How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Perm]

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

In comparison to Dennis Lillee he most certainly was.

 

[Richard]

But none in subcontinental conditions.

That's the point - many pitches have occurred of such nature in Pakistan and not every bowler has been rendered ineffective.

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.

Swing is always available if the ball's in good condition. Mostly, a bowler has the option of either conventional or reverse-swing. And swing takes the pitch out of the equation totally.

It's possible to make the ball do something with off-cutters and leg-cutters on just about any pitch too, really.

 

[funnygirl]

Whats this with young kids( i guess most here are) ,making comments abt past legends .

The magic cricinfo or what .

 

[nightprowler10]

Statsguru worst thing to happen to cricket?

 

[archie mac]

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

Mate if a wicket is like a road all bowlers will eventually get caned, they may get lucky but sooner or later they will go for plenty, no matter who or how good a bowler they are

 

[neville cardus]

In comparison to Dennis Lillee he most certainly was.

I didn't make that qualification.

 

[neville cardus]

Swing is always available if the ball's in good condition.

You underestimate the role of atmospherics.

Mostly, a bowler has the option of either conventional or reverse-swing. And swing takes the pitch out of the equation totally.

Sure, but swing is not, contrary to your assertion, always a given; sometimes it's non-existent.

It's possible to make the ball do something with off-cutters and leg-cutters on just about any pitch too, really.

No, it isn't. As with spin bowling, the ball has to grip to "do something", and it is the wicket which facilitates (or, as is so often the case, doesn't facilitate) this.

 

[neville cardus]

Whats this with young kids( i guess most here are) ,making comments abt past legends .

We read, we have archival footage, and, yes, we peruse the online stats at our fingertips.

 

[Perm]

I didn't make that qualification.

No, Imran was not prevalent, but compared to Lillee he most certainly was.

 

[Josh]

I'm not going to pass judgement. I never saw the man play in the flesh, I wasn't alive when he was at his peak. How could I ever commit to a decision on whether he is the greatest bowler of all time?? He might have been, I don't know. Statistically, he's pretty bloody decent.

 

[Ikki]

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.

It doesn't matter whether you needed to or not, it only matters if you did in this argument.

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

How could you possibly know that? That is pure conjecture .

But in the same vein, people say that Lillee did well in similar conditions and all other places yet that still won't be accept by you. You even said this, that you'd disregard his whole record against Pakistan and still think the same. I think that hole has gotten deep enough Rich my man.

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.

Ok, he just wasn't as good as Marshall then. So too then Hussain is better than Hobbs, for that reason.

 

[Richard]

Mate if a wicket is like a road all bowlers will eventually get caned, they may get lucky but sooner or later they will go for plenty, no matter who or how good a bowler they are

Not true. There are bowlers who can get something out of any wicket, except possibly a St.John's, Antigua one - though it's interesting to see how many of the stupid games there have been dead ones.

 

[Richard]

Statsguru worst thing to happen to cricket?

Best.

Those who like to downplay the role of stats naturally hate it tho, because it makes it harder and harder to say "you can't just look at stats".

 

[Richard]

You underestimate the role of atmospherics.

I don't think I do. Many people say swing is dependant on the conditions - sure, the more damp the atmosphere is, the easier it is to swing a cricket-ball. Hence swing is easier to attain at dusk than during mid-afternoon; under grey skies than under clear; and in sultry humidity than dry one.

But if the ball is in the right condition, a good swing-bowler will swing it regardless of any of these. The trouble is, many balls that are used at the current time are not swing-bowler friendly. Hence we've recently had something of a dearth of serious impact from swing-bowlers - indeed, reverse has been more prominent than conventional in recent years. Now, while swing is swing and I love to see it regardless of the methods used to attain, I like an equal balance of the two.

Sure, but swing is not, contrary to your assertion, always a given; sometimes it's non-existent.

If the ball's not in the right condition, sure.

No, it isn't. As with spin bowling, the ball has to grip to "do something", and it is the wicket which facilitates (or, as is so often the case, doesn't facilitate) this.

Obviously, cutters will be more effective the more the pitch is receptive to turn.

Just as a wristspinner can turn a ball on anything, though, an off-cutter or Off-Break will always do a bit and if that bit is done at 75mph on the right lengths it can still cause problems.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't matter whether you needed to or not, it only matters if you did in this argument.

It doesn't. If you don't need to travel to experience variance, you don't get judged on not having travelled.

But in the same vein, people say that Lillee did well in similar conditions and all other places yet that still won't be accept by you.

Lillee did indeed do well elsewhere, but these were not alike conditions.

Ok, he just wasn't as good as Marshall then. So too then Hussain is better than Hobbs, for that reason.

No, he's not. Please stop trying to equate eras 70 years apart and wildly differing.

 

[neville cardus]

No, Imran was not prevalent, but compared to Lillee he most certainly was.

To the statistically-shackled mind, sure, but, anyway, I wasn't comparing him to Lillee. The issue in question was general and overall prevailing.

 

[neville cardus]

But if the ball is in the right condition, a good swing-bowler will swing it regardless of any of these.

I've seen plenty of fine swing bowlers do nothing with the ball in certain conditions.

The trouble is, many balls that are used at the current time are not swing-bowler friendly.

Evidence?

Hence we've recently had something of a dearth of serious impact from swing-bowlers - indeed, reverse has been more prominent than conventional in recent years. Now, while swing is swing and I love to see it regardless of the methods used to attain, I like an equal balance of the two.

If the ball's not in the right condition, sure.

Obviously, cutters will be more effective the more the pitch is receptive to turn.

Just as a wristspinner can turn a ball on anything, though, an off-cutter or Off-Break will always do a bit and if that bit is done at 75mph on the right lengths it can still cause problems.

Nice to see you backing down from this absurd view, slowly but surely. I'll just push a little further...

 

[Richard]

I've seen plenty of fine swing bowlers do nothing with the ball in certain conditions.

And I've seen plenty do plenty with it in all conditions.

If a good swing-bowler can't swing a ball, it's because the ball's not in the right condition (sometimes you just get "bad" balls - balls that no matter what you do and however new they are simply refuse to swing and all you can do is wait for another one) or because he's doing something wrong (swing is a complex thing and just the odd irregularity in your action can result in the ball refusing to do a thing because your seam-position isn't quite right - once you correct the error you'll get it to swing again). Not because the atmosphere isn't right.

Evidence?

Witness the fact that virtually everyone up and down the country in 2001 said "the balls we're using this season aren't swinging", borne-out by top swing-bowlers like Dominic Cork not swinging so much as 1 single delivery that I saw all Test summer. Then at the start of this season everyone said "it's really swinging this year". Witness the massive increase in run-scoring in the 2001 summer because of this.

Kookaburras, especially when used in Australia, have never been swing-friendly balls, they deteriorate too quickly.

Nice to see you backing down from this absurd view, slowly but surely. I'll just push a little further...

Not backing-down at all. I said cutters can be effective on any surface; I said quality swing-bowlers can swing a ball in the right condition any time. I have moved not a jot on either.

 

[archie mac]

Not true. There are bowlers who can get something out of any wicket, except possibly a St.John's, Antigua one - though it's interesting to see how many of the stupid games there have been dead ones.

Not true, in 1938 at The Oval, Fleetwood-Smith maybe the biggest spinner of the ball ever, could not get a ball to turn at all, there have been 100s of wickets produced in Test cricket that would make bowlers cry. I have had enought of this argument it is becoming silly

 

[Richard]

Fleetwood-Smith the biggest spinner of the ball EVER?

Come off it!