what the general consensus was during the 70s with regards to Gavaskar vs. G Chappell. It isn't "who was better", but just an argument about what popular opinion was.

Since this is a pretty simple issue, rather than this argument about voting blocks and whether so and so was biased etc. can some CWers who watched cricket during the 70s (and who remember the 70s, that leaves you out old man Burgey) let us know what most thought about them? Maybe it was pretty even, but they were both seen as behind Viv? Maybe Gavaskar was seen as better, maybe Chappell. Surely this is a much easier way then having an argument about whether the Wisden top cricketers or the ESPN Legends of Cricket voting was nationalistically biased or had agendas etc. No one wants to read that.