Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[Kirkut]

U wot? Lillee spent the first part of his career bowling outswing at about 90mph. He also bowled some brilliant spells on the MCG wicket in the early 80s which was as flat as any deck could get.

Nah, I never called him a medium pacer. Pat Cummins resembles Lillee a lot, and similarly he bowls cutters instead of swinging it in the air.

Lillee never had much opportunities to bowl on lifeless pitches but if Pat Cummins does well in Pakistan the next year, then I would retract my statement.

 

[Kirkut]

Thats mainly due to two reasons
1. Long career
2. Lack of support from fielders

His low WPM is the result of extra long career. Otherwise he had very good ratio of WPM and good share of top order wickets. Percentage is not a good metric.

Major share of his wickets came by LBWs and Bowled wickets. For example,
Mcgrath's wicket tally consists of 375 caught or caught behind wickets ie, 66.5% a massive 20% more than Akram's.

Akram is the most underrated bowler in CW.

We all have biases, there is no objective metrics to rate a player justifiably.

I rated Akram higher because he could bowl those game changing spells like Warne in Adelaide 2006 or Bumrah recently where he cleaned up Ollie Pope and Bairstow. But I do have my biases too.

 

[nightprowler10]

but if Pat Cummins does well in Pakistan the next year, then I would retract my statement.

He will.

 

[Burgey]

Nah, I never called him a medium pacer. Pat Cummins resembles Lillee a lot, and similarly he bowls cutters instead of swinging it in the air.

Lillee never had much opportunities to bowl on lifeless pitches but if Pat Cummins does well in Pakistan the next year, then I would retract my statement.

Mate I don’t know how much of Lillee you’ve seen bowling but what you’re saying here simply is not right. He swung it plenty.

 

[smash84]

Chappell said something about Lillee and why he prefers him to McGrath. Kind of makes sense given that Lillee has an insane number of WPM and rated as the greatest by his peers (although Wasim is also rated as the greatest by his peers).

"Lillee could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker"

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Chappell said something about Lillee and why he prefers him to McGrath. Kind of makes sense given that Lillee has an insane number of WPM and rated as the greatest by his peers (although Wasim is also rated as the greatest by his peers).

"Lillee could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker"

No one dare to say that about Akram.

 

[subshakerz]

"Lillee could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker"

Except not as regularly or as effectively.

 

[subshakerz]

The thing is that Akram is up there with Marshall and Lillee as the highest rated pacer of all time among his peers. That alone should justify his place in the top 10 along with his decent stats.

In terms of being an awkward prospect to face, versatility and watchability, Akram was the king. But in terms of pure wicket taking ability, there are a few who are better, and this board puts the latter attribute as the ultimate one.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Except not as regularly or as effectively.

35 or worse avg
Lillee 3 series out of 23
Mcgrath 9 out of 42

5 wickets
McGrath 29 from 243 innings
Lillee 23 from 132 innings

10 wickets
Mcgrath 3 from 124 matches
Lillee 7 from 70

 

[Kirkut]

Chappell said something about Lillee and why he prefers him to McGrath. Kind of makes sense given that Lillee has an insane number of WPM and rated as the greatest by his peers (although Wasim is also rated as the greatest by his peers).

"Lillee could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker"

Haha, it's easy to dilute McGrath's bowling given how simple it looks on tv. Try landing the ball on the same spot again and again, I bet that's harder than bowling at 90 mph regularly.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah McGrath’s skill set is crazily under rated because it’s crazily understated.

Much like myself, really.

 

[OverratedSanity]

McGrath had way more variety than people are generally willing to admit for some reason. Had a low key nasty bouncer, quality yorker which he used sparingly, even reversed it when needed in the subcontinent.

It's just that his boring line and length simply worked in the vast majority of test match situations so he didn't need to resort to much else.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Haha, it's easy to dilute McGrath's bowling given how simple it looks on tv. Try landing the ball on the same spot again and again, I bet that's harder than bowling at 90 mph regularly.

That's not even scratching the surface of McGrath. The number of peopel who think "yeah he's just nothing special but accurate" is mind-boggling. **** moved it as much as anyone, nipped it both ways on nearly any pitch with ease and all while hitting the perfect line and length 99/100 times

 

[_00_deathscar]

He was just extraordinarily good. But it doesn't mean he was interesting to watch - like I said, Ronaldo (or as someone else said, Tim Duncan).

I think that's a large part of the reason why Lillee/Akram are rated higher by some - they were fascinating to watch (and it's not like they were 3 tiers or whatever behind as bowlers or something, although, yes - less consistent, less effective to some degree).

 

[Starfighter]

I think that's a large part of the reason why Lillee/Akram are rated higher by some - they were fascinating to watch

I remember making this argument several years ago. You watch cricket with your eyes, but ultimately a team wins or loses by what's on the scorecard. A more effective bowler who has made one method work very well (a McGrath) may not be as memorable as a less effective but much more varied, multi-faceted, 'talented' bowler (an Akram). Lillee and Akram, like Richards, managed to develop a real aura that overshadowed the finer statistical detail.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I remember making this argument several years ago. You watch cricket with your eyes, but ultimately a team wins or loses by what's on the scorecard. A more effective bowler who has made one method work very well (a McGrath) may not be as memorable as a less effective but much more varied, multi-faceted, 'talented' bowler (an Akram). Lillee and Akram, like Richards, managed to develop a real aura that overshadowed the finer statistical detail.

McGrath was helped by team strength. Lillee and Akram were as effective as Mcgrath if not more, and they were boxoffice.

 

[TheJediBrah]

McGrath was helped by team strength. Lillee and Akram were as effective as Mcgrath if not more, and they were boxoffice.

 

[honestbharani]

Much like myself, really.

With the crazy part? Sure.

 

[Slifer]

McGrath was helped by team strength. Lillee and Akram were as effective as Mcgrath if not more, and they were boxoffice.

No they were not. Lillee played the majority of his tests in 3 pace friendly countries: England, Australia and NZ. Akram has a worse average, SR, wpm, economy and isn't as consistent vs the different teams. McGrath is also better away. This isn't even up for debate tbh...McGrath > Akram/Lillee.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

No they were not. Lillee played the majority of his tests in 3 pace friendly countries: England, Australia and NZ. Akram has a worse average, SR, wpm, economy and isn't as consistent vs the different teams. McGrath is also better away. This isn't even up for debate tbh...McGrath > Akram/Lillee.

Lillee played majority of his tests in England, Australia and NZ. He was more effective than Mcgrath in these countries. Rest unknown.

Akram played 18 years, Mcgrath 15
If you compare first 15 years of their career, not much difference there.. From what i remember Akram's ER was better and had more 5 wickets / Match and 10 wickets / match. Also McGrath played more pace friendly conditions, had massive support from better and consistent batsmen, fielders and WK. Actually Pak fielders costed Akram more runs per match than the diffrence in the averages. ( and there were dropped catches too)
Catches contributed more than 2/3 of McGrath's Wicket tally.. Akram took majority of his wickets by clean bowled or LBW.

When talking about Mark Waugh or Ponting, people always blah blah about their fielding and explains how that helped the team immensely.. But the same people wont factor this when comparing with other team bowlers. I dont understand this.
Either Mark Waugh did nothing special in the field or He helped the bowlers to achieve better numbers.He was not Schrödinger's fielder to be both useless and useful at a time.