Greatest Ever Test XI

[Richard]

I agree, there's a lot of reasons why a bowler might not perform - the ball might not be doing anything, the outfield might reward good batting shots etc. Why hold that against Lillee? That has nothing to do with the sub-continent, it happens everywhere in the world - bad balls to play with, fast outfields etc. Surely that would have been the case in many Tests against England and New Zealand and the West Indies where Lillee succeeded. I don't understand why you started your rebuttal like this when the reason people don't rate Lillee that highly is because of a misconception that he played poorly on bad pitches. The other conditions you mentioned can be experienced in Australia and other places. I will say I've seen outfields in Perth and Brisbane be just as fast as sub-continent wickets. What's the difference between 100,000 Indian fans and 100,000 Australian fans at the MCG - same atmosphere except the crowd would be against Lillee... but then again Lillee was often booed at times in his career and it never effected him. There's nothing to suggest there Lillee couldn't perform in any one of those conditions. Anything else is purely speculation and once again neglects the fact he rarely placed in the sub-continent and such a small sample of evidence is inconclusive.



Nope. Honestly, how many times have we heard commentators say something like, "This pitch is like the WACA pitch, so Damien Martyn should adapt to it" when Australia is playing overseas. Sir Garfield Sobers thought along the same lines, he's often tried to compare wickets in England to wickets in the West Indies to decide how he should play. SERIOUSLY! He knew of pitches in the England that played the same in the West Indies. Do you honestly believe batsmen don't look at wickets and say, "hmm, how should I play this innings... well I played on a pitch like this before so this is how I'll go about it." Commentators think the same way when they do pitch reports. It's not how the pitch looks, it's how it will react - fast, slow, will it help seam etc.

I know it is. But there are other things that influence how a cricketer plays - it's that much harder to be a bowler on a flat, non-seaming, non-turning, very-easy-paced pitch on a hot day in India than it is on a warm one in England.

There are, as I tried to allude to, hundreds of different permutations that make the condition of the pitch very, very far from the only relevant factor when playing cricket around The World. You can never, ever come remotely close to recreating the subcontinent (or West Indies, or New Zealand) anywhere no matter what you do with the pitch.

Purely and simply, he didn't play there often. I already said it, what if people judged Warne off his first Test against Bangladesh? Would people say he had problems in Bangladesh? It was one test and things can change in the next test or next series or whenever. Lillee played far too few Tests to make a good judgement of his ability. There's plenty of other more plausable ways to "get around it." To say it was anything but a small sample would be wrong.

No-one is saying that Lillee would be unlikely to do well in the subcontinent or West Indies had he played there more often. No-one. Well, no-one that I know of, anyway.

But there is simply no way around the fact that he did not. Yes, lack of opportunity hurt him - but
1) it should not be overlooked that one of the reasons for this was his own fault - he'd have toured India, which he never did, had he not been playing for Kerry Packer. That's his choice, and undoubtedly the money he earned was important, but it was a choice and it DID affect his cricket career.
2) there have been many players who have failed to get the opportunity to do various things, and it has meant their careers have been lesser than they might have been. That's just the way the cookie crumbles - it's unfortunate, but one of the requirements of proving yourself atop the tree is the opportunity to do so. So many players might have been better had they had more opportunity, and in so many different ways. There are a million things that can happen to a player in life that can affect his career - from the choice of school to the choice of hospital when you get injured at some point.

No that's what people here don't understand. It's a rule of thumb. I mean you'd nary find someone say he wasn't the best. All the Englishmen rated him the best - Botham, Gower, Willis etc. Malcolm Marshall said in his autobiography Lillee is just ahead of him. Hadlee said he was the best ever. I mean the list is endless, as in there's more than what I've written. It's like Rid Marsh said last year when that statue was given to him, "Ask everybody who played against him and they say he's the best."

This ignores the fact that you didn't list any testimony of someone saying Malcolm Marshall was the best. I'm sure there's one or two out there, Marshall was a genius of course. But the testimony for Lillee is far more comprehensive... you just wont find as much testimony for Marshall than you will for Lillee.

I fully disagree. It was the fact that Lille reinvented himself as a complete bowler that made him so revered. When he started he was all fire and brimstone, but he couldn't bowl great yorker, or change things up. Hurting his back was a good thing for him because it caused him to re-evaluate his craft. He lost speed, but gained accuracy, he began to incorpotate cutters, both ways too... he was more careful with swing and placement. He became complete - Hadlee saw this and mimmicked him.

People remember him for his comeback - that's where a lot of the testimony focuses, him becomming more completele. Coming to think about it, when people complement him for reinventing himself when he lost pace, they're basically saying he was the opposite of what you're decribing "some macho fast bully", when people like Botham remark on his amazement at Lillee reinventing himself. So few people have talked about his macho attitude, rather his ability to reinvent himself.

Again, that's a myth that just goes around places like here.

Both Hadlee and Marshall idolised Lillee and learned off him. Hadlee tried to mimmick him in his action and loved his use of cutters. Marshall was always asking him questions when they met as well. It has nothing to do with a macho persona - it's everything to do with them thinking he was great.

I find this approach of rebuttal frustrating when posters use it. I give an example or an opinion of a cricketer, and rather argue with evidence of your own, you question the credibility of the evidence. These players went far and beyond to proclaim Lillee the best - it was no hype. Hadlee, Botham and Akram were all selectors in ESPN's Legends or Cricket, and Lillee was easily the highest ranked fast bowler in that series. Marshall writes it in his autobiography that Lillee gets the fast bowling mantle...

I don't want to keep repeating myself on all this testimony. I just find it frustrating you ignore... or to put it more accurately, question the validity of the testimony, when it's:

comprehensive
You simply couldn't find as many, or close to as many, ex-players saying Marshall was the best as they do Lillee. Even Allan Border, who considered Marshall the hardest bowler he ever faced, thinks Lillee is the greatest ever. Like I said, you might find one or two saying he was the best, but it wont match the amount of Lillee testimony in how comprehensive it is.

conclusive
To be sure they were all modest players. But they were also assertive. As I said, Hadlee and Botham were all selecters on ESPN's Legends of Cricket. Botham says Lillee was first in the fast bowling department on his list in one episode. Hadlee says Lillee was the goal-standard, so he put him there top of his list as well. Marshall put it in his friggin autobiography when he didn't need to. THEY VOTED HIM THE BEST! It wasn't them being complementary and modest when the topic of Lillee was brought up. Like I said, it's frustrating when people refuse to believe any evidence you present because they don't want to. It's very conclusive evidence. They weren't blowing out smoke, they have all put him at the top when they didn't to. If you can't accept that then I don't want to talk about this because it's stubborn and uncomprimising to refute the evidence.



If Marshall gives the fast bowling mantle to Lillee, then he's not saying Hadlee was the best. If Hadlee is saying Lillee was the best, then he's excluding Marshall. This is a trend that keeps on going my friend. I understand what you're saying here, but the amount of players who rate Lillee the best is just far too comprehensive for this argument to hold up because when one great rates Lillee the best he's excluding a lot of other greats. Marshall did say he'd give his nod "just" to Lillee, so he obviously rated himself by the way.

You can have your opinion on who the best fast bowler ever is. I certainly don't blink when somebody says Marshall was the best ever. But it's silly to refute that many of those great bowlers rated him the best when all you come off as is stubborn. And I'm not trying to sound high and mighty saying that, or insulting, it's just that such testimony can't be accepted as playing blowing out smoke and being modest, when there's too much of it for that to be so. Remember again, Hadlee and Botham had him as the highest fast bowler on their lists on ESPN's legends of cricket. And Marshall said he'd give the slight nod to Lillee. And don't forget the paragraph above this above this one, where I make the point that if Marshall says Lillee is the best, then he's at least saying he was better than Hadlee etc.

Please just accept that the testimonies hold water. Have your own opinion on who was the best by all means, by accept what's easy to accept. Otherwise I know this thing is going no where.

I'll say it again: I don't believe the fact that people rate him so highly is a conscious judgement based on his attitude. I believe it's subconscious - it's something that means a decision can have less thought put into it than it merited.

I don't for a second deny that Lillee's achievement in recovering from the spinal injury was a phenominal one. Beyond doubt, that enhances his standing. Virtually no others, never mind in that day, had fought back from such horrific setbacks. But I also feel that the "he was the complete bowler" or "X and B and J idolised and imitated him" holds any water either. The pupil can quite conceivably be a better product than the master in the end. This is another reason Marshall and Hadlee would be so quick to praise him as better than themselves or each other - the admiration for your tutor can quite easily make you reluctant to place anyone above him.

I cannot and will never be able to trust completely the judgement of those who played against Lillee, because as I say - there's so much emotional baggage that comes into the equation. This can cloud the judgement.

 

[silentstriker]

An example, his contemporaries rated 'Lara' to be a lot better than Ponting (something Kaz disagrees with). So whose right? Can these 'contemporaries' be wrong?

Of course they can. No one is arguing whether Lillee was a great bowler.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I have no qualms with Lara > Ponting, none at all.

 

[silentstriker]

TBH, I have no qualms with Lara > Ponting, none at all.

Me neither, but making a point. Kaz thinks they are closer than most of us do.

 

[Richard]

 

[Swervy]

I'll say it again: I don't believe the fact that people rate him so highly is a conscious judgement based on his attitude. I believe it's subconscious - it's something that means a decision can have less thought put into it than it merited.

I don't for a second deny that Lillee's achievement in recovering from the spinal injury was a phenominal one. Beyond doubt, that enhances his standing. Virtually no others, never mind in that day, had fought back from such horrific setbacks. But I also feel that the "he was the complete bowler" or "X and B and J idolised and imitated him" holds any water either. The pupil can quite conceivably be a better product than the master in the end. This is another reason Marshall and Hadlee would be so quick to praise him as better than themselves or each other - the admiration for your tutor can quite easily make you reluctant to place anyone above him.

I cannot and will never be able to trust completely the judgement of those who played against Lillee, because as I say - there's so much emotional baggage that comes into the equation. This can cloud the judgement.

so did we disregard anything anyone who played the game says then, can we beleive Dickie Bird when he says Lillee was the best, or any number of commentators on the game...or do we have to go on the say so of people who never saw him live and never saw his contempories live..since when exactly did you become such an expert on psyhcology anyway?

lets face it Richard , you have a half arsed theory which really just doesnt hold any water what-so-ever.

I dont think anyone would begrudge anyone having the opinion that there may have been slightly better fast bowlers than Lillee, but your reasoning behind dismissing those who obviously understood the art of fast bowling is laughable

 

[Richard]

Those who understood the art of fast bowling and also didn't understand the mysterious ways of the human mind.

And yes, even the great Harold is open to such things. Heck, probably even more than most. But he did mention how Trueman rated Lindwall better. And how Trueman's take on that issue was far more interesting than Trueman's belief that he himself was better.

 

[Swervy]

Those who understood the art of fast bowling and also didn't understand the mysterious ways of the human mind.

And yes, even the great Harold is open to such things. Heck, probably even more than most. But he did mention how Trueman rated Lindwall better. And how Trueman's take on that issue was far more interesting than Trueman's belief that he himself was better.

and could Trueman not possibly be victim of his own loathing of the modern game?

Of course Trueman thought Lindwall was better, he was a contemporary of Trueman, and given your theory, that completely blows his opinion out of the water!!!!

 

[Swervy]

Those who understood the art of fast bowling and also didn't understand the mysterious ways of the human mind.

The problem is you appear to have a lack of knowledge in both subjects

 

[Richard]

and could Trueman not possibly be victim of his own loathing of the modern game?

Of course Trueman thought Lindwall was better, he was a contemporary of Trueman, and given your theory, that completely blows his opinion out of the water!!!!

The only reason me mentioning Trueman was relative was because Trueman could see through the macho-is-good-bowler thing.

 

[Richard]

The problem is you appear to have a lack of knowledge in both subjects

Nonsense, I understand both subjects very well.

 

[Swervy]

The only reason me mentioning Trueman was relative was because Trueman could see through the macho-is-good-bowler thing.

hahah...Trueman....ok..and what makes you say that then?

Any sources of reference you could provide, or is that more down to your psychology PhD you appear to have cultivated overnight?

 

[Swervy]

Nonsense, I understand both subjects very well.

oh really, what coaching level you at...any psychology qualifications????

 

[Ikki]

Not really - if someone averaged and scored just as much as Bradman but toured more countries than Bradman, I'd have no problems putting him higher.

The problem was that others (even in his own era) averaged just as good as Lillee (if not better) and toured more countries and did well in them. He didn't. Whether he could is irrelevant.

I think it is relevant. The point you're making is isolated to whether a certain player is better than another player in playing at some place around the world. This won't define whether the weaker player on that pitch is weaker overall. I am not talking about whether Lillee was better on sub-continental pitches, but overall as a bowler.

I don't know what to make of the argument. I see it like Francis. He was simply regarded the best by everyone and I don't think this instance will do enough to denigrate that claim. No one back then thought it, I have no reason why we should now.

 

[Ikki]

An example, his contemporaries rated 'Lara' to be a lot better than Ponting (something Kaz disagrees with). So whose right? Can these 'contemporaries' be wrong?

Of course they can. No one is arguing whether Lillee was a great bowler.

When did I disagree with such a thing? I've stated numerous times that I rate Lara the best. When those such people said it, however, Lara certainly was. If Ponting continues with his form of the past few years, I can see why that should no longer be valid.

 

[JBH001]

My problem with your post was this...

Here you say Lillee could have done well in sub-continent wickets. Why should the fact he didn't play many games on sub-continent wickets be held against him if you think he "could"? If you know he would have done well, that shouldn't he held against him.

(this is the problem with getting involved with CW threads with Mock Research Proposals due - in this case, today.

Francis, I said that Lillee could probably have done well on pitches outsides the 3 nations he played against given the fact that he was a magnificent fast bowler, held by many (those who faced him, played with him, and watched him) as perhaps the finest of all time.

However, my saying that he could have does not mean that I know he could have. There is a distinction there that needs to be grasped. I am extrapolating from his proven class that he could most probably have been able to perform on other surfaces, but the simple fact of the matter is that I do not know for certain.

(This is even more the case if we take his representative sample into account)

With Marshall, Imran, and Hadlee we do know, for certain. Therefore, in some ways it would be unfair to these three bowlers if we ignore their achievements in favour of another bowler who has not done what they have done, and has simply, really only been well talked about by players who played against him, played with him, and watched him, on those very surfaces and in those conditions which constitute the crux of this debate.

As I said we simply do not know, and in all fairness, when compared to players with whom we do know, their claims should receive priority. Therefore Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee come out tops over Lillee because we have a broader and proven range of criteria with which to judge them against as compared to Lillee.

 

[silentstriker]

When did I disagree with such a thing? I've stated numerous times that I rate Lara the best. When those such people said it, however, Lara certainly was. If Ponting continues with his form of the past few years, I can see why that should no longer be valid.

OK, switch Lara with Sachin. Ponting himself said Sachin was better than Lara. Who is right, Ponting or Ian Chappell?

 

[archie mac]

Because he didn't. Could or could not is a matter of conjecture, did or did not is a matter of fact.

I don't think a one off Three Test series on flat tracks (have a look at the score cards) proves anything.

Dravid had a poor series of Aust. Does that equate to can't bat? Thankfully he fixed that idea up with another tour, either way I still rated him a great batsman

 

[archie mac]

So if I understand this:

Lillee did not play enought outside NZ, Aust, Eng so he can't be considered better then players who did

All of the players who rate him the greatest fast bowler of all time are brainwashed

My Lord I rest my case

Judge: case dismissed Please do not waste this esteemed establishments time with such silly cases in the future

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think a one off Three Test series on flat tracks (have a look at the score cards) proves anything.

It doesnt prove anything...and that's the whole point! He didn't do it, while others did...it's that simple.