Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[bagapath]

The recent breakdown showed McGrath is just about as highly rated a pacer by this recent gen of ex-cricketers than Lillee was in his time, which was a surprise.

Not true. Lillee was the no 1 pace bowler according to the cricketing community in an era of great fast bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

You have to add the number of matches they missed due to injury.

Frankly speaking he did not do half of the things that McGrath could. Like bowling sides out on slow wickets.

you said /Bowling 10 mph slower he can give that extra 10 overs per match//
It is not true

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Close, but would Wasim Akram v Matthew Hoggard be closer?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not true. Lillee was the no 1 pace bowler according to the cricketing community in an era of great fast bowlers.

More likely just before the beginning of the Era of Great fast bowlers.

 

[Van_Sri]

Dennis Lillee > Wasim Akram in England : Lillee took 96 Wickets @20.56 and Wasim took 53 Wickets @28.73 - The Question here is Why Wasim Struggled in England ?

 

[subshakerz]

Not true. Lillee was the no 1 pace bowler according to the cricketing community in an era of great fast bowlers.

No he was no.1 for a decade before those great fast bowlers came of age. There is no chance he debuts in 1970 with either Marshall or Hadlee and he has anywhere near the same consensus.

Whereas Wasim is the consensus pick of the 90s despite being concurrent with Ambrose and Donald.

 

[subshakerz]

Dennis Lillee > Wasim Akram in England : Lillee took 96 Wickets @20.56 and Wasim took 53 Wickets @28.73 - The Question here is Why Wasim Struggled in England ?

First series as a teen so that is in part. Great in 92. 96 he bowled well but was unlucky not to take more. 2001 was a bit over the hill.

Was great in Lancashire.

 

[Van_Sri]

Wasim Akram Performance in England : 1987 Tour of England : 16 Wickets @29, 1992 Tour of England : 21 Wickets @22, 1996 Tour of England : 11 Wickets @31.81, 2001 Tour of England : 5 Wickets @49.40. Dennis Lillee Performance in England : 1972 Tour of England : 31 Wickets @17.67, 1975 Tour of England : 21 Wickets @21.90, Centenary Test 1980 : 5 Wickets @19.20, 1981 Tour of England : 39 Wickets @22.30 - A Great Bowler Should Perform Well When it matters the most, Lillee did it so cannot put Wasim ahead of Lillee.

 

[Qlder]

No he was no.1 for a decade before those great fast bowlers came of age. There is no chance he debuts in 1970 with either Marshall or Hadlee and he has anywhere near the same consensus.

What are talking about? Lillee debuted in Jan 1971 and Hadlee debuted in Feb 1973. They had 11 years of overlapping careers

Marshall debuted in Dec 1978 so had 5 years of career overlap with Lillee

 

[bagapath]

No he was no.1 for a decade before those great fast bowlers came of age. There is no chance he debuts in 1970 with either Marshall or Hadlee and he has anywhere near the same consensus.

Whereas Wasim is the consensus pick of the 90s despite being concurrent with Ambrose and Donald.

Lillee was the no.1 bowler in the world for most of his career. Roberts/ Holding/ Imran/ Botham had their peaks and surpassed him on occasions. Hadlee and Marshall took over in the mid 80s. A decade later, it was the same for Akram at the top, with Waqar overshadowing him for a while at the start of his run and McGrath and Donald challenging his position later; while Ambrose had a great career concurrently.

 

[bagapath]

What are talking about? Lillee debuted in Jan 1971 and Hadlee debuted in Feb 1973. They had 11 years of overlapping careers

Marshall debuted in Dec 1978 so had 5 years of career overlap with Lillee

True. Hadlee was very good for 8-9 years and became an ATG in the mid 80s. Marshall was good for the first 12-15 tests and became the giant that he was for the rest of his career when he took the new ball in Kanpur in 1983.
Lillee was the primus inter pares from his debut till retirement, indeed.

 

[Van_Sri]

First series as a teen so that is in part. Great in 92. 96 he bowled well but was unlucky not to take more. 2001 was a bit over the hill.

Was great in Lancashire.

Wasim Akram stats in some important series put me off, otherwise I will definitely love to rate him over Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee was the no.1 bowler in the world for most of his career. Roberts/ Holding/ Imran/ Botham had their peaks and surpassed him on occasions. Hadlee and Marshall took over in the mid 80s. A decade later, it was the same for Akram at the top, with Waqar overshadowing him for a while at the start of his run and McGrath and Donald challenging his position later; while Ambrose had a great career concurrently.

There is peer rating during career but also post-career where the same ex-players give their final judgment.

On that score, Lillee only leads among the 70s early 80s gen but as has been pointed out, much of that period his only serious competition for the title was Roberts, who is also highly rated.

Whereas post career, majority of the 90s 2000s gen put Wasim ahead of contemporaries Ambrose and Donald.

 

[subshakerz]

What are talking about? Lillee debuted in Jan 1971 and Hadlee debuted in Feb 1973. They had 11 years of overlapping careers

Marshall debuted in Dec 1978 so had 5 years of career overlap with Lillee

Lillee was worldclass right out of the gate.

Hadlee became worldclass in the late 70s, Imran early 80s and Marshall early mid-80s.

So Lillee made his stamp and reputation much earlier.

 

[Qlder]

Lillee was worldclass right out of the gate.

Hadlee became worldclass in the late 70s, Imran early 80s and Marshall early mid-80s.

So Lillee made his stamp and reputation much earlier.

So basically you're saying Lillee was great for his whole career, whereas Imran, Hadlee and Marshall only become great after playing for 6-8 years. Sounds like a good reason to rate Lillee higher

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim Akram stats in some important series put me off, otherwise I will definitely love to rate him over Lillee.

I used to rate Lillee higher because of overwhelming better penetration. But I think Wasims stats suffer in part because of the extra longer early career teen phase and have an extraordinarily bad slip cordon.

Wasim in the 90s basically had at least one quality series everywhere and three worldclass series in a row against the best team of the era, Australia. I can have more assurance he can be relatively quality across conditions.

Lillee without a record in SC and WI to me and generally friendly Aussie pitches for most of his career suffers a bit in comparison. Though we can say he was more lethal in his own conditions. Also I don't think having read up on him he was necessarily the complete bowler. He lacked a good yorker for example whereas Wasim had all the tools.

 

[subshakerz]

So basically you're saying Lillee was great for his whole career, wheras Hadlee and Marshall only become great after playing for 6-7 years. Sounds like a good reason to rate Lillee higher

Hadlee and Marshall were far greater when they became great though. And it's not unusual for pacers to take a few years to find their stride.

 

[bagapath]

There is peer rating during career but also post-career where the same ex-players give their final judgment.

On that score, Lillee only leads among the 70s early 80s gen but as has been pointed out, much of that period his only serious competition for the title was Roberts, who is also highly rated.

Whereas post career, majority of the 90s 2000s gen put Wasim ahead of contemporaries Ambrose and Donald.

Roberts and Holding and Garner and Imran and Hadlee were not club bowlers. Lillee was clearly the leader of the greatest era of fast bowlers.

 

[Chin Music]

I used to rate Lillee higher because of overwhelming better penetration. But I think Wasims stats suffer in part because of the extra longer early career teen phase and have an extraordinarily bad slip cordon.

Wasim in the 90s basically had at least one quality series everywhere and three worldclass series in a row against the best team of the era, Australia. I can have more assurance he can be relatively quality across conditions.

Lillee without a record in SC and WI to me and generally friendly Aussie pitches for most of his career suffers a bit in comparison. Also I don't think having read up on him he was necessarily the complete bowler. He lacked a good yorker for example whereas Wasim had all the tools.

I barely remember 1981 Ashes, but I do recall that Lillee still got plenty of wickets once he had lost pace. Wasim wasn't really the same bowler in terms of conventional swing and seam, despite his many years at Lancashire. Wasim probably played a bit too long, (into his latter 30s) and suffered in comparison to Lillee as a result.

 

[bagapath]

Hadlee and Marshall were far greater when they became great though. And it's not unusual for pacers to take a few years to find their stride.

Same way one car argue that McGrath and Steyn were greater in the post Akram era. In fact, one could argue that Hadlee/ Marshall/ Steyn/McGrath were greater than both Akram and Lillee. that doesnt add anything to this argument.