Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[h_hurricane]

It isn't discussed much in CW and I, like many, rate Marshall as the best pace bowler ever, but, did he escape a late career mess up on his career stats by retiring young ? Worth pondering.

 

[Coronis]

He lacked wicket taking capacity during his early development (85-89) and late career (98-2002) which was more than half his career, and thats why his stats suffered.

Lillee only played one test against Sri Lanka. New Zealand were not minnow during Lillee's and Wasim's time, but if you do consider them such, then you would have to consider 60 wickets Wasim took against them plus 47 against Zimbabwe. There is no escaping that Wasim benefited more against minnows then Lillee.

Could be because he was 18 when he debuted.

If you read my post, you’d know I used NZ for Lillee and Zimbabwe for Wasim because of their low team batting averages during their careers. NZ was a stronger batting unit throughout Wasim’s career comparable to Sri Lanka, England and the Windies.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Im not sure how accurate a picture this gives us given that Marshall had a shorter career in terms of years and matches.

Nobody is disputing Akram is an ATG by the way. Just that statistically he had leaner periods than others.

Its not just Marshall.. Pretty much every ATG except Hadlee.

 

[ankitj]

Your face is irrelevant

Just like your posts

 

[subshakerz]

It isn't discussed much in CW and I, like many, rate Marshall as the best pace bowler ever, but, did he escape a late career mess up on his career stats by retiring young ? Worth pondering.

He retired around 33. He basically was past his peak from 89 onwards. So likely could have last another couple of years.

 

[subshakerz]

Could be because he was 18 when he debuted.

If you read my post, you’d know I used NZ for Lillee and Zimbabwe for Wasim because of their low team batting averages during their careers. NZ was a stronger batting unit throughout Wasim’s career comparable to Sri Lanka, England and the Windies.

How much stronger was NZ in the 90s over the 80s team?

 

[Coronis]

How much stronger was NZ in the 90s over the 80s team?

In terms of batting they were much stronger throughout Wasim’s career than Lillee’s.

Lillee’s

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Wasim’s

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[trundler]

And no, that's not cherry-picking because that's a period longer than the entire career of the blokes we're comparing him to.

Not that anyone asked, but this is a general theme that ****s me to no end. I've brought this up before but here are some other instances where the disregard for career length or its daughter menace prettier overall average equals better annoy me.

People underrating Lindwall because of low WPM because he was recalled as a dinosaur when he really shouldn't have been. Lindwall had a higher peak rating than Trueman and had virtually identical stats to Davidson after a similar number of matches. In fact, he was a much better Ashes bowler than the other notable pacers of his era, taking into consideration home and away performances (*cough Trueman HTB cough*). Also played along side many other all-rounders so he didn't get to take big hauls. The Killer retired as the GOAT pacer and is still very much in contention for that title.

Chappell G > Ponting. Punter played twice as many tests and never stepped away from daunting tours unlike Greg. He was averaging like 60 after 12 years, which is how long Chappell played. Yeah, Ponting played in a far easier era but don't tell me there wasn't a universal consensus in 2008 that Ricky P was Australia's best since Bradman.

Nobody really mentions Cowdrey alongside Dexter, May etc when Cowdrey had better stats after 70 odd tests. Being the first bloke to play over 100 tests deserves a shitload of credit, which MCCC doesn't really get.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dont talk dirty to me trundler stop it

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also as a great man **** head once said:

'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

 

[kyear2]

These Cw nerds go on about how slip fielding is oh so important to the extent they will pick atg xis keeping in mind which players can be placed in slip cordon, or even say slip fielding batsmen should be considered all rounders (?) and will suck Australia 2000s and west indies 1980s ' teams off constantly saying how omg one of the reasons they were so unbeatable was because they had great slip fielders.

But when it's pointed out Wasim was at a disadvantage that when it comes to fielding support compared to McGrath/Marshall , then suddenly fielding no longer matters and oh sir no way that might have affected bowling stats marginally . Wasim and Waqar had prank catchers in the slips. Can you imagine how much of a disadvantage it is to a bowler that the primary mode of dismissal in tests for any bowler is far less viable to you?

Either shut the **** up about slip fielding being important or admit McGrath and Marshall might have had it marginally easier because their cordon were amazing. Actually just shut the **** up in general y'all sound so ****ing stupid ffs. No self awareness about the contradictions. Bc.

I'm pretty sure I'm on the only person on cw who believes most of that, and could be wrong, but don't recall making a contribution in the thread.

Additionally you are also one of the ones who diminish the importance of slip fielding, so apparently there are contradictions and lack of awareness on both sides.

Additionally no one has ever said that it wouldn't have impacted on Wasim, though it would be difficult to quantify just how much of an impact that would be. But has to be disheartening to see opportunities being spilled in the slips.

So dispute your face palming and righteous indignation, slip fielding is important and impactful towards team and individual success, but for Finn to state that with a better cordon, Wasim is undisputably the best, is questionable at best

And yes, when making an ATG team, who's going to be in the codon should cross your mind. So if I'm choosing between Tendulkar and Smith, I'm choosing the guy who was spectacular at two disciplines, the same way you want to "bat deep" with diminishing returns. My selection however, costs nothing.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Dont talk dirty to me trundler stop it

Trying to get in the ***ting XI are we?

 

[Slifer]

It isn't discussed much in CW and I, like many, rate Marshall as the best pace bowler ever, but, did he escape a late career mess up on his career stats by retiring young ? Worth pondering.

Possibly. And I would have loved for him to play those extra tests vs SL and Zimbabwe just for schitts and giggles....Fwiw, Marshall retired early because of 'politics'

 

[Slifer]

In terms of calendar years,

Less than 25 avg
Marshall - 8
Akram - 10

4 wpm
Marshall - 7
Akram - 10

Akram played around 40 series in his career and averaged below 25 in about half of them.

Marshall played 21 series and averaged below 25 in 15.

In order for Akram to even be compared to Marshall, you lot have to use all sorts or caveats, peaks etc. Peak Akram</=Average Marshall basically.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Akram played around 40 series in his career and averaged below 25 in about half of them.

Marshall played 21 series and averaged below 25 in 15.

In order for Akram to even be compared to Marshall, you lot have to use all sorts or caveats, peaks etc. Peak Akram</=Average Marshall basically.

Actually..you are comparing Peak Marshall to Average Akram.

 

[Slifer]

Actually..you are comparing Peak Marshall to Average Akram.

Average Akram averaged 23 and struck at 55 ie his career.

Average Marshall averaged 20.9 and struck at 47. Think about this fact, Marshalls worst record vs all teams is 22.5 vs Australia. His worst was better than Akrams average. Anyway, I blame myself for continuing to take the bait...

 

[trundler]

Anyway, I blame myself for continuing to take the bait

Blame yourself for missing the point and being biased instead.

 

[subshakerz]

Akram played around 40 series in his career and averaged below 25 in about half of them.

Marshall played 21 series and averaged below 25 in 15.

In order for Akram to even be compared to Marshall, you lot have to use all sorts or caveats, peaks etc. Peak Akram</=Average Marshall basically.

Just for reference, Lillee had 13 out of 23 series in which he averaged less than 25.

 

[Kirkut]

It isn't discussed much in CW and I, like many, rate Marshall as the best pace bowler ever, but, did he escape a late career mess up on his career stats by retiring young ? Worth pondering.

Didn't matter, he was so complete as a bowler that made him the best ever.

 

[Slifer]

Actually..you are comparing Peak Marshall to Average Akram.

How??

Blame yourself for missing the point and being biased instead.

Biased?? LMAO. Yeah good one. For stating facts without having to cherry pick?? But whatever...