How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Richard]

Yes, because bowlers have not bowled well, not because it was impossible for them to do so.

 

[Richard]

Ahh, so Nasser Hussain > Sir Jack Hobbs then.

Nope.

Sir Jack Hobbs conquered stuff which would have seen games abandonded (quite rightly) in Hussain's and Hayden's day.

 

[Richard]

First you say :
I - am - not - making - any - judgement - on - those - failures.

Then right after that post you contradict yourself by saying :

It's presumably the case that there was more in it for the seamers in that 1986\87 series than in the 1979\80. That doesn't mean averaging 100 wasn't a poor performance

So, which is it ?
Are u making a judgement on those failures ?
Or not ?

No, I'm not making a judgement on those failures. Never once did I say I was.

I was simply pointing-out that a failure was a failure. No making excuses - averaging 100 over a series is poor, nothing can change that.

However, find me where I said that said paucity meant Lillee was unquestionably incapable of conquering said conditions?

 

[Ikki]

Nope.

Sir Jack Hobbs conquered stuff which would have seen games abandonded (quite rightly) in Hussain's and Hayden's day.

I thought that you didn't care with regards to similar or even worse conditions. Which is also the defense of Lillee, with which you disagree there.

So, using your own standards, Jack Hobbs is poorer for not having toured Pakistan, India, New Zealand, The West Indies...

 

[JBH001]

I am not sure by what means Richard is comparing Hobbs to present players. But, I think his comment about "conquering surfaces" was that Hobbs batted, and often batted successfully, on surfaces which would have most modern batsmen refusing to leave their dressing rooms.

 

[Ikki]

I am not sure by what means Richard is comparing Hobbs to present players. But, I think his comment about "conquering surfaces" was that Hobbs batted, and often batted successfully, on surfaces which would have most modern batsmen refusing to leave their dressing rooms.

Richard has also implied a thing like this is no excuse. In fact, he mentions that the pitch surface is not the only factor and things like humidity or opposing fans of that country are also relevant and hence if he DIDN'T play there, in that exact country, then even an equal comparison is irrelevant.

 

[neville cardus]

There is no such thing as a graveyard wicket. An outstanding bowler can prevail regardless of the surface.

Imran hardly prevailed in the same subcontinental conditions with which D.K. was faced.

End of story.

The story will end when the debate ends.

 

[neville cardus]

I am not sure by what means Richard is comparing Hobbs to present players. But, I think his comment about "conquering surfaces" was that Hobbs batted, and often batted successfully, on surfaces which would have most modern batsmen refusing to leave their dressing rooms.

Com'mon, Jack. You're hardly fit to make objective judgement here.

 

[Richard]

Imran hardly prevailed in the same subcontinental conditions with which D.K. was faced.

Well, not in that series anyway.

The story will end when the debate ends.

Was more referring to the fact that there is no two ways about the fact that an outstanding bowler can conquer any surface. Some bowlers have skills (Yorkers being the best of them) which the the surface completely out of the equation.

 

[Richard]

I thought that you didn't care with regards to similar or even worse conditions. Which is also the defense of Lillee, with which you disagree there.

So, using your own standards, Jack Hobbs is poorer for not having toured Pakistan, India, New Zealand, The West Indies...

He'd be better had he done so, obviously (presuming he'd succeeded there).

However, to compare the 1920s to the 1990s is pure folly. In the 1920s there could be more variation in conditions of all sorts of things at one single ground than there can be over an entire country these days.

 

[neville cardus]

Well, not in that series anyway.

I was referring only to that series; indeed, it's the only one to which I can refer.

Was more referring to the fact that there is no two ways about the fact that an outstanding bowler can conquer any surface. Some bowlers have skills (Yorkers being the best of them) which the the surface completely out of the equation.

Yorkers aside, though?

 

[Ikki]

He'd be better had he done so, obviously (presuming he'd succeeded there).

However, to compare the 1920s to the 1990s is pure folly. In the 1920s there could be more variation in conditions of all sorts of things at one single ground than there can be over an entire country these days.

Ahh, so he COULD have been better. Well, he didn't do it, hence he isn't. Long live King Hussain.

Richard, my friend, if a comparison is made in which a certain aspect is either non-existent or the sample is too small, or something; the intelligible thing would be to compare certain things which factor in that certain aspect that is being analysed. And to me, pure fully is ignoring such a simple and adequate tool, so much so to the point that 3 tests will rank one bowler above another.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Imran hardly prevailed in the same subcontinental conditions with which D.K. was faced.

Imran was averaging 24 in that series while Lillee averaged 101,so I don't understand what the base of your statement is.

 

[umop 3p!sdn]

According to Brian Lara International Cricket 2005, he is a very good bowler. His bowling rating on that game is nearly full, so he is amazing. How can he be overated? The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

According to Brian Lara International Cricket 2005, he is a very good bowler. His bowling rating on that game is nearly full, so he is amazing. How can he be overated? The evidence speaks for itself.

They also say in his bio "Probably the best bowler in history" which is also highly laughable as he's nowhere near that".He's probably the favourite bowler of the lead programmar/codemasters head" that he's skillwise a better bowler than Imran,Marshall,Wasim,Lindwall,O'Reilly etc in the game.Thanks for the laugh,though.

 

[Richard]

I was referring only to that series; indeed, it's the only one to which I can refer.

There'd have been other series on similar wickets, though.

Yorkers aside, though?

Off-cutters, leg-cutters, slower deliveries, conventional-swing, reverse-swing...

All of these either can be used on any surface or take the surface out of the equation, yes?

 

[Richard]

Ahh, so he COULD have been better. Well, he didn't do it, hence he isn't. Long live King Hussain.

Hobbs > Hussain, because in the 1920s cricket didn't involve playing in India or West Indies (or New Zealand). You didn't need to, because you got more variation in 3 countries in those days than you do in 7 these.

Nonetheless, had Hobbs played in 7 countries and done well in all, his record would be more impressive still.

Richard, my friend, if a comparison is made in which a certain aspect is either non-existent or the sample is too small, or something; the intelligible thing would be to compare certain things which factor in that certain aspect that is being analysed. And to me, pure fully is ignoring such a simple and adequate tool, so much so to the point that 3 tests will rank one bowler above another.

3 Tests of failure don't, though - the general lack of provenness does.

I don't know how many times I have to say "Lillee was not a proven failure in the subcontinent" before it gets through.

 

[Richard]

According to Brian Lara International Cricket 2005, he is a very good bowler. His bowling rating on that game is nearly full, so he is amazing. How can he be overated? The evidence speaks for itself.

They also say in his bio "Probably the best bowler in history" which is also highly laughable as he's nowhere near that".He's probably the favourite bowler of the lead programmar/codemasters head" that he's skillwise a better bowler than Imran,Marshall,Wasim,Lindwall,O'Reilly etc in the game.Thanks for the laugh,though.

Think upside down was being sarcastic TBH, BS.

 

[neville cardus]

Imran was averaging 24 in that series

None of his performances were so brilliant as to have us saying that he was prevalent in that series.

 

[neville cardus]

There'd have been other series on similar wickets, though.

But none in subcontinental conditions.

Off-cutters, leg-cutters, slower deliveries, conventional-swing, reverse-swing...

All of these either can be used on any surface or take the surface out of the equation, yes?

Off-cutters and leg-cutters don't do much when the pitch ain't doing much, and swing (be it conventional or reverse) ain't always a given either. The slower ball's the only passable one that you've provided there.