Ian Botham vs Dennis Lillee

[Johan]

Yeah based on the ATG XI analysis of current and former players, Viv's standing is still pretty strong. In fact several who argue between Lara and Tendulkar will say Viv is the best.

not sure Viv's standing can fall outside of here tbh

 

[subshakerz]

not sure Viv's standing can fall outside of here tbh

You need to get back on the Viv train my friend.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Like your Gavaskar / Ashwin / Kapil posts?

Well you definitely do try hard, lol

Yk the thing I like the most about your posts is the total lack of self awareness. It's kinda crazy tbh.

 

[kyear2]

You are being intellectually lazy and don't bother to look at the blemishes in Hadlees record.

Lillee took 231 wickets@23.7 in 44 tests with a SR of 49.9 at home.
Hadlee took 201 wickets@22.9 in 43 tests with a SR of 53 at home.

Lillee took 96 wickets@20.5 in 16 tests with a SR of 50 in England.
Hadlee took 70 wickets in 14 tests@24.9 with a SR of 58.9 in England.

Hadlee took 15 wickets@27 in 4 tests in WI, a bit poorer than 23@28 in 5 tests for Lillee during WSC.

Now I never heard you argue that Hadlee has below par numbers at home, in England or WI? Why this double standard with Lillee?

And for the record, Lillee has amazing numbers especially at home and only someone who is blind average reader can think otherwise.

Can you explain to me how Lillee is taking more wickets per test than Hadlee at home despite Hadlee having less competition and arguably even better wickets?

Dude.

Decent post, actually quite a few in this thread, even if I don't agree with the premise or conclusion.

My concern with Hadlee has always been that for some reason he's never had the peer rating of Lillee or Marshall. I can confidently say that I've never seen him in an AT XI (probably 1?).

I've read where guys that even had Holding higher from that era.

With regards to his home record, and this isn't fair and based on just encounters with us and his flippant responses to same, not something I comment on.

In any event, while I've never called him out specifically for anything, a few weeks back I did say that while he remained in my top tier of 3 (3rd), I didn't consider him a true contender for GOAT and I wouldn't swear but you may have been one of those who criticized that.

I still think he's 3rd though and ahead of DK.

Also, your dismissal of averages, while I'm sure it serves it's purpose for you, it's still a critical metric that's more than a decent barometer of skill and effectiveness. It's not lazy.

 

[subshakerz]

Dude.

Decent post, actually quite a few in this thread, even if I don't agree with the premise or conclusion.

My concern with Hadlee has always been that for some reason he's never had the peer rating of Lillee or Marshall. I can confidently say that I've never seen him in an AT XI (probably 1?).

I've read where guys that even had Holding higher from that era.

With regards to his home record, and this isn't fair and based on just encounters with us and his flippant responses to same, not something I comment on.

In any event, while I've never called him out specifically for anything, a few weeks back I did say that while he remained in my top tier of 3 (3rd), I didn't consider him a true contender for GOAT and I wouldn't swear but you may have been one of those who criticized that.

I still think he's 3rd though and ahead of DK.

Also, your dismissal of averages, while I'm sure it serves it's purpose for you, it's still a critical metric that's more than a decent barometer of skill and effectiveness. It's not lazy.

I also have Hadlee ahead of Lillee but the difference is that unlike you I only see it as a lack of opportunities on Lillees side compared to Hadlee. Not a skill gap.

Will you please admit that you were wrong about Lillee having issues with his record aside from that?

By the way, I don't dismiss averages. I combine them with wicket tally and SR which you dismiss.

 

[kyear2]

I suppose it changes for everyone. But wicket tally at a healthy rate matter more than anything, even slightly cheaper average. There is no point being cheap in tests if you can't take wickets.

But for individual countries, ideally you want a sub 25 average and SR not more than early 50s and 4WPM but averaging 25-27 is still very good as long as wicket tally and SR is healthy. This is contextual of course depending on sample, etc.

For overall career, sub 24 average and SR in early 50s and 4WPM are benchmarks for me, falling below which I consider blemishes.

Wpm is much more a metric of usage and competition than quality. Especially if said s/r is in the mid to low 50's.

Cheap wickets as you call them, also creates pressure and leads to wickets by your fellow bowlers.

Bowlers who routinely releases pressure, allowing easy runs, can be way more detrimental to the cause.

 

[subshakerz]

Wpm is much more a metric of usage and competition than quality. Especially if said s/r is in the mid to low 50's.

Cheap wickets as you call them, also creates pressure and leads to wickets by your fellow bowlers.

Bowlers who routinely releases pressure, allowing easy runs, can be way more detrimental to the cause.

Would you agree there is a point where less wickettaking, even at a lower average, should be demerited? Like would you rate a 3WPM the same as 5WPM with a 20 average? Of course you wouldn't.

I am really surprised at your position. It's so opposite to how the game is played. Wickets matter most.

And cheap wickets that create pressure depends on bowlers of quality at the other end dismissing bats. In the case of late career Wasim and Ambrose they were simply played out and the other bowlers cashed on.

 

[kyear2]

What do these stats this have to do with Lillee?

You again are inserting Imran in the conversation and will whine later that I am obsessed with him.

Ok, now address the point at hand.

How is Sir Curtly's s/r not good enough, yet you push someone above him who is quite frankly worse.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, now address the point at hand.

How is Sir Curtly's s/r not good enough, yet you push someone above him who is quite frankly worse.

I have already addressed it.

Ambrose had penetration issues post 94 and in all samples outside Eng and Aus, especially home.

I have Imran over Ambrose based on greater success across different conditions (objective fact) and I look at Imran's bowling career 76 to 89, longer than Ambrose anyways, where his numbers are objectively better including wickettaking in several countries.

How many times do you want to debate Imran? Aren't you tired of it?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

How many times do you want to debate Imran? Aren't you tired of it?

No

 

[Coronis]

Dude.

Decent post, actually quite a few in this thread, even if I don't agree with the premise or conclusion.

My concern with Hadlee has always been that for some reason he's never had the peer rating of Lillee or Marshall. I can confidently say that I've never seen him in an AT XI (probably 1?).

I've read where guys that even had Holding higher from that era.

With regards to his home record, and this isn't fair and based on just encounters with us and his flippant responses to same, not something I comment on.

In any event, while I've never called him out specifically for anything, a few weeks back I did say that while he remained in my top tier of 3 (3rd), I didn't consider him a true contender for GOAT and I wouldn't swear but you may have been one of those who criticized that.

I still think he's 3rd though and ahead of DK.

Also, your dismissal of averages, while I'm sure it serves it's purpose for you, it's still a critical metric that's more than a decent barometer of skill and effectiveness. It's not lazy.

Don’t you dismiss Viv’s average?

 

[Coronis]

No one forces you to read them.

I know you don't appreciate inconvenient facts.

Fact: Barry Richards played 4 tests, therefore does not deserve a mention in an ATG test XI. A fact that everyone here can seem to grasp except one person.

 

[subshakerz]

No

Please note the times he inserts Imran into the conversation and argues other have an obsession.

 

[Johan]

Don’t you dismiss Viv’s average?

he should dismiss Tendulkar's too

 

[kyear2]

for me personally

Tier 1
Marshall | McGrath | Barnes | Hadlee

Tier 2
Ambrose | Steyn | Warne | Murali

Tier 2.5
Tiger | Imran

Tier 3
Trueman | Lillee | Garner | Holding | Donald | Lindwall | Wasim | Bumrah | Davidson

Tier 4
Cummins | Roberts | Pollock | Walsh | Waqar Et cetera

It's in order bar Tier 4

Besides the British guys, really close if not identical to mine.

Like the idea of separating them into additional tiers. So......

Tier 1
Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee

Tier 2
Steyn | Ambrose | Warne | Muralitharan

Tier 3
O'Reilly | Imran | Donald | Lillee | Holding | Wasim

Tier 4
Lindwall | Garner | Trueman | Bumrah | Davidson | Pollock | Cummins

If I were including Barnes, it would be tier 2.

 

[Johan]

Besides the British guys, really close if not identical to mine.

Like the idea of separating them into additional tiers. So......

Tier 1
Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee

Tier 2
Steyn | Ambrose | Warne | Muralitharan

Tier 3
O'Reilly | Imran | Donald | Lillee | Holding | Wasim

Tier 4
Lindwall | Garner | Trueman | Bumrah | Davidson | Pollock | Cummins

If I were including Barnes, it would be tier 2.

don't really think a large gap between Freddie and Lillee can be justified, they are similar in every way, and if you'd notice, Freddie critics are usually also Lillee critics, and vice versa.

 

[vidiq]

Tier 1-
Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee

Tier-2 - Steyn | Warne | muralidharan | Imran Khan

Tier 3- Bumrah | Ambrose | Donald | Lillee | garner | holding | Wasim .

Tier 4- Cummins | Rabada | Walsh | Waqar | Pollock | jimmy anderson .

Tier 5 - Nathan Lyon | Ashwin | Philander | Josh Hazlewood .

 

[kyear2]

You really are useless to debate with. Notice how you ignored all the arguments I gave?

And another strawman. I never said ignore averages. But look at wicket hauls and penetration too so we dont consider taking 5 wickets in 2 tests @ 20 a worldclass performance.

I am debating whether you have genuine comprehension issues but I think you know these points but I fully expect you to ignore this and reply with something irrelevant or another strawman.

First off truly and sincerely kiss my ass.

Secondly we're not taking about world class performances.

But let's look at this from a perspective of pure common sense and logic. What does someone taking 5 wickets in two tests at a 20 average tell you. Let's be honest for once.

Generally one would imagine that if someone was fully healthy and bowling a full work load and bowling badly, there's no way to maintain an average of 22.

With regards to NZ, in early '95, there's only one innings where he bowled a full load and wasn't effective. And he kept it quiet at one end and Walsh went crazy on the other. In a sample size of two and the only bad innings was 1 for 32 from 19 overs..... And wasn't that his first series post surgery?

So yeah, he wasn't devastating and it wasn't an ATG performance, but he demonstrated that even when not fully switched on, fit, or still adjusting, he's still going to shut down an end and not be a liability.

He averaged 22 in his first series back when others would have likely been a full liability.

Kinda idiotic area to try to prove a point. Becuse taking everything into account, it was a successful series.

 

[Johan]

Tier 1-
Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee

Tier-2 - Steyn | Warne | muralidharan | Imran Khan

Tier 3- Bumrah | Ambrose | Donald | Lillee | garner | holding | Wasim .

Tier 4- Cummins | Rabada | Walsh | Waqar | Pollock | jimmy anderson .

Tier 5 - Nathan Lyon | Ashwin | Philander | Josh Hazlewood .

what?

 

[kyear2]

There really aren't tiers for bowlers IMO excepts ATG and non ATG. Bats maybe by looking at the top of each era.

Really now?

Wowwwwwwwwwwwwww

Your perspectives really do shift on your agendas.

There's top guys from each era for bowlers as well. Why does that count?

Smfh