Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[kyear2]

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

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

Show me where I haven't Smali.

If you don't want to select him in the top 10, totally fine, lots of great players to choose from. The arbitrary cutoff point makes nonsense, especially when you rate O'Reilly as the 3rd best spinner over guys who have taken 4 times as many wickets.

It's arbitrary and inconsistent. And quite pointless.

But back to the primary question, where haven't I "followed my own advice"?

 

[subshakerz]

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.

I was asking because your points of Garner against Lillee could be used against McGrath too. Superlative average, etc.

So what specific advantage did Garner have against Lillee?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Show me where I haven't Smali.

If you don't want to select him in the top 10, totally fine, lots of great players to choose from. The arbitrary cutoff point makes nonsense, especially when you rate O'Reilly as the 3rd best spinner over guys who have taken 4 times as many wickets.

It's arbitrary and inconsistent. And quite pointless.

But back to the primary question, where haven't I "followed my own advice"?

O’Reilly was far and away regarded as the best bowler in the planet for his entire career and with Barnes the Best Bowler Ever for decades. There should be a distinction between Pre and Modern era. Tiger did everything a spinner could do in his career with a War going on, faced and conquered ATG Batting line up, Troubled the Greatest of all time and has insanely high peer review.

 

[subshakerz]

O’Reilly was far and away regarded as the best bowler in the planet for his entire career and with Barnes the Best Bowler Ever for decades. There should be a distinction between Pre and Modern era. Tiger did everything a spinner could do in his career with a War going on, faced and conquered ATG Batting line up, Troubled the Greatest of all time and has insanely high peer review.

Exactly

 

[subshakerz]

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.

No. The argument is that at no point in his career did Garner standout at the best bowler or even one of the couple best. His peer rating wasnt particularly high that we have to look at a spreadsheet and artificially boost him ahead Lillee and Wasim.

He played plenty of cricket before Marshall hit his strides too so being overshadowed by him doesn't fly.

 

[shortpitched713]

I was asking because your points of Garner against Lillee could be used against McGrath too. Superlative average, etc.

So what specific advantage did Garner have against Lillee?

This is some real Swedish keeper level of goalpost moving.

My whole point is that (adjusting for eras) the average stats of Garner and Lillee are not comparable, Lillee is noticeably worse. McGrath simply is not noticeably worse than Garner after you adjust for era.

 

[kyear2]

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...

Holding is a very interesting case, I think for their era he was at most a hair behind Lillee, but just like Sachin and Lara, that hair behind can end up being quite a few places on the overall rating because of how close they all are in that grouping.

I think that Holding has a few pluses over Garner from the perspective that Holding was legitimately a no. 1 guy, the alpha, while Garner, for all his skill, never was. He was fragile though, and the best ability was availability.

I have Holding in the top 14, but below Garner and some of the other guys. Think for me he's 12, just ahead of Lindwall, Waqar and Pollock.

He didn't swing it like Lillee or Hadlee, but was rapid and targeted the stumps with decent seam movement. Like Lillee he probably overdid it at tike with the short ball.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Arbitrary cutoffs are nonsense. But I would like more wickets. Donald gets marked down a bit in relation to other guys in their class for lack of longevity, and he has a chunk more and the excuse of RSA not playing tests when he was young. It's basically just this and lack of Asia tests that count against Garner IMO. He is better than basically everyone else on just about every other measure I consider meaningful.

Arbitrary cuttoffs also apply to the 5 test point that a lot of you are using BTW.

 

[subshakerz]

This is some real Swedish keeper level of goalpost moving.

My whole point is that (adjusting for eras) the average stats of Garner and Lillee are not comparable, Lillee is noticeably worse. McGrath simply is not noticeably worse than Garner after you adjust for era.

So Garner is better than Hadlee and Imran then?

 

[subshakerz]

Holding is a very interesting case, I think for their era he was at most a hair behind Lillee, but just like Sachin and Lara, that hair behind can end up being quite a few places on the overall rating because of how close they all are in that grouping.

I think that Holding has a few pluses over Garner from the perspective that Holding was legitimately a no. 1 guy, the alpha, while Garner, for all his skill, never was. He was fragile though, and the best ability was availability.

I have Holding in the top 14, but below Garner and some of the other guys. Think for me he's 12, just ahead of Lindwall, Waqar and Pollock.

He didn't swing it like Lillee or Hadlee, but was rapid and targeted the stumps with decent seam movement. Like Lillee he probably overdid it at tike with the short ball.

Imran thought Holding was the most gifted pace bowler for some reason.

 

[kyear2]

O’Reilly was far and away regarded as the best bowler in the planet for his entire career and with Barnes the Best Bowler Ever for decades. There should be a distinction between Pre and Modern era. Tiger did everything a spinner could do in his career with a War going on, faced and conquered ATG Batting line up, Troubled the Greatest of all time and has insanely high peer review.

I'm not saying there's not difference in circumstance, I'm saying 27 tests is 27 tests and is something used against Headley and Pollock. And era or not, if you can rate someone top 3 off 27 tests, you can rate someone who averaged under 21 with a s/r of 50 and 4.4 wpm.

 

[kyear2]

So Garner is better than Hadlee and Imran then?

This is ridiculous now and you know it. Why are you raising these false premises that no one else even mentioned.

 

[kyear2]

Arbitrary cutoffs are nonsense. But I would like more wickets. Donald gets marked down a bit in relation to other guys in their class for lack of longevity, and he has a chunk more and the excuse of RSA not playing tests when he was young. It's basically just this and lack of Asia tests that count against Garner IMO. He is better than basically everyone else on just about every other measure I consider meaningful.

Arbitrary cuttoffs also apply to the 5 test point that a lot of you are using BTW.

It's impossible and unreasonable to rate a players performance in a country based on a single test. The sample size is just too small to glean any useable information,. I suggested a min of at least a full test series.

Don't think that's arbitrary, that's literally how they scheduled the games and for said reason, to come to conclusive decisions and conclusions.

What would you use as a suitable cutoff?

 

[subshakerz]

This is ridiculous now and you know it. Why are you raising these false premises that no one else even mentioned.

No, I am trying to get him to give specific criteria why Garner > Lillee. He started with averages, then mentioned relative to timeline.

In essence, I would like him to admit what is lacking in Garner's resume that puts him belong those top tiers and above Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

It's impossible and unreasonable to rate a players performance in a country based on a single test. The sample size is just too small to glean any useable information,. I suggested a min of at least a full test series.

Don't think that's arbitrary, that's literally how they scheduled the games and for said reason, to come to conclusive decisions and conclusions.

What would you use as a suitable cutoff?

I like the 5 test criteria Kyear2 mentioned actually. Why? Because it allows usually for two tours and we don't have to judge by a one off junior tour.

The only exception would be three or four awesome tests that rule out guessing on how five tests would have been, like Lara in SL.

 

[Slifer]

Imran thought Holding was the most gifted pace bowler for some reason.

Interesting considering Holding never actually played a single test against Pakistan.

 

[kyear2]

No, I am trying to get him to give specific criteria why Garner > Lillee. He started with averages, then mentioned relative to timeline.

In essence, I would like him to admit what is lacking in Garner's resume that puts him belong those top tiers and above Lillee.

Obviously there is, no one's questioning that. But it has way more with not being no. 1 on his own team that being below some magical number. For some the lack of five wicket hauls as well, or just we know that those guys were better, period.

I'm not arguing for Garner, or that he should even be in the top, because it varies if he's even in mine, just the criteria.

 

[Bolo.]

It's impossible and unreasonable to rate a players performance in a country based on a single test. The sample size is just too small to glean any useable information,. I suggested a min of at least a full test series.

Don't think that's arbitrary, that's literally how they scheduled the games and for said reason, to come to conclusive decisions and conclusions.

What would you use as a suitable cutoff?

Any number is arbitrary. 5 is a lot more valuable than 1, but not too different to 4.

I think 10 or 15 is probably a bit low, so I use groups of countries. I prefer records that are good against every unique country, but there is just too much variance.

 

[subshakerz]

Obviously there is, no one's questioning that. But it has way more with not being no. 1 on his own team that being below some magical number. For some the lack of five wicket hauls as well, or just we know that those guys were better, period.

I'm not arguing for Garner, or that he should even be in the top, because it varies if he's even in mine, just the criteria.

Yes. I am asking his criteria not restating my own.

As for magic number, I think for most here the magic number would be between 200 to 250. It exists but they won't declare it. Mine is 300. No biggie.

 

[subshakerz]

Any number is arbitrary. 5 is a lot more valuable than 1, but not too different to 4.

I think 10 or 15 is probably a bit low, so I use groups of countries. I prefer records that are good against every unique country, but there is just too much variance.

Groups have bigger issues though. One countries performance can eschew the rest for example. Or assuming pitches are all uniform across a region.