How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Perm]

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

Different circumstances mate, Clem Hill doesn't come close to either of those two as a batsman. Dennis Lillee is still a superb bowler, and isn't that far behind Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath.

 

[archie mac]

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.

Happy for you to debate, and you make some good points, but as players now stay in ***** star hotels (and have been for awhile now) I think the living conditions are nowhere near the problem they once were. I have watched pitches in England where the wicket has been as flat as anything you will find in Pakistan, and the Test in India the last Aust. played there, was as bowler friendly as any I have seen. I don't think it is the big factor that people try and make out.

How far do you take it? Perth seams, the SCG takes spin, so we say Lillee was great, but can't be considered the greatest because he failed to claim a 5 for on the SCG? Can you see where I am going with this?

 

[archie mac]

Different circumstances mate, Clem Hill doesn't come close to either of those two as a batsman. Dennis Lillee is still a superb bowler, and isn't that far behind Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath.

But I still love him

 

[Burgey]

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 don't necessarily think that's it Richard. Some people hold the view that he was the best ever, others don't, that's a matter of opinion. Many people here who have defended DK (and I don't think he needs defending tbh) have responded to comments that he was agreen top bully, etc., or that to compare him with that other sacred cow Imran is to decry the latter's legend (which it isn't).
It's an emotive subject when it comes to categorising someone as best ever, but I hark back to the topic of the thread, namely how good a bowler was he, and I think the poll results pretty accurately sum up the general feelings towards him. That is, the majority of people think he was excellent.

 

[Matt79]

Neither Bradman or Sobers ever had a 20 minute punch on with their vice-captain/board stooge in the selection room. I think that record is Hill's alone.

 

[archie mac]

Neither Bradman or Sobers ever had a 20 minute punch on with their vice-captain/board stooge in the selection room. I think that record is Hill's alone.

You say that again Matt and 'I will pull your nose'

 

[Matt79]

My hands are down now, my friend.

 

[archie mac]

My hands are down now, my friend.

Touche

 

[Perm]

But I still love him

Different circumstances though, as I highlighted.

 

[Perm]

Happy for you to debate, and you make some good points, but as players now stay in ***** star hotels (and have been for awhile now) I think the living conditions are nowhere near the problem they once were. I have watched pitches in England where the wicket has been as flat as anything you will find in Pakistan, and the Test in India the last Aust. played there, was as bowler friendly as any I have seen. I don't think it is the big factor that people try and make out.

How far do you take it? Perth seams, the SCG takes spin, so we say Lillee was great, but can't be considered the greatest because he failed to claim a 5 for on the SCG? Can you see where I am going with this?

Some of the conditions in Pakistan at that stage of Lillee's career would have been attrocious, quite often cricketers get sick from eating local cuisine or can only eat a select few things. The environment is also very hostile, as you can imagine, and a lot of times players feel threatened when touring Pakistan,

It is a big factor, you only have to look at some of the scorecards and match reports. The pitches in Pakistan that Lillee played on were flat, the pitches in Pakistan that McGrath played on were flat. One bowler had success and the other did not. Do you see my point? Yes there will be exceptions, on the odd occasion, when pitches in Pakistan will be bowler friendly and some wickets in New Zealand will be very flat. However, generally, pitches tend to stay true to their stereotype.

The case you bring up with the WACA and the SCG is diffferent, because it doesn't take into consideration the travel etc. You can't judge a player on not performing on a single ground, but you can for not performing in a certain country, as it is a far larger thing to judge upon.

 

[archie mac]

Different circumstances though, as I highlighted.

Yes, and I noticed you slipped in a couple of bowlers in front of DKL

And I think I could make a case to say Hill was not that far behind Sobers, but not even I could make one regards Bradman, although I could try

 

[archie mac]

Some of the conditions in Pakistan at that stage of Lillee's career would have been attrocious, quite often cricketers get sick from eating local cuisine or can only eat a select few things. The environment is also very hostile, as you can imagine, and a lot of times players feel threatened when touring Pakistan,

It is a big factor, you only have to look at some of the scorecards and match reports. The pitches in Pakistan that Lillee played on were flat, the pitches in Pakistan that McGrath played on were flat. One bowler had success and the other did not. Do you see my point? Yes there will be exceptions, on the odd occasion, when pitches in Pakistan will be bowler friendly and some wickets in New Zealand will be very flat. However, generally, pitches tend to stay true to their stereotype.

The case you bring up with the WACA and the SCG is diffferent, because it doesn't take into consideration the travel etc. You can't judge a player on not performing on a single ground, but you can for not performing in a certain country, as it is a far larger thing to judge upon.

But in McGrath's case he never had to put up with the food,always staying in great hotels and having first class food, he also had neutral umpires Still I think it makes little to no difference when comparing the two

And you could not get more different wickets in Lillee's day than the WACA and the SCG, and who makes these rules saying it has to be a different country?

 

[Perm]

Yes, and I noticed you slipped in a couple of bowlers in front of DKL

And I think I could make a case to say Hill was not that far behind Sobers, but not even I could make one regards Bradman, although I could try

Because I consider those bowlers to be better than Lillee, because they performed in all conditions.

You could make a case to say Clem Hill wasn't far behind Sir Garfield Sobers, but I can almost assure you it would be a very weak one. Sobers was much better than Hill, and is one of the best batsman in Test history.

 

[archie mac]

Because I consider those bowlers to be better than Lillee, because they performed in all conditions.

You could make a case to say Clem Hill wasn't far behind Sir Garfield Sobers, but I can almost assure you it would be a very weak one. Sobers was much better than Hill, and is one of the best batsman in Test history.

Hill for a period was clearly the best batsman in the world, at a time when some of the greatest bowlers were at their peak (based on averages), Sobers was at his peak against on the whole much lesser bowlers (on average), although there were a few greats around.

There were also some other players with very high averages in Sobers day, Barrington, Pollock for example

 

[Perm]

But in McGrath's case he never had to put up with the food,always staying in great hotels and having first class food, he also had neutral umpires Still I think it makes little to no difference when comparing the two

And you could not get more different wickets in Lillee's day than the WACA and the SCG, and who makes these rules saying it has to be a different country?

How about Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall, Alan Davidson and Geoff Lawson? All of these bowlers had relatively successful times in Pakistan, facing the same kind of umpiring bias that Lillee did and familiar conditions. How does it make little to no difference? Fact of the matter is that McGrath performed in all conditions against all opposition, which Lillee didn't.

That's quite right, the WACA and SCG were very different wickets when Lillee was playing. There isn't a 'rule' saying about different countries, but if one can perform in all conditions against all opposition then that bowler will be better than those who didn't. In this case, performing in a specific country is harder than performing at a specific ground because it offers more of a challenge, for reasons I've already highlighted.

 

[neville cardus]

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

You've obviously never tried Usenet.

 

[archie mac]

How about Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall, Alan Davidson and Geoff Lawson? All of these bowlers had relatively successful times in Pakistan, facing the same kind of umpiring bias that Lillee did and familiar conditions. How does it make little to no difference? Fact of the matter is that McGrath performed in all conditions against all opposition, which Lillee didn't.

Still means nothing, so they had a good series in Pakistan, if they failed once in NZ and never played there again, I still would not care, and would mean nothing, it is silly to somehow suggest that proves they are better bowlers than Lillee, all it proves is that Lillee had a poor 3 Test series in Pakistan, and that is the only thing, make no difference to how great a bowler Lillee was.

That's quite right, the WACA and SCG were very different wickets when Lillee was playing. There isn't a 'rule' saying about different countries, but if one can perform in all conditions against all opposition then that bowler will be better than those who didn't. In this case, performing in a specific country is harder than performing at a specific ground because it offers more of a challenge, for reasons I've already highlighted.

NO, it means they had a good series in a certain country does not mean they were better, just that they did well in that country, if I can prove Lillee dismissed more top end batsman than say Imran (which he did) does not mean he was a better bowler?, Can you see it makes little to no difference

 

[Perm]

Hill for a period was clearly the best batsman in the world, at a time when some of the greatest bowlers were at their peak (based on averages), Sobers was at his peak against on the whole much lesser bowlers (on average), although there were a few greats around.

There were also some other players with very high averages in Sobers day, Barrington, Pollock for example

Using the ICC Test rankings, which are the only non-biased way to determine who was the best in the world, we can see that both Hill and Sobers were the best in the world at different stages. Hill at the start of 1902 and Sobers at the start of 1967. Also, Hill wasn't that far clear of Tom Hayward (30 points) while sobers was a mile ahead of Bob Simpson (85 points), and if you look at their career points, Sobers ranks well ahead of Hill.

There were players with high averages, yes, because they were fantastic batsman. Graeme Pollock is regarded by many as one of the finest batsman to grace the game, and very unfortunate he didn't play more Tests, which is a reason his average his so high. Ken Barrington was an excellent batsman at Test level, but doesn't seem to get as much credit as he deserves.

 

[archie mac]

Using the ICC Test rankings, which are the only non-biased way to determine who was the best in the world, we can see that both Hill and Sobers were the best in the world at different stages. Hill at the start of 1902 and Sobers at the start of 1967. Also, Hill wasn't that far clear of Tom Hayward (30 points) while sobers was a mile ahead of Bob Simpson (85 points), and if you look at their career points, Sobers ranks well ahead of Hill.

There were players with high averages, yes, because they were fantastic batsman. Graeme Pollock is regarded by many as one of the finest batsman to grace the game, and very unfortunate he didn't play more Tests, which is a reason his average his so high. Ken Barrington was an excellent batsman at Test level, but doesn't seem to get as much credit as he deserves.

Tom Hayward great batsman; still though I made a pretty good case

 

[neville cardus]

And I think I could make a case to say Hill was not that far behind Sobers, but not even I could make one regards Bradman, although I could try

How's your Trumper-Hill comparison going?