Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[subshakerz]

List of line & length bowlers:

Vince van der Bijl
Garner
Hadlee
Ambrose
McGrath

anyone else ?

Pollock
Stratham
Asif
Philander
Clark

 

[h_hurricane]

Pollock
Stratham
Asif
Philander
Clark

Gavin Larsen
Cameron Cuffy
Aavishkar Salvi
Stuart Binny
Deepak Chahar

 

[Calm_profit]

Pollock
Stratham
Asif
Philander
Clark

Hazlewood joins the list as well

 

[Johan]

That means.. Having an ATG bowling attack is a disadvantage.. Compared to a mediocre one. WOW ?

ur no? can you read? I said both have their plus and minuses

 

[trundler]

ur no? can you read? I said both have their plus and minuses

Pluses and minuses more like.

 

[Migara]

Gavin Larsen
Cameron Cuffy
Aavishkar Salvi
Stuart Binny
Deepak Chahar

Odd that everyone forget Vaas and Kulasekara, impeccable L&L bowlers.

 

[Bolo.]

List of line & length bowlers:

Vince van der Bijl
Garner
Hadlee
Ambrose
McGrath

anyone else ?

A lot. But with the obvious (unknown) exception of VDB, nobody is in that quality bracket. S ppolck is closest i think.

 

[shortpitched713]

The **** is a "line & length" bowler anyway?

Unless we have Test bowlers employing the old village cricket standby of "fling & pray", certainly every bowler who ever played is "line & length"?

 

[subshakerz]

The **** is a "line & length" bowler anyway?

Unless we have Test bowlers employing the old village cricket standby of "fling & pray", certainly every bowler who ever played is "line & length"?

Should be seam bowler.

 

[shortpitched713]

Should be seam bowler.

Okay. In that case I think some of the ones listed may not be accurate, because they were skilled at swinging the ball as well.

 

[Starfighter]

Someone considered a 'line and length' bowler is, in my observation, a bowler who is neither that fast (especially with the conspicuous inaccuracy of some speedier bowlers) nor do they swing the ball very much, instead relaying on seam movement.

If someone doesn't pitch it up like swing bowlers often do and doesn't scatter it about like Shaun Tate, they will tend to bowl a lot of ordinary good length stuff. While some aren't fast enough to intimidate, tall guys like Garner, Ambrose and van der Bijl were more intimidating than many a shorter much faster bowler. So really it's just a rubbish term for someone espousing a top-flight bowlers biggest asset - accuracy - while not being exceptionally quick or moving it that much.

I find it frustrating when Hadlee is described as a seam bowler. The guy had an awesome out swinger, far better than Lillee's, yet somehow the latter collects the plaudits for it.

 

[Bolo.]

Someone considered a 'line and length' bowler is, in my observation, a bowler who is neither that fast (especially with the conspicuous inaccuracy of some speedier bowlers) nor do they swing the ball very much, instead relaying on seam movement.

If someone doesn't pitch it up like swing bowlers often do and doesn't scatter it about like Shaun Tate, they will tend to bowl a lot of ordinary good length stuff. While some aren't fast enough to intimidate, tall guys like Garner, Ambrose and van der Bijl were more intimidating than many a shorter much faster bowler. So really it's just a rubbish term for someone espousing a top-flight bowlers biggest asset - accuracy - while not being exceptionally quick or moving it that much.

I find it frustrating when Hadlee is described as a seam bowler. The guy had an awesome out swinger, far better than Lillee's, yet somehow the latter collects the plaudits for it.

Line and length bowler is a description, not an insult. Most of the truly top tier ATGs by CW rankings (mcgrath, ambrose, hadlee, excluding only Marshall and steyn) were line and length bowlers. Give me mcgarths boring ability to place the ball over Wasims uncanny set of skills any day, and by a big margin. But im still calling Mcgrath a line line and length bowler, cos he was.

 

[shortpitched713]

Line and length bowler is a description, not an insult. Most of the truly top tier ATGs by CW rankings (mcgrath, ambrose, hadlee, excluding only Marshall and steyn) were line and length bowlers. Give me mcgarths boring ability to place the ball over Wasims uncanny set of skills any day, and by a big margin. But im still calling Mcgrath a line line and length bowler, cos he was.

But according to Starfighter above, Hadlee was a great swing bowler, not just a line and length seamer.

And where do you classify guys who are trying to swing the ball on most deliveries but sometimes, or usually don't? What about the guys who can swing the Dukes ball but not the Kookaburra?

How about a guy who was an inaccurate tearaway quick at an early part of his career, and then refines his game over time with more accuracy and technique?

The whole categorization of "line and length", seems to be very imprecise and subjective, determined by conditions, and not illustrative of too much, imho.

 

[shortpitched713]

Also, the one issue I'd take with Starfighter's post, is that calling Ambrose or Garner, "not fast enough", to me seems a bit of an anachronism, probably subconsciously intended to corral them into this categorization. Sure, Ambrose had the same overall technique as let's say Shaun Pollock, but Ambrose to me "looks" well quicker to me. Should he be disqualified from "line and length" because of this?

Edit: And maybe I'm being subconsciously effected because I know one of those bowlers is listed as "fast" and the other as "fast-medium". I dunno, bowler classification to me seems really fraught and imprecise of an exercise at the best of time. I'll just stick with calling bowlers either "seam", "spin", or "old-fashioned" for mine.

 

[Bolo.]

But according to Starfighter above, Hadlee was a great swing bowler, not just a line and length seamer.

And where do you classify guys who are trying to swing the ball on most deliveries but sometimes, or usually don't? What about the guys who can swing the Dukes ball but not the Kookaburra?

How about a guy who was an inaccurate tearaway quick at an early part of his career, and then refines his game over time with more accuracy and technique?

The whole categorization of "line and length", seems to be very imprecise and subjective, determined by conditions, and not illustrative of too much, imho.

If your only skillset is line an length, you arent much good. Every bowler needs more than 1 tool. You dont necessarily need a thousand like Wasim, but you need more than one. I almost dont remember ever seeing Hansie Cronje putting the ball in the wrong place, but unless he was bowling at Sachin, he wasnt much of a bowler, cos he has nothing else to offer.

Hadlee had seam and swing. Mcgath and Ambrose had lift and seam. They are line and length bowlers, which is probably the single most useful skill a bowler can have, isnt enpugh by itself.

 

[shortpitched713]

If your only skillset is line an length, you arent much good. Every bowler needs more than 1 tool. You dont necessarily need a thousand like Wasim, but you need more than one. I almost dont remember ever seeing Hansie Cronje putting the ball in the wrong place, but unless he was bowling at Sachin, he wasnt much of a bowler, cos he has nothing else to offer.

Hadlee had seam and swing. Mcgath and Ambrose had lift and seam. They are line and length bowlers, which is probably the single most useful skill a bowler can have, isnt enpugh by itself.

But what you're describing by "line and length" bowlers is different from what Starfighter seemed to describe above. So when anyone tries to compile a list of such bowlers, you'll inevitably be talking past one another. I dunno, probably doesn't matter, and is the the ASC spectrum in me taking over, but that imprecision in definition really grinds my gears.

 

[Bolo.]

But what you're describing by "line and length" bowlers is different from what Starfighter seemed to describe above. So when anyone tries to compile a list of such bowlers, you'll inevitably be talking past one another. I dunno, probably doesn't matter, and is the the ASC spectrum in me taking over, but that imprecision in definition really grinds my gears.

Ya. Thsts my whole initial point... the definuional difference, and that there is nothing disparaging about calling a bowler line and length in my view.

 

[shortpitched713]

This comp offers the perfect contrast between mine and @subshakerz ideal best bowler.

One's got enormous rep, carried the attack, and has impressive lone moments. The other has ludicrous stats and consistency.

For me, I can't help but think that it's more likely if the two switched places, Lillee could have been completely lost to Test cricket history as a West Indian quick, as compared to a much smaller possibility of Garner failing in leading the Australian attack. In addition to many of the other reasons given to favor Garner, that tips it in my impression.

 

[howitzer]

Tight for me, but i'm going for this Kieth bloke.

 

[kyear2]

Great bowlers, like great batsmen exists in all circumstances.

Great batsmen existed in the 80's and 90's, great bowlers in even the supposed recent dead pitch eras.
Hadlee excelled as much as Maco. It also seems that having no batting support is a bigger strain for batsmen than no bowling support is for bowlers, and even then it's probably more psychological and self imposed pressure.

To think that Garner would have only done what he did because he was surrounded by greatness doesn't seem to be borne out by how Patterson and later support bowlers fared. As someone pointed out, unless you're just cleaning up the tail, taking wickets, especially at that average and s/r requires the same skill as if you were alone.

Gillespie was playing with two of the top 8 bowlers of all time, didn't seem to have ribbed off to the same extent.

Team results, yes that would be impacted in comparison if you have a lone warrior vs a pack, as it is for a lone batsman vs a strong lineup, but the individuals still have to go out and perform regardless to succeed.

Garner was hindered more from the fact that he wasn't able to get more 5fers than anything else, as he did show when he got to open the bowling, when he started to get more big wicket hauls.

Still have to say Lillee was greater and more impactful for his team for the purpose of this comparison.