Garner outside West Indies
136 Wickets @19.74 better than Lillee.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
136 Wickets @19.74 better than Lillee.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
After 13 years and 151 innings,
Marshall took 376 wickets at 20.94
22*5, 4*10
After 14 years and 151 innings
Akram took 368 wickets at 22.89
22*5, 4*10
Marshall had superior fielding support and era advantage.
If there is a modern top ATG with low WPM.. Its Ambrose.
Akram clearly a 4.5 WPM bowler for a normal 13 years career. That too without proper fielding support.
Wickets per innings : 1) Richard Hadlee : 2.87 WPI 2) Dennis Lillee : 2.70 WPI 3) Dale Steyn : 2.60 WPI 4) Imran Khan : 2.60 WPI 5) Allan Donald : 2.60 WPI 6) Malcolm Marshall : 2.50 WPI 7) Waqar Younis : 2.42 WPI 8) Glenn McGrath : 2.32 WPI 9) Wasim Akram : 2.30 WPI 10) Curtly Ambrose : 2.30 WPI
Last edited:
Dennis Lillee is So Great because 1) There was no other Bowler who was better than Dennis Lillee in 1970s 2) His Amazing Record against England 3) Broke the World Record for Most Wickets in Tests 4) Lillee took 2.70 Wickets per innings which is amazing. - Dennis Lillee was a Work Horse who regularly took Wickets as indicated by his great Bowling Average in Australia, England and New Zealand. Conclusion : Dennis Lillee is a good choice as Opening Bowler in an All Time XI more than Wasim Akram.
Last edited:
Coronis
International Coach
Not necessarily. Some are capable of consistently bowling at a much higher volume e.g Hadlee (kinda forced in his case tbf) whilst guys with a better SR will end up with lower WPM/WPI because they don’t need/aren’t able to do this.
Being able to bowl long spells or even just bowling a lot of overs in an innings/match consistently without tiring/injuring yourself is a big plus in my book personally.
Wasim underchieved by a large margin. His skill were as good as anyone, but he lacked two things.
1 - No great peak like some others [ You get on roll for 25 tests and oppositins can be even minnows ]
2 - Being consistently good in match involving the top 5 tests sides( home and away both ) [ You get lots of points for good record against better teams ]
Lack of both factors is visible in his peak rating of 830 in ICC all time rating. With presence of any of above two factors, his peak rating would have been in range of 875 plus. It stands out among all greats.
Wasim skills level was much better than his output. But when all said and done, bowler's job is to take wickets quickly and cheaply. If you can do it againt the top teams then you are golden. He should have had a better record.
1 - No great peak like some others [ You get on roll for 25 tests and oppositins can be even minnows ]
2 - Being consistently good in match involving the top 5 tests sides( home and away both ) [ You get lots of points for good record against better teams ]
Lack of both factors is visible in his peak rating of 830 in ICC all time rating. With presence of any of above two factors, his peak rating would have been in range of 875 plus. It stands out among all greats.
Wasim skills level was much better than his output. But when all said and done, bowler's job is to take wickets quickly and cheaply. If you can do it againt the top teams then you are golden. He should have had a better record.
Johan
International Vice-Captain
I don't think anyone claims Wasim made a 100% of his skill.
I wonder how kind your analysis format is to Lillee
Australia, England and New Zealand : Dennis Lillee’s 349 Wickets @22.78 vs Richard Hadlee’s 348 Wickets @22.22 - Who took more quality Wickets in these three Countries ? (This needs more investigation) - 2 Most Efficient Work Horses of Cricket Lillee and Hadlee who is a better choice ?
Reply
Johan
International Vice-Captain
Hadlee
He probably made least use of his skills among all bowlers I saw. I have no way to measure, but I saw his entire career. Wasim is probbaly most skillful bowler I saw. I did not see career of Lillee but given his peak rating is not so low, I would expect him to have a better record in matches involving top 5 teams during his career or he had simply had a great peak to get that. ICC ratings gets you more points for performing against better teams.
We can try to see if my hypothesis is correct or wrong.
Top 5 teams during Lillee career were,
Bowlers performance in matches involving top 5 teams during Lillee career: Lillee appears in top 3 and his avg is very close to the first spot avg.
-----------------------------------
Top 5 teams during Wasim's career:
Bowlers performance in matches involving top 5 teams during Wasim's career: Wasim appears in 7th spot and his avg is way below the first spot Avg.
ICC rating gives more point for doing well against better teams. They take account of relative performance as well. 24-25 avg itself is not a disadvanatge but when others are doing much better then it puts you in disadvantage. That a liekly explanation for such a low peak rating for Wasim compared to other greats.
If Wasim had a good run, even if it was against bottom/minnows, then a run of 25 tests could have pushed him to 875+ points.
Anyway, Wasim was the most fun to watch among all bowlers in his generation for me. Probably Warne came close for me. He surely underachieved compared to his skill. I did not see Lillee so can't say much about him when it comes to skills vs output.
Last edited:
Ya. See Philander. Same SR as Hadlee, but only 3.5 WPM.
SR, WPI and WPM are all useful measures, but their relative value is going to be applicable to different extents to different players, depending on their strengths and weaknesses, and the circumstances they played in.
sayon basak
International Captain
WPM is not very useful when you account for WPI already.
WPM is much more of an indicator than WPI. You could have someone take 2 WPI as 5th bowler only bowling 12 innings in 10 tests so 24 wkts @ 2.4 WPM. Or an opening bowler needed to bowl all 20 innings at 2 WPI is 4 WPM. Huge difference
Last edited:
They do typically tend to give very similar answers if that's what you mean. Both have advantages though.
sayon basak
International Captain
What if the bowler plays for a side which rarely makes it to the second innings? Then the bowler's WPM will suffer due to low no. of innings, which is definitely not his fault.
And if a 5th bowler is taking 2 WPI, he surely deserves the praise (considering the fact that 5th bowlers bowl less even in the innings they bowl, at least less than the 1st bowler)
And both WPM and WPI are useless metrics if the sample size is too low (see Philander in his first 10 tests), which is the case in your example. Surely a 5th bowler is not gonna maintain the 2 WPI over a larger sample size; and if he does, then he is the greatest 5th bowler of all time by quite some distance.
There are tons of circumstances in which WPM will be better.
-It measures total workload and wickets in a test. If these aren't useful, maybe we should just be looking at SR? Fatigue happens across games.
-A bowler doesn't bowl through injury
-A bowler doesn't bowl at all when conditions don't suit, like a spinner in the first innings/a part time spinner mostly bowling on burners.
-You are going to get innings that end quickly, counting against WPI stats, but not giving a real opportunity to take wickets.
Which is not to argue that WPM is better. Just that both have merits.
What a silly comparison as ODI's weren't a massive thing in Lillee's time.
sayon basak
International Captain
When the poll doesn't specify, it generally test-only.