Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[sayon basak]

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

Yeah and after playing meh for 6-8 years, both Marshall and Hadlee came up with better numbers than Hadlee.

And really, Lillee's peer reputation has a lot to do with the then Australian team, as I said earlier. Lillee came into the scene when Australia had their highest losing streak.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Again, when did those bowlers aside from Roberts become consistently high quality? At least 6-7 years after Lillee.

 

[bagapath]

Lillee took 5 wickets per test. Among pacers, only Hadlee and Lillee average 5+ wkts in the last 100 years.
Akram took 4 wkts (3.98 in fact). A lot of pacers can boast of better numbers than that.

 

[sayon basak]

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.

Yeah, Hadlee/Marshall/Steyn/McGrath>Akram/Lillee; what's the point?

 

[Van_Sri]

1970s : Lillee took 184 Wickets @23.78, Hadlee took 107 Wickets @30.14, Imran Khan took 98 Wickets @31.88 - When Lillee was Enjoying Stardom these Bowlers were not even in the conversation to compare with Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

We are only arguing peer rating here not record.

And yeah McGrath is greater in the post Akram era for his peer rating. Steyn will be for 2010s.

But for 90s it was Akram.

 

[bagapath]

Again, when did those bowlers aside from Roberts become consistently high quality? At least 6-7 years after Lillee.

Holding and Roberts and Botham peaked before 81. Imran before 82. Lillee retired in 84. Everyone in the world knew it was a fast bowling festival and Lillee was the top dog.

 

[subshakerz]

1970s : Lillee took 184 Wickets @23.78, Hadlee took 107 Wickets @30.14, Imran Khan took 98 Wickets @31.88 - When Lillee was Enjoying Stardom these Bowlers were not even in the conversation to compare with Lillee.

Yeah that's the point. Really it was only post WSC that the other bowlers got to share the spotlight much.

 

[bagapath]

We are only arguing peer rating here not record.

And yeah McGrath is greater in the post Akram era for his peer rating. Steyn will be for 2010s.

But for 90s it was Akram.

Same with Lillee for 70 -84.

 

[sayon basak]

Lillee took 5 wickets per test. Among pacers, only Hadlee and Lillee average 5+ wkts in the last 100 years.
Akram took 4 wkts (3.98 in fact). A lot of pacers can boast of better numbers than that.

Muralitharan took 6 wickets per match, should that place him ahead of everyone?
Don't think going only by WPM does anything. Plus, Wasim had good bowlers in his team, that explains his low WPM.

 

[subshakerz]

Holding and Roberts and Botham peaked before 81. Imran before 82. Lillee retired in 84. Everyone in the world knew it was a fast bowling festival and Lillee was the top dog.

Sure but logically if you have a fast bowler for who for a decade everyone has the raving away as the best and inspired all his competition, you think he would be displaced that easily until he retires?

Regardless though there was chatter about Imran being the best before his shin injury. And then Marshall took over.

 

[bagapath]

In terms of peer ratings, this is how it goes for test cricket:

Spinner: Warne
All-rounder: Sobers
Wicket keeper: Knott
Pacer: Lillee

Any era/ any crowd

 

[subshakerz]

Same with Lillee for 70 -84.

Yes I am not arguing that. Only arguing that he had less peer competition for most of that time than Akram.

 

[bagapath]

Sure but logically if you have a fast bowler for who for a decade everyone has the raving away as the best and inspired all his competition, you think he would be displaced that easily until he retires?

Sure.
Ambrose was rated higher than Marshall in the early 90s.
Akram was practically forgotten post '98.

 

[Van_Sri]

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.

Technique wise Wasim is definitely a better bowler but in terms of decade wise legacy Lillee has to be rated higher. Wasim also had a good ODI career so can’t come to a conclusion immediately

 

[bagapath]

Yes I am not arguing that. Only arguing that he had less peer competition for most of that time than Akram.

the fast bowling pool was richest in that time, hence Lillee's primary position in that era is extra special

 

[subshakerz]

In terms of peer ratings, this is how it goes for test cricket:

Spinner: Warne
All-rounder: Sobers
Wicket keeper: Knott
Pacer: Lillee

Any era/ any crowd

No. If you look at the recent breakdown of ex players ATG XIs I did, it is clear McGrath is emerging as a firm consensus choice for post 2000s and IMO will overtake Lillee as the most peer rated pacer ever.

And it is debatable on whether Akram in the 90s is any lesser than Lillee is his era on peer rating.

 

[bagapath]

Yes I am not arguing that. Only arguing that he had less peer competition for most of that time than Akram.

Lillee towered over his competition more obviously.

Akram and Ambrose and Waqar until 95 OR Akram and Donald and McGrath from 96-2000 were closer calls.

 

[pardus]

I don't think Lillee is behind anyone as far as peer ratings are concerned.
In 1980s and well into 1990s, Lillee was the benchmark of fast bowling.
He was, almost by default, considered the greatest fast bowler of the modern era.
Many greats of the time including Viv Richards, Barry Richards, Ian Botham name him as the best they faced.
Imran too regarded him as one of the best, if not the best fast bowler, of his era.

To give you an idea, in this video about Malcolm Marshall, when Wasim Akram pretty much begs to differ (telling that he considers Marshall as the greatest over Lillee), he almost sounds a bit apolegetic.
It just shows you the pedestal on which the then cricketing world put Lillee on.

 

[subshakerz]

Akram was practically forgotten post '98.

Lol no he was not. Again look at my ATG XI breakdown.

Lords ATG XIs and Bowler Peer Ratings

Just going through this exhaustive list of ATG XIs from past players from Lords Cricket. I decided to just focus on 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s cricketers and the bowlers they chose. Not including the pundits. https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMnF7vW2Mvk4VbPMCi4gmMQBDgleGW0mF Here are the...

www.cricketweb.net