Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Burgey]

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.

The difficult thing, Jono, is that back then unless players toured your country, you didn't see them. No tours of the subcontinent by Australia were televised, same with the Windies. There wasn't the coverage we have now.

The first non-England tour by Australia I can recall being covered on TV here was the 1991 tour of the West Indies. There was some coverage of the 87 WC too, but very little test coverage from OS. And you never saw neutral series at all.

 

[Jono]

But we aren't arguing whether that popular opinion was correct or educated Burgey. All they are arguing about is what the actual popular opinion was.

Even if the answer is "Australians rated Chappell better, Indians and Pakistanis rated Gavaskar, English rated Chappell because they saw him more, West Indies rated them equal "that'd answer their question/end their debate.

 

[Jono]

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?

Also note the above.

 

[bagapath]

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.. Anyway, this discussion has run its course.

I know why you say that. you know you have deliberately mixed up the wisden list with the espn list hoping you could question the validity of the list and escape from the obvious. the fact that gavaskar was above chappell when the panel actually chose 25 cricketers makes it is clear that he was more respected, universally. you want to move away from this point because it doesnt sit with you? ha ha... yeah sure.... even i think the discussion has run its course because the correct point has been made: the espn list was a good one and it had sunil above greg. and it had lillee above imran. they both mean nothing to me. i may still choose lillee and gavaskar but that will be based on my personal choice. statistically chappell%2

 

[Jono]

Lack of Virat Kohli on the list imho

 

[hang on]

It really is pretty far-fetched to consider him in the top 5 players of all time.

totally agree. but to have warne in the top 5 players of all time by 2000 is almost as much of a stretch.

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.

nope. not better. the wisden one had the kind of proportional representation among panelists that makes the very exercise moot. and hence, not better.

bet if one were to have a panel or voting system with the same ratios of votes going to say india and pakistan (basically reversing the representation), the top 5 players of the century would be remarkably different. unless, of course, there is an unspoken assumption that one lot is objective while the other lot is not.

 

[hang on]

Also note the above.

good grief! how old are u, burgey? thought that i was among those here with the longest eyeteeth.

regarding jono's original point about old farts who watched cricket in the 70s, i was among them though i was a little on the young side in the early 70s though still mad about cricket. and very involved in conversations (sometimes at a seen and not heard level) with family and other animals: and there was no consensus about who was better between chappell and gavaskar. the comparison did not even arise. both were considered quite astonishingly good and players that we would be quite happy to have. gavaskar had the reputation (partly inflated, as we all know) for being a batsman who stood up to the windies attacks.

second, regarding lillee being looked upto by all and sundry, it does have a lot to do with the fact that he was around longer. apart from his obvious quality, the fact that he was around from the very early 70s, compared to the mid 70s and later for the others (roberts, holding, marshall and co., for starters), made him someone people could look upto. in the same way that akram (keeping aside his wizardry), by virtue of being around for that half decade longer, was looked upto as a bit of a 'senior' or 'go to guy' etc.

bit of a ramble but hey......

 

[Ikki]

I know why you say that. you know you have deliberately mixed up the wisden list with the espn list hoping you could question the validity of the list and escape from the obvious. the fact that gavaskar was above chappell when the panel actually chose 25 cricketers makes it is clear that he was more respected, universally. you want to move away from this point because it doesnt sit with you? ha ha... yeah sure.... even i think the discussion has run its course because the correct point has been made: the espn list was a good one and it had sunil above greg.

Um, what? I am saying both lists have the same exact flaw. The ESPN list is probably fairer to Chappell since it will garner him more votes - he is not in the top 5 cricketers ever so having more than 5 choices benefits him - but the system can still be flawed for the same reason if you have a bunch of people voting Gavaskar in that top 5 - out of the 25 choices.

I want to move away from the point because even though I think it is fairly predictable how nationalistic bias will play a part - especially in favour of Gavaskar - it is like calling someone's mother ugly. Even if it is true people don't want to hear it.

totally agree. but to have warne in the top 5 players of all time by 2000 is almost as much of a stretch.

I probably agree with you. Not that there was no case, but it was a big push for only a 7 year career. Rightly or wrongly, he was seen to have brought spin back and ability-wise, even then, few spinners in history could compare to him. Again, these lists have a legacy element in them; and at the time Warne brought a lot of eyes back to cricket.

nope. not better. the wisden one had the kind of proportional representation among panelists that makes the very exercise moot. and hence, not better.

bet if one were to have a panel or voting system with the same ratios of votes going to say india and pakistan (basically reversing the representation), the top 5 players of the century would be remarkably different. unless, of course, there is an unspoken assumption that one lot is objective while the other lot is not.

Perhaps; I don't think proportional representation was as important. If you wanted opinions from the best cricketers on the best cricketers then you shouldn't be striving for that because the subcontinent hadn't had as many.

 

[Ikki]

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.

I did not claim there was no dispute nor does consensus imply that there were no dissenters. A consensus is merely a general thought which is prevalent. Not all cricketers, even from Lillee's own team, thought him the best. I am saying, though, that generally when this discussion comes up, especially from that era, you'll hear his name the most. Whether this sways you is not important to me; I am merely stating what you'll generally read. You can disagree he is the best; but why to all this trouble to revise history? In Wisden, ESPN and Cricinfo (the one you thought was the fairest) he was the highest rated fast bowler. What more do you want to acknowledge how highly rated he is?

 

[smash84]

Um, what? I am saying both lists have the same exact flaw. The ESPN list is probably fairer to Chappell since it will garner him more votes - he is not in the top 5 cricketers ever so having more than 5 choices benefits him - but the system can still be flawed for the same reason if you have a bunch of people voting Gavaskar in that top 5 - out of the 25 choices.

I want to move away from the point because even though I think it is fairly predictable how nationalistic bias will play a part - especially in favour of Gavaskar - it is like calling someone's mother ugly. Even if it is true people don't want to hear it.

I probably agree with you. Not that there was no case, but it was a big push for only a 7 year career. Rightly or wrongly, he was seen to have brought spin back and ability-wise, even then, few spinners in history could compare to him. Again, these lists have a legacy element in them; and at the time Warne brought a lot of eyes back to cricket.




Perhaps; I don't think proportional representation was as important. If you wanted opinions from the best cricketers on the best cricketers then you shouldn't be striving for that because the subcontinent hadn't had as many.

Funny analogy.

Although as far as bias is concerned having Shane Warne in the Wisden top 5 cricketers of the century is as biased as it gets . It is like calling a whore's son a son of a bitch but it's true even if people don't want to hear it

 

[bagapath]

I want to move away from the point because even though I think it is fairly predictable how nationalistic bias will play a part - especially in favour of Gavaskar - it is like calling someone's mother ugly. Even if it is true people don't want to hear it.

good point., now read the same with the thought that lillee and chappell are overrated too. then you will get it. (it is unfortunate that my mother is a dickhead who speaks ill of dead people like david hooks but it is more unfortunate that your mother has a handlebar mousch)

 

[Ikki]

good point., now read the same with the thought that lillee and chappell are overrated too. then you will get it. (it is unfortunate that my mother is a dickhead who speaks ill of dead people like david hooks but it is more unfortunate that your mother has a handlebar mousch)

I don't doubt that there is nationalistic bias everywhere. I said so in my first post regarding this. However, simply put, Australian national bias only goes so far since there are so many players to choose from that it splits the vote. Heck, Greg Chappell and Keith Miller didn't even get a vote in the Wisden poll and these are players that pretty much walk into any other country's all-time XI. With Indians, it is only natural that they give a tick for Gavaskar amongst rating others.

 

[hang on]

I don't doubt that there is nationalistic bias everywhere. I said so in my first post regarding this. However, simply put, Australian national bias only goes so far since there are so many players to choose from that it splits the vote. Heck, Greg Chappell and Keith Miller didn't even get a vote in the Wisden poll and these are players that pretty much walk into any other country's all-time XI. With Indians, it is only natural that they give a tick for Gavaskar amongst rating others.

in many conversations with indian friends (and during my travels thru india, a place i happen to be currently visiting), i don't think that there was/is any real consensus that gavaskar was the greatest indian batsman/cricketer...upto the point that tendulkar came on the scene. in case u are wondering, this is apropos your point of a few indian greats and so less vote splitting even among nationalistic clusters. there were many who had vishwanath as better than gavaskar. and an enlightening would be dev, who won the indian cricketer of the century award, ahead of gavaskar, and tendulkar in his prime. and there are many in india who have dravid ahead of tendulkar and gavaskar as well. essentially, it is not so cut and dried that the vote splitting effect would be negligible or inconsequential in the case of india cricketers, or pakistani ones.

 

[smash84]

hang on, I don't know about India but in Pakistan there is pretty much a consensus who are the top 3 cricketers.

 

[hang on]

khan, miandad, akram?

khan, akram, waqar?

khan, miandad, inzamam?

 

[smash84]

the first

khan, miandad, akram

 

[bagapath]

I don't doubt that there is nationalistic bias everywhere. I said so in my first post regarding this. However, simply put, Australian national bias only goes so far since there are so many players to choose from that it splits the vote. Heck, Greg Chappell and Keith Miller didn't even get a vote in the Wisden poll and these are players that pretty much walk into any other country's all-time XI. With Indians, it is only natural that they give a tick for Gavaskar amongst rating others.

i think gavaskar is a certainty in any country's all-time xi too except the english. i dont think g.c. and k.m. would make it to the windies all-time xi.

the australian bias is a bit peculiar, like the american bias that makes them call a basketball game between LA and NY "World championship", in the sense that they dont rate players who have not done well in australia. gavaskar's reputation down under suffers because he didnt do well against lillee and co over 3 tests. the fact that lillee failed in 3 tests in pak or that warne and ricky failed in 10 or so tests in india dont matter much to them. similarly indians are beginning to ignore the rest of the world and for them everything indian is looking big and better. it sucks that most of the world has such blinkers on them.

honestly, statistically speaking, mcgrath should be rated above everyone bar marshall. and imran should make it to every damn dream team because he is a kickass allrounder. but i choose lillee in my teams because i like his style. whereas a lot of people tend to actually think lillee was better than these other bowlers, which is bull****.

 

[ankitj]

i think gavaskar is a certainty in any country's all-time xi too except the english. i dont think g.c. and k.m. would make it to the windies all-time xi.

the australian bias is a bit peculiar, like the american bias that makes them call a basketball game between LA and NY "World championship", in the sense that they dont rate players who have not done well in australia. gavaskar's reputation down under suffers because he didnt do well against lillee and co over 3 tests. the fact that lillee failed in 3 tests in pak or that warne and ricky failed in 10 or so tests in india dont matter much to them. similarly indians are beginning to ignore the rest of the world and for them everything indian is looking big and better. it sucks that most of the world has such blinkers on them.

honestly, statistically speaking, mcgrath should be rated above everyone bar marshall. and imran should make it to every damn dream team because he is a kickass allrounder. but i choose lillee in my teams because i like his style. whereas a lot of people tend to actually think lillee was better than these other bowlers, which is bull****.

The bolded part, as I keep repeating, simply isn't true. Lara and Warne have huge reputations among Indians. Both have been much below their lofty standards in and against India. There may be passion about a Tendulkar or a Dhoni, but there is no arrogance about India being the ultimate test of one's abilities.

 

[ankitj]

Lack of Virat Kohli on the list imho

Heard that he is being rated very highly in ESPN's tools of cricket. To be released soon

 

[bagapath]

The bolded part, as I keep repeating, simply isn't true. Lara and Warne have huge reputations among Indians. Both have been much below their lofty standards in and against India. There may be passion about a Tendulkar or a Dhoni, but there is no arrogance about India being the ultimate test of one's abilities.

lara and warne and steve waugh built their reputations in the 90s. so did murali and allan donald and wasim akram and ambrose. all that is from the past. i can bet my neck that there are a hell a lot of younger fans who think virat kohli is better than sangakara. or that sehwag is the greatest opener of all time.