How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[neville cardus]

'Tis as good as anything.

You mean, surely, "'Tis as good as anything, Sir Nev."

 

[neville cardus]

Haha, nice video with little stories from Sir Gary about Lillee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqtMvzOPj8s

Must be from Nobok's treasure-trove.

 

[archie mac]

Dennis Lillee is the greatest fast bowler of all time. He obviously wasn't outstandingly head and shoulders above everyone else in the way Bradman is often considered to be as a batsman. There are a number of others who could be considered greater than Lillee and in a vote amongst cricket experts around the world I doubt that Lillee would rate above Marshall or McGrath and it would be a close run thing with a few others. To rate him mediocre is rather foolish even if you don't consider him to be in the top 10 of all time. He was without argument (or at least without rational argument) a great bowler.........how great is just a matter of opinion.

Good to see you back And yes to say anything other than Lillee was a great bowler is simply incorrect

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Just so you know, SObers, Flintof and Sarfira Nawaz aren't my fav. bowlers.

And no you have not changed your views on Lillee, take a look at the poll. You picked him as a merely GOOD bowler, which is incorrect. Lillee was a great bowler and an excellent one.

Now,I'm getting sick of answering your dire questions on this topic.I've voted him as 'good' bowler because I'll vote 'excellent' only in the favour of 6 or 7 bowlers & Lillee is not one of those.I consider 25-35 bowlers as alltime greats and only 10 or less are in excellent category,so voting as a good bowler doesn't mean I don't consider him an alltime great.If the poll options were like greatest,great.........so on,then I would've voted in his favour as a great bowler.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Dennis Lillee is the greatest fast bowler of all time. He obviously wasn't outstandingly head and shoulders above everyone else in the way Bradman is often considered to be as a batsman. There are a number of others who could be considered greater than Lillee and in a vote amongst cricket experts around the world I doubt that Lillee would rate above Marshall or McGrath and it would be a close run thing with a few others. To rate him mediocre is rather foolish even if you don't consider him to be in the top 10 of all time. He was without argument (or at least without rational argument) a great bowler.........how great is just a matter of opinion.

Everyone here considers Lillee a great bowler but I'm not ready to ever consider/trust a single word of yours because of this post.

 

[The_Bunny]

Everyone here considers Lillee a great bowler but I'm not ready to ever consider/trust a single word of yours because of this post.

Not even consider a single word he says, I hope you didnt mean that in the way it seems because if you did that is very close-minded.

 

[Perm]

Everyone here considers Lillee a great bowler but I'm not ready to ever consider/trust a single word of yours because of this post.

A bit harsh. Seems a bit weak of you that you can't handle anybody putting down Imran Khan.

 

[pasag]

Everyone here considers Lillee a great bowler but I'm not ready to ever consider/trust a single word of yours because of this post.

BhupinderSingh, arguing a point by trying to attack a persons credibility is starting to wear a little thin here and you've now done it twice in a short period of time. Not to mention it doesn't reflect too well on yourself.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

BhupinderSingh, arguing a point by trying to attack a persons credibility is starting to wear a little thin here and you've now done it twice in a short period of time. Not to mention it doesn't reflect too well on yourself.

I'm really not interested in anyone who wants to attack my credibility ........................especially someone who has stated on many occasions that Garry Sobers wasn't an allrounder.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

A bit harsh. Seems a bit weak of you that you can't handle anybody putting down Imran Khan.

Ive no problem with anyone who doesn't consider Imran Khan as one of the greatest bowlers.On this forum,there are some people whom I rate very highly based on their quality of posts & they don't have Imran in their alltime XI but saying a particular well respected great player is not in top 30 or 40 or 50 of alltime is a different thing than just putting him down or not considering in top 10.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's quite easy to isolate a post out of the context of the time (in this case there was quite a bit of banter going on with a certain fan of Imran and my quoted post was part of that).
Let's have a look at this. So Dennis Lillee was one of the worst eleven players to play Test cricket between 1965 and 1985, I'm sure Tony Pigott will be honoured.

Unfortunately it's this sort of childish bitterness which has lost this forum many members. I couldn't be bothered for months, one day back and the same fool is still at it.

Goodbye.

PS Silent Striker.............The drains are still on fire..............

 

[Richard]

Everyone here considers Lillee a great bowler but I'm not ready to ever consider/trust a single word of yours because of this post.

A bit harsh. Seems a bit weak of you that you can't handle anybody putting down Imran Khan.

BhupinderSingh, arguing a point by trying to attack a persons credibility is starting to wear a little thin here and you've now done it twice in a short period of time. Not to mention it doesn't reflect too well on yourself.

TBH, saying England have produced 10 better seam-bowlers than Imran Khan is laughable. You could argue that Bedser, Statham and Trueman were better, and you could also argue that they weren't.

Otherwise, I think it's pretty laughable. Equally, with Australia, you could argue that Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Lillee and McGrath were better; you could also argue that they weren't.

I think it was pretty pointless to say what LT did in that instance and I don't blame BhupinderSingh for saying you wouldn't consider someone seriously on a subject because of it.

 

[Richard]

Let me say it again I do not mind people not thinking Lillee is the greatest bowler, which I have said in this very thread on more than one occasion.

What I do object to is people using a 3 Test series in Pakistan, the Lillee persona or his WSC to somehow support the theory that he for those reasons can not be considerd the greatest bowler: They are silly arguments and I will not argue those points because they are not worthy of debate

No-one argues that the Lillee persona means he wasn't the best seamer of all-time; I (and a few others) merely argue that it was a reason why he can appear better than he actually was to certain eyes.

I can't remember too many people who argue against the notion that Lillee was the best seamer ever ever bringing-up WSC in any way, either.

And it really, really does annoy me when you say that anyone calls him a conclusive failure in the subcontinent because of that single three-Test series in Pakistan. Because no-one does.

 

[Richard]

No need for the rolleyes, all it's going to do is start another flame war between you and Sanz.

You yourself once said that arguments between certain people (yourself and Fiery being the ones concerned in that case) are inevitable; they are. I don't take kindly to Sanz unfairly criticising BhupinderSingh (or anyone else that I don't despise for that matter) so I shall defend him if so.

 

[funnygirl]

Two votes ''mediocre''

Sad to see young generation make huge claims about the past legends just by looking at the stats guru and reading wikipedia.

 

[Richard]

It's highly unlikely anyone has done such things.

 

[archie mac]

No-one argues that the Lillee persona means he wasn't the best seamer of all-time; I (and a few others) merely argue that it was a reason why he can appear better than he actually was to certain eyes.

I can't remember too many people who argue against the notion that Lillee was the best seamer ever ever bringing-up WSC in any way, either.

And it really, really does annoy me when you say that anyone calls him a conclusive failure in the subcontinent because of that single three-Test series in Pakistan. Because no-one does.

I suggest you go back and read this thread, and then tell me if people have not used those 3 Tests to suggest other bowlers are better than DKL

 

[Richard]

I don't doubt people have done - if so, they'll hopefully realise the error of their ways.

There were other bowlers who achieved more not because Lillee had 3 bad games, but because Lillee was unproven where these bowlers (Marshall, Hadlee and Imran FOR EXAMPLE) were instead proven.

 

[archie mac]

I don't doubt people have done - if so, they'll hopefully realise the error of their ways.

There were other bowlers who achieved more not because Lillee had 3 bad games, but because Lillee was unproven where these bowlers (Marshall, Hadlee and Imran FOR EXAMPLE) were instead proven.

Well that means nothing to me, they still play on turf they still use a four/p ball, it is still the same game, Lillee played on some flat decks in Aust and on occasion in England.

I don't rate Murali any lower because he failed in Aust. or Warne because he has not been a success in Indina, or mark down Ponting because he failed in India, or Doug Walters because he never had a great time in England. Class is Class

 

[Richard]

Well that means nothing to me, they still play on turf they still use a four/p ball, it is still the same game, Lillee played on some flat decks in Aust and on occasion in England.

FFS, there's more to the subcontinent than flat decks! How many people do I have to say that to? Not all pitches in the subcontinent are flat anyway, by any stretch. It's more to do with the fact that they stereotypically don't suit seam.

I don't rate Murali any lower because he failed in Aust. or Warne because he has not been a success in Indina, or mark down Ponting because he failed in India, or Doug Walters because he never had a great time in England. Class is Class

I'd rate all better had they had success in\against said place\oppo.