Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[subshakerz]

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.

Fact is Garner didn't accomplish enough to be a top ten bowler.

Didn't get 300 wickets, take a tenfer or get a rating among the best of his time. He had a relatively short career for a modern bowler.

I don't have a doubt he was capable of it. But we can't go on hypotheticals.

 

[shortpitched713]

**** what he could have done. What he did do is also unprecedented. He had literally the co best average along with Marshall (.03 points higher), for any seamer. And he did it while rarely taking the new ball, almost never while still at his best.

This is a huge disadvantage for a seam bowler, and no one has accumulated the kind of record as a change seamer that he has.

 

[kyear2]

Bill O'Reilly played 27 tests, Bradman 52, Graeme Pollock 22, Garner did enough. He did have a 9 wicket haul, that extra 1 makes that much a difference to a career?

If you think others are better, sure. But these arbitrary numbers shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Both are clearly in top 12 ish quicks though think Lillee is slightly ahead.

 

[trundler]

But these arbitrary numbers shouldn't be an issue.

CEO of checklist posting at its dumbest doesn't like arbitrary numbers when it comes to a West Indian player?

 

[kyear2]

CEO of checklist posting at its dumbest doesn't like arbitrary numbers when it comes to a West Indian player?

I don't do analysis by checklist, my conclusions just don't conform to what you what them to.

But thanks for your unwanted and pointless input that didn't add to the discussion at hand.

Pleasure as always.

 

[subshakerz]

**** what he could have done. What he did do is also unprecedented. He had literally the co best average along with Marshall (.03 points higher), for any seamer. And he did it while rarely taking the new ball, almost never while still at his best.

This is a huge disadvantage for a seam bowler, and no one has accumulated the kind of record as a change seamer that he has.

Would you rate Garner ahead of McGrath?

 

[subshakerz]

Bill O'Reilly played 27 tests, Bradman 52, Graeme Pollock 22, Garner did enough. He did have a 9 wicket haul, that extra 1 makes that much a difference to a career?

If you think others are better, sure. But these arbitrary numbers shouldn't be an issue.

I make a distinction between premodern and modern era players in terms of longevity requirements.

300 wickets is a fair requirement to be in the top ten ever of pacers. If he took a bit less but was taking six wickets a tests or averaging 17 maybe we can talk.

It's not an arbitrary number.

 

[Migara]

I make a distinction between premodern and modern era players in terms of longevity requirements.

300 wickets is a fair requirement to be in the top ten ever of pacers. If he took a bit less but was taking six wickets a tests or averaging 17 maybe we can talk.

It's not an arbitrary number.

My issue is while we consider these are necessary for greatness, but not playing in sub continent or in west indies.

This is why I love this section.

 

[kyear2]

My issue is while we consider these are necessary for greatness, but not playing in sub continent or in west indies.

This is why I love this section.

Neither should be seen as necessary for greatness.

As I said earlier, before my response was cherry picked and mischaracterized, you cannot keep moving the goal post and creating arbitrary rules for entry.

If you don't think someone is good enough, fine, that's entirely your prerogative and right. But how somehow 27 tests are good for O'Reilly, but more than twice that isn't good enough for Garner is a bit silly.

For the record Garner is borderline top 10, possibly outside for me, but total number of wickets shouldn't count when you have a sterling s/r and more than decent wpm.

 

[subshakerz]

If you don't think someone is good enough, fine, that's entirely your prerogative and right. But how somehow 27 tests are good for O'Reilly, but more than twice that isn't good enough for Garner is a bit silly.

For the record Garner is borderline top 10, possibly outside for me, but total number of wickets shouldn't count when you have a sterling s/r and more than decent wpm.

Nonsense. If Garner had 150 wickets would he be considered? No. Means we have to draw the line somewhere.

I draw it at 300 wickets. Seems reasonable given that it would take around a decade to get there, so longevity comes into play, and every other ATG pacers has crossed it.

And I make except for premodern era bowlers who didn't play the same level of tests.

 

[Coronis]

I make a distinction between premodern and modern era players in terms of longevity requirements.

300 wickets is a fair requirement to be in the top ten ever of pacers. If he took a bit less but was taking six wickets a tests or averaging 17 maybe we can talk.

It's not an arbitrary number.

It literally is

 

[shortpitched713]

Would you rate Garner ahead of McGrath?

No, and I don't see the point of your asking, as there are good reasons for me to rate McGrath a mile ahead of Lillee, so let's not fly off topic.

 

[kyear2]

No, and I don't see the point of your asking, as there are good reasons for me to rate McGrath a mile ahead of Lillee, so let's not fly off topic.

There was literally no point for asking, because there's no comparison between the two.

 

[Bolo.]

Bill O'Reilly played 27 tests, Bradman 52, Graeme Pollock 22, Garner did enough. He did have a 9 wicket haul, that extra 1 makes that much a difference to a career?

If you think others are better, sure. But these arbitrary numbers shouldn't be an issue.

IDK about the number of tests. He played from 23 to 34 or so. That's just peak for a quick. Pretty much all the other top tier quicks blew their figures out a bit by playing outside this range. Bit short on longevity and number of series, although not by much.

I do think criticism of his lack of huge hauls and not being the best bowler in his team is kinda nonsense though. He played with Marshall. If someone doesn't rate Marshall as highly as I do, fine. I don't think there is a bowler in history that would be better than a supporting act to Marshall though. Garner was just unlucky to actually play with him.

 

[kyear2]

IDK about the number of tests. He played from 23 to 34 or so. That's just peak for a quick. Pretty much all the other top tier quicks blew their figures out a bit by playing outside this range. Bit short on longevity and number of series, although not by much.

I do think criticism of his lack of huge hauls and not being the best bowler in his team is kinda nonsense though. He played with Marshall. If someone doesn't rate Marshall as highly as I do, fine. I don't think there is a bowler in history that would be better than a supporting act to Marshall though. Garner was just unlucky to actually play with him.

And as I said, if you don't think he's good enough, then don't pick him. No need for the arbitrary cut offs.

 

[smash84]

Bill O'Reilly played 27 tests, Bradman 52, Graeme Pollock 22, Garner did enough. He did have a 9 wicket haul, that extra 1 makes that much a difference to a career?

If you think others are better, sure. But these arbitrary numbers shouldn't be an issue.

My goodness, I actually liked and agreed with what kyear2 said?

Why can't you follow your own advice in general?

 

[Slifer]

Garner is great and Imo a better bowler than Lillee but not greater. A good sense of what Garner could've achieved is reflected in a wpm of 4.4 which is outstanding considering he bowled when the competition for wkts among WI bowlers was at it's peak and there were more draws during his time. Still, Garner wasn't the alpha of the WI attack and unfortunately he lacks a ten for, which for me is a prerequisite to be considered amongst the best.

Funny enough, Holding achieved all this, including wkts in SIX tests in India, wkts on dead wkts, 10 fors, sub 25 home and away but I just can't put him in the top ten, and it's not because of lack of tests. 250 wkts in 60 is more than sufficient. Maybe it's because he never played Pakistan. I'm curious to know what Kyear2 thinks about Holding...

 

[shortpitched713]

The way I do it, is in a "relative" tie in quality, I'll give it to the bowler with more longevity. So Garner loses to everyone in the top 5 ( and also Donald imo ). But then, there's no one else who can match him in quality, unless we're going for something like peak only or some other qualifier.

 

[subshakerz]

It literally is

Um no, 300 is a recognized milestone.