Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Average
McGrath 18.2

Zaheer Khan was a good bowler for two years. The rest of the time he was, frankly, Chaminda Vaas level mediocre. In fact, probably even worse.

He'd have played about 18 months worth of Shield matches had he been Australian, otherwise he wouldn't have got out of first grade. He was a trier, but let's be honest his inclusion in this discussion against the other bowlers in this thread is an embarrassment, much like about 80% of his career.

Of course, being that ordinary means he still takes the new rock in an AT Indian XI, but that's an indictment on Indian cricket, not a salute to his ability.

As I said previously he was a slower, left arm, more mediocre and uglier version of Brett Lee. Only with a less accomplished career than even that spud.

Zaheer's top order wicket % and average are miles better than Lillee's.. So its clear, that metric is flawed. Anyone using it liable to admit Zaheer > Lillee.. Thats the point.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You realise how those averages are calculated and they mean nothing at all?

Why?

 

[Burgey]

Zaheer's top order wicket % and average are miles better than Lillee's.. So its clear, that metric is flawed. Anyone using it is liable to admit Zaheer > Lillee.. Thats the point.

But no one with tuppence worth of brains would even attempt that exercise when one bloke averaged nine runs more per wicket than the other.

Like saying Boon was a better bat than Gavaskar because he played on faster decks than the Poison Dwarf, even though he averaged 8 runs less.

I mean, the fact Boon was a better player than Gavaskar and played on a lot tougher decks for a top order player probably makes this a bad example, but you get my point.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

But no one with tuppence worth of brains would even attempt that exercise when one bloke averaged nine runs more per wicket than the other.

Like saying Boon was a better bat than Gavaskar because he played on faster decks than the Poison Dwarf, even though he averaged 8 runs less.

I mean, the fact Boon was a better player than Gavaskar and played on a lot tougher decks for a top order player probably makes this a bad example, but you get my point.

Sorry.. I didn't meant Zaheer > Lillee overall
Zaheer > Lillee ( specific to top order )

 

[Burgey]

That sort of view is in keeping with the general standard of your knowledge and understanding of the game, so I suppose I should at least congratulate you on being consistent.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah, Zaheer is a much better top-order bowler than Lillee. Besides PFK's incontrovertible evidence, Zaheer also had to play most of matches in the SC, whereas Lillee couldn't handle the SC. Think of who you'd rather face. Zaheer, an incredible threat with the new ball; or Lillee, some random guy who bowled 140kph long hops.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That sort of view is in keeping with the general standard of your knowledge and understanding of the game, so I suppose I should at least congratulate you on being consistent.

Thats not my view, but if anyone using a specific metric to scale the greatness liable to accept the results without bias.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Yeah, Zaheer is a much better top-order bowler than Lillee. Besides PFK's incontrovertible evidence, Zaheer also had to play most of matches in the SC, whereas Lillee couldn't handle the SC. Think of who you'd rather face. Zaheer, an incredible threat with the new ball; or Lillee, some random guy who bowled 140kph long hops.

Well its not my evidence... Mcgrath worshippers invented this method ( or Akram haters? )

 

[Burgey]

Thats not my view, but if anyone using a specific metric to scale the greatness liable to accept the results without bias.

But no one would do that. It's stupid. You can use these variances to separate people who are on a similar plane, but Zaheer Khan isn't fit to do Glenn McGrath's laundry as a bowler.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, Zaheer is a much better top-order bowler than Lillee. Besides PFK's incontrovertible evidence, Zaheer also had to play most of matches in the SC, whereas Lillee couldn't handle the SC. Think of who you'd rather face. Zaheer, an incredible threat with the new ball; or Lillee, some random guy who bowled 140kph long hops.

Speaking of consistently woeful posters, look what the stench of rotting reason brought in.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

But no one would do that. It's stupid. You can use these variances to separate people who are on a similar plane, but Zaheer Khan isn't fit to do Glenn McGrath's laundry as a bowler.

Ok, here is stats for two low 30s avg bowlers.
Lee top order 36.5%
Zaheer 45%

Who is more mediocre?

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Dk lillee but it’s close.
In specific order in test+fc+given importance to odis as well around 5 percent which is still too much imo+all that I have read about them.
My 10 greatest fast bowler-
Barnes
Marshall
McGrath
Steyn
Hadlee
Ambrose
Lillie
Larwood
Lindwall
Akram

 

[Burgey]

Ok, here is stats for two low 30s avg bowlers.
Lee top order 36.5%
Zaheer 45%

Who is more mediocre?

Lee. But I'd say the same were those numbers reversed, because it's but one metric and you actually have to watch the game as well as get an excel spreadsheet out.

Their career trajectories are almost the same, but Lee was just terrible. His shortcoming were masked for a large part by having McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and for a brief time Stu Clark there. The bloke was terribad. Easily the worst bowler to take 300 test wickets, and monumentally bad for someone who had his ceiling when he was actually on song (about one test in 15 across his career).

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Lee. But I'd say the same were those numbers reversed, because it's but one metric and you actually have to watch the game as well as get an excel spreadsheet out.

Their career trajectories are almost the same, but Lee was just terrible. His shortcoming were masked for a large part by having McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and for a brief time Stu Clark there. The bloke was terribad. Easily the worst bowler to take 300 test wickets, and monumentally bad for someone who had his ceiling when he was actually on song (about one test in 15 across his career).

Yeah.. Its only one metric, which makes sense only when other factors considered. Like WPM (WPI), bowling and fielding support.. Etc

 

[harsh.ag]

Lee. But I'd say the same were those numbers reversed, because it's but one metric and you actually have to watch the game as well as get an excel spreadsheet out.

Their career trajectories are almost the same, but Lee was just terrible. His shortcoming were masked for a large part by having McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and for a brief time Stu Clark there. The bloke was terribad. Easily the worst bowler to take 300 test wickets, and monumentally bad for someone who had his ceiling when he was actually on song (about one test in 15 across his career).

Have you seen his Bollywood movie

 

[kyear2]

Sorry.. I didn't meant Zaheer > Lillee overall
Zaheer > Lillee ( specific to top order )

What are you trying to prove or accomplish?

 

[ankitj]

Why?

Grow a brain and you'll know

 

[Burgey]

Grow a brain and you'll know

This is why @ankitj is one of my faves on here.

 

[h_hurricane]

Given that Zaheer Khan and Walsh are in the same ballpark, PFK probably has a point in comparing Zaheer and Lillee. Just need to find the right metrics with that goal in mind.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Grow a brain and you'll know

How come you know then ?