Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[kyear2]

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.

Only reason I use 5 is because that's the number of traditional test series, if you want to use 4, then fine as well.

I'm saying that's what I use for consistency, and even then, not imposing it for others.

 

[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.

What does being the alpha mean then and why doesn't that mean better bowler?

 

[Bolo.]

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

Fair.

I think groups is countries is going to give much better results than individual ones though, whatever the problems.

In modern cricket especially, there are just too many teams to get a reasonable sample size. You would have to play well over a hundred games with a completely Even split across countries to get even 5 per country. Nobody is hitting this. Anderson has over 180 tests And hasn't played at all in 1/3 of countries.

 

[Bolo.]

Only reason I use 5 is because that's the number of traditional test series, if you want to use 4, then fine as well.

I'm saying that's what I use for consistency, and even then, not imposing it for others.

A single series is pretty meaningless. Form of both you and the opposition, conditions, niggles, etc etc

 

[kyear2]

A single series is pretty meaningless. Form of both you and the opposition, conditions, niggles, etc etc

Look at test records, many players only have a single series . But to an extent I do agree, a single series tells us very little, but it's the best we have to work with.

Ideally, 8 to 10 gets would be better.

But I'm also not the one that needs to see someone perform well in every single country, especially in the SC like some do. Various conditions are good enough tbh.

 

[Coronis]

Um no, 300 is a recognized milestone.

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.

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.

 

[Jumno]

Lillee. Excellent fast bowler. A complete fast bowler. Hugely rated by peers.

Shouldered the burden. Worked to out think the batsman.

 

[Migara]

Lillee. Excellent fast bowler. A complete fast bowler. Hugely rated by peers.

Shouldered the burden. Worked to out think the batsman.

A fast bowler failed in sub continent / west indies is no complete fast bowler.

 

[Jumno]

A fast bowler failed in sub continent / west indies is no complete fast bowler.

Lara never got a hundred against Donald, Wasim or Waqur. Donald made him jump.

He was the second best batsman of the 90s era and people regarding him as one of the best, also one of WI greats. Wasim, Murali rate him very highly, even better than the Tendulkar Vs Lara debate. I think even McGrath rates him very very highly.

Ponting said he wouldn't want Lara at the crease chasing.

He played two impactful innings against Australia in 99. He's other scores 277 in Sydney. 182. Tore Murali apart.

Ask Murali who's the best batsman he's bowled to.

 

[subshakerz]

A fast bowler failed in sub continent / west indies is no complete fast bowler.

Come on bro, Lillee didn't have enough chances to call it a proper fail. He has gaps.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

I think I defined it pretty clearly. He loses the longevity tiebreaker to every bowler above him. The quality is comparable (without going into criteria of statistical significance @Spark ). Lillee to me, is a clear step below in quality to Garner ( or any of the other top 6-7 fast bowlers) imo, so the longevity doesn't enter into it.

 

[shortpitched713]

I know the Sobers v Imran poll has more votes, but looking at the competitiveness of this comp, and the names voting for either side, it really is the Captain America Civil War of Player Comparison polls.

Some names there too, which really highlight nostalgia as well.

I think Garner might be slightly ahead if we take out all West Indian and Australian posters, but I haven't done the math. Ultimately an incredibly close contest.

 

[kyear2]

I know the Sobers v Imran poll has more votes, but looking at the competitiveness of this comp, and the names voting for either side, it really is the Captain America Civil War of Player Comparison polls.

Some names there too, which really highlight nostalgia as well.

I think Garner might be slightly ahead if we take out all West Indian and Australian posters, but I haven't done the math. Ultimately an incredibly close contest.

I think it's a fair comp, close but slightly behind is kinda accurate I think.

And yeah, the demo on this forum, especially in comparison to WI posters is severely skewed, and there are many posters that vote country regardless.

 

[subshakerz]

I think I defined it pretty clearly. He loses the longevity tiebreaker to every bowler above him. The quality is comparable (without going into criteria of statistical significance @Spark ). Lillee to me, is a clear step below in quality to Garner ( or any of the other top 6-7 fast bowlers) imo, so the longevity doesn't enter into it.

Why does he lose longevity to others and not Lillee?

 

[kyear2]

Why does he lose longevity to others and not Lillee?

I'm guessing because Lille's stats were objectively a bit behind while only bowling in two countries?

The further down you go, the more subjective it gets.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm guessing because Lille's stats were objectively a bit behind while only bowling in two countries?

The further down you go, the more subjective it gets.

Yeah so if it is spelled out clearly I don't mind. Like, Garner lack of longevity but stat superiority overtakes a Lillee lacking stats abroad.

 

[shortpitched713]

Why does he lose longevity to others and not Lillee?

He does lose longevity to Lillee. That is a real thing, but I value the quality more because I think there's a big enough magnitude of difference.

I feel like I'm talking in circles here.

 

[kyear2]

He does lose longevity to Lillee. That is a real thing, but I value the quality more because I think there's a big enough magnitude of difference.

I feel like I'm talking in circles here.

Think you've made your point, no need to continue tbf.