How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Richard]

It's difficult to think of a bowler who succeeded in that series.

Indeed it is. But this does not change the fact that Lillee failed.

I've been at pains many times to say that the fact that he failed does not neccessarily mean a great deal. As I say, however, Sean almost seems guilty of times of saying he did not fail.

 

[Richard]

It is 100% Irrelevant when talking about the great bowler that was D.K. Lillee

So in other words, Lillee was brilliant because many people said so and to consider him anything other than the greatest seam-bowler in history is an insult to humanity?

 

[neville cardus]

Indeed it is. But this does not change the fact that Lillee failed.

I've been at pains many times to say that the fact that he failed does not neccessarily mean a great deal. As I say, however, Sean almost seems guilty of times of saying he did not fail.

Please excuse this little venture into pedantry, but are we allowed to refer to one another by our actual names?

 

[neville cardus]

Please excuse this little venture into pedantry, but are we allowed to refer to one another by our actual names?

Here, at least?

 

[archie mac]

So in other words, Lillee was brilliant because many people said so and to consider him anything other than the greatest seam-bowler in history is an insult to humanity?

I don't know how you came to that conclsion after reading my post???

To use that argument to some how suggest he was not a great bowler is a joke

Now waiting for SS, to tell me know one on here does that

 

[archie mac]

Please excuse this little venture into pedantry, but are we allowed to refer to one another by our actual names?

Ha ha, Richard does it more often than anyone else, it does upset a lot of people, but tbh I don't mind at all, although I agree it can be confusing to new members

 

[Richard]

Please excuse this little venture into pedantry, but are we allowed to refer to one another by our actual names?

Here, at least?

Most certainly are. You shall remain Nev unless you inform us otherwise, however.

But yes, I consider Sean to be Sean, not archie, as so many on here do. I know not what he prefers.

 

[Richard]

Ha ha, Richard does it more often than anyone else, it does upset a lot of people

That's an exaggeration TBH, it upsets a few people, some of whom are only upset so as they have an excuse to make a fuss, but most are quite happy - indeed prefer - to be referred to by real-name rather than posting-ID (if different - which it ain't in the case of he behind this post).

 

[neville cardus]

Most certainly are. You shall remain Nev unless you inform us otherwise, however.

Okay. From now on, I should like to be known as "The Great Cricketing Scribe Who Ever Put Ink To Parchment".

 

[Richard]

I don't know how you came to that conclsion after reading my post???

To use that argument to some how suggest he was not a great bowler is a joke

Now waiting for SS, to tell me know one on here does that

No-one - even BhupinderSingh - is suggesting Lillee was not a great seam-bowler. As I've said 1,000 times, it seems, you seem outraged at the notion that he was not the best, bar none.

To be outraged at the suggestion that he was not a great seam-bowler is quite right. To be outraged at the suggestion that he was not the best seam-bowler is, to me, overreacting.

 

[Richard]

Okay. From now on, I should like to be known as "The Great Cricketing Scribe Who Ever Put Ink To Parchment".

I can do TGCSWEPITP, if you wish, but the full version may roughly double the time it takes me to post.

 

[archie mac]

That's an exaggeration TBH, it upsets a few people, some of whom are only upset so as they have an excuse to make a fuss, but most are quite happy - indeed prefer - to be referred to by real-name rather than posting-ID (if different - which it ain't in the case of he behind this post).

I think it annoys more people than you would care to consider if the truth be told

Although I don't care myself, even I become confused sometime when you mention the persons real name, so i hate to think about new posters

 

[archie mac]

No-one - even BhupinderSingh - is suggesting Lillee was not a great seam-bowler. As I've said 1,000 times, it seems, you seem outraged at the notion that he was not the best, bar none.

To be outraged at the suggestion that he was not a great seam-bowler is quite right. To be outraged at the suggestion that he was not the best seam-bowler is, to me, overreacting.

Not true, if people think Imran better or Marshall or even Larwood, I have no problem at all, but when they say things like 'Lillee can't be considered because he failed in Pakistan" then I will take umbridge every time

 

[Richard]

I think it annoys more people than you would care to consider if the truth be told

Most people themselves call people by their real names, TBH, so there ain't that many of 'em.

Although I don't care myself, even I become confused sometime when you mention the persons real name, so i hate to think about new posters

I make sure to make clear if I mention a real-name that is not obvious by posting-ID.

 

[Richard]

Not true, if people think Imran better or Marshall or even Larwood, I have no problem at all, but when they say things like 'Lillee can't be considered because he failed in Pakistan" then I will take umbridge every time

Considered for what? That's the thing. Considered as the best ever? Yes, true. Considered as a great bowler? Certainly not.

No-one, of sound mind, has said Lillee cannot be considered a phenominal bowler. All that sensible people have ever said is that he should not be thought of as the greatest seam-bowler ever, because he did not succeed in the subcontinent. Not even because he was proven failure in the subcontinent, because he was not such a thing, at all. However, he did not achieve success, while others did.

 

[archie mac]

Considered for what? That's the thing. Considered as the best ever? Yes, true. Considered as a great bowler? Certainly not.

No-one, of sound mind, has said Lillee cannot be considered a phenominal bowler. All that sensible people have ever said is that he should not be thought of as the greatest seam-bowler ever, because he did not succeed in the subcontinent. Not even because he was proven failure in the subcontinent, because he was not such a thing, at all. However, he did not achieve success, while others did.

I say that argument is crap, and no one except people on this forum has ever used that argument in print, and I doubt they ever will, because they will be laughed at, and rightly so

 

[Richard]

You've never seen anyone - that doesn't mean no-one ever did, even during his career.

By-and-large, those who get stuff printed are not that type. And I've said it many times before, there are plenty of CW posters who are far more educated about the game than those who've managed to get in print.

 

[archie mac]

You've never seen anyone - that doesn't mean no-one ever did, even during his career.

By-and-large, those who get stuff printed are not that type. And I've said it many times before, there are plenty of CW posters who are far more educated about the game than those who've managed to get in print.

Your clutching at straws, I stand by that, no one has ever written that crap and I doubt ever will, if you can quote me a book I will stand corrected.

I agree about us having some fine posters, but this argument is not one of their great moments, in fact it is silly imo

 

[Richard]

I don't think it is. I think there are many subjects which some people on CW know better than many writers and commentators on. The Lillee subject being one.

 

[archie mac]

I don't think it is. I think there are many subjects people on CW know better than many writers and commentators on. The Lillee subject being one.

Maybe you should qualify that by saying some on CW, because I am a poster on CW and I think it utter crap, and even though I have a lot of respect for the posters of CW
I am going to listen more to Marshall, Hadlee, Holding, Garner, Richards, Benaud, Chappell's, on the subject of one DK Lillee