How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[archie mac]

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

Sometimes they do suit seam, just as sometimes the WACA is a flat as a tack, but it makes no difference, when judging the quality of a batsman or bowler. Under your theory if they don't take seem than they must take spin, so why has Warne and Murali failed there?

Now I suppose you will tell me it is because the Indians play spin the best?

No pace in the pitch, no chance for spin because they play it the best, how do they ever lose a Test? Pitches change all over the World, simple as that

 

[Richard]

Eh? Some pitches suit neither seam nor spin.

Yes, not all subcontinental tracks are the same - I just said that didn't I? However, success on a non-seam-friendly track in the subcontinent is a more notable feat than success on a non-seam-friendly track in your home country (be that Australia or England or New Zealand or wherever). I cannot see how anyone can possibly dispute this, and it's something that, like it or not, Lillee did not achieve. Even if he had been completely sans-fault for this (which he wasn't, completely - to some degree it was his fault) it'd still be something that counted against him, because life isn't fair. Those who had more opportunity than Lillee could and did prove themselves greater even than Lillee.

 

[JBMAC]

I swore I would not do this...BUT things have got out of hand even for a forum...I have forwarded this link to a chap by the name of Dennis Lillee and have requested him to make a comment if he cared to...It's now up to him.

 

[Matt79]

I like you Dennis!

 

[SJS]

I swore I would not do this...BUT things have got out of hand even for a forum....

Welcome to CW

 

[Richard]

I like you Dennis!

Don't think anyone on CW dislikes him. The trouble is that, for some, the notion of him not being the best seamer ever is an outrageous one.

 

[Ikki]

I swore I would not do this...BUT things have got out of hand even for a forum...I have forwarded this link to a chap by the name of Dennis Lillee and have requested him to make a comment if he cared to...It's now up to him.

Haha, that would be sweet. Dennis, if you're reading, you're a legend mate! Best EVER!

 

[SJS]

Don't think anyone on CW dislikes him. The trouble is that, for some, the notion of him not being the best seamer ever is an outrageous one.

Its not as simple as that Richard and you know that

 

[Richard]

Oh, it's not totally as simple as that - BhupinderSingh has said a few silly things in his time, ie that Lillee was lesser than Damien Fleming etc. But full credit to him, he's rowed back on his errors (which we've all of us made - I at one time thought Thommo was never ever much good for example - fortunately I never said it on here ) and now recognises the same thing that the sensible types like myself, C_C, ss, amz, Jono, etc. do - that Lillee was brilliant, but cannot reasonably be called the best ever.

However, I think the larger problem comes from those who take umbrage at anything said against him, insisting he must be the best ever, and that the reasons - good reasons too - why he was not are nonsensical.

 

[pasag]

Oh, it's not totally as simple as that - BhupinderSingh has said a few silly things in his time, ie that Lillee was lesser than Damien Fleming etc. But full credit to him, he's rowed back on his errors (which we've all of us made - I at one time thought Thommo was never ever much good for example - fortunately I never said it on here ) and now recognises the same thing that the sensible types like myself, C_C, ss, amz, Jono, etc. do - that Lillee was brilliant, but cannot reasonably be called the best ever.

However, I think the larger problem comes from those who take umbrage at anything said against him, insisting he must be the best ever, and that the reasons - good reasons too - why he was not are nonsensical.

I haven't seen people get upset at him being called not the greatest ever, it's more the reasoning behind it that seems to irk people.

And at JBMAC -

 

[Ikki]

Oh, it's not totally as simple as that - BhupinderSingh has said a few silly things in his time, ie that Lillee was lesser than Damien Fleming etc. But full credit to him, he's rowed back on his errors (which we've all of us made - I at one time thought Thommo was never ever much good for example - fortunately I never said it on here ) and now recognises the same thing that the sensible types like myself, C_C, ss, amz, Jono, etc. do - that Lillee was brilliant, but cannot reasonably be called the best ever.

However, I think the larger problem comes from those who take umbrage at anything said against him, insisting he must be the best ever, and that the reasons - good reasons too - why he was not are nonsensical.

But he reasonably can, that's the point.

 

[Matt79]

However, I think the larger problem comes from those who take umbrage at anything said against him, insisting he must be the best ever

No-one has done that at any point that I've seen.

 

[Richard]

I haven't seen people get upset at him being called not the greatest ever, it's more the reasoning behind it that seems to irk people.

No-one has done that at any point that I've seen.

Meh, as I say, it annoys me that people seek to call reasoning which is perfectly good as far as I'm concerned as utterly ridiculous, and seek to portray that I (and others) are saying something we're not.

 

[SJS]

the sensible types like myself, C_C,.

cough cough cough
kidding

 

[archie mac]

Eh? Some pitches suit neither seam nor spin.

Yes, not all subcontinental tracks are the same - I just said that didn't I? However, success on a non-seam-friendly track in the subcontinent is a more notable feat than success on a non-seam-friendly track in your home country (be that Australia or England or New Zealand or wherever). I cannot see how anyone can possibly dispute this, and it's something that, like it or not, Lillee did not achieve. Even if he had been completely sans-fault for this (which he wasn't, completely - to some degree it was his fault) it'd still be something that counted against him, because life isn't fair. Those who had more opportunity than Lillee could and did prove themselves greater even than Lillee.

Why is it more notable? Lillee better than all of contemporaries at getting the most out of a seaming wicket, so why is gettting something out of a flat track make someone a better bowler? Still turf still 4/P ball, still batsman with a bat in their hand, still 'he was better because he proved himself on the SC is a silly argument

 

[archie mac]

Oh, it's not totally as simple as that - BhupinderSingh has said a few silly things in his time, ie that Lillee was lesser than Damien Fleming etc. But full credit to him, he's rowed back on his errors (which we've all of us made - I at one time thought Thommo was never ever much good for example - fortunately I never said it on here ) and now recognises the same thing that the sensible types like myself, C_C, ss, amz, Jono, etc. do - that Lillee was brilliant, but cannot reasonably be called the best ever.

However, I think the larger problem comes from those who take umbrage at anything said against him, insisting he must be the best ever, and that the reasons - good reasons too - why he was not are nonsensical.

Let me say it again I do not mind people saying Lillee is not the greatest seam bowler ever

Good Reasons? no there not, they are silly, silly, silly

 

[Perm]

Let me say it again I do not mind people saying Lillee is not the greatest seam bowler ever

Good Reasons? no there not, they are silly, silly, silly

They aren't silly, they're perfectly viable reasons. Your love and admiration of Dennis Lillee can't let you see that.

Also, a lot of the argument is based on Lillee's Test match prowess in the subcontinent, rightly or wrongly. I think it has more to do with the fact that other bowlers like Malcolm Marshall, Richard Hadlee and Glenn Mcgrath have performed there, than Lillee not actually doing so.

 

[archie mac]

They aren't silly, they're perfectly viable reasons. Your love and admiration of Dennis Lillee can't let you see that.

Also, a lot of the argument is based on Lillee's Test match prowess in the subcontinent, rightly or wrongly. I think it has more to do with the fact that other bowlers like Malcolm Marshall, Richard Hadlee and Glenn Mcgrath have performed there, than Lillee not actually doing so.

Well I am not going to get into a : yes they are no they are not debate Suffice to say I do not agree with any player being judged on how they played on a countries wickets, they are not that different, hence I never agreed with the theory that Walters could not bat on English wickets, he just never got going on them, nothing to do with technique imo

Likewise if Murali never succeeds in Aust I still will think him a fine bowler (giving other things can be proved right, eg my eyesight is incorrect)(please no debate I am sick of being called a moron )

 

[archie mac]

They aren't silly, they're perfectly viable reasons. Your love and admiration of Dennis Lillee can't let you see that.

.

I love Clem Hill more, but I don't think I run around saying he is/was a better batsman then say Bradman, or a better lefthander then say Sobers. I think I can distance myself enough, but lets have some decent arguments

 

[Perm]

Well I am not going to get into a : yes they are no they are not debate Suffice to say I do not agree with any player being judged on how they played on a countries wickets, they are not that different, hence I never agreed with the theory that Walters could not bat on English wickets, he just never got going on them, nothing to do with technique imo

Likewise if Murali never succeeds in Aust I still will think him a fine bowler (giving other things can be proved right, eg my eyesight is incorrect)(please no debate I am sick of being called a moron )

I don't disrespect your opinion at all, quite the opposite. You know a great deal about cricket and a lot of members here could learn from you. However ,

the wickets in different countries are much, much different. For example, Pakistan is often known as a bowler's graveyard whereas countries like New Zealand and England favour seam bowling because of the pitches and overhead conditions. That is fact. There is no disputing that, different countries offer different challenges. Also, it's not just about the playing conditions. Travelling to and playing in a country like Pakistan is a huge challenge because of other factors.