How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Perm]

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.

I'm not saying they are better bowlers than Lillee, but they were able to perform in adverse conditions against hostile opposition, which Lillee didn't. Richard Hadlee and Malcolm Marshall were able to do exactly the same, not that long after Lillee failed. You are failing to see my point, Lillee failed in Pakistan, others succeeded. In all other areas they may have been evenly matched, so in which case you would judge on their career in Pakistan, where others were able to peform and Lillee did not. I'm not saying Lillee wasn't a fantastic bowler, because he was, but there have been better.

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

Please don't use the roll-eyes on me, I've tried to be civil and bring up points but you continue to look past them and miss what I'm saying. Lillee is a better bowler than Imran, IMO, so by doing that you would prove nothing to me. By having a good series in a country where it's difficult to perform they are showing that they can handle bowling in adverse conditions, which Lillee couldn't. Please stop being so ignorant. Dennis Lillee failed in Pakistan, and other bowlers have succeeded. That means they have performed against all opposition in all conditions.

 

[Perm]

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

So was Bob Simpson. Relevance? Little. Clem Hill was better than Hayward, Gary Sobers was better than Simpson. Gary Sobers was better than Clem Hill, by a pretty big distance.

 

[archie mac]

How's your Trumper-Hill comparison going?

Just picked up a book on Hill and his Reminiscences (spelling) of his playing days, thought I would read that and than write the chapter, will have to make sure I show respect, both greats of the game, but Trumper tbf is a legend

 

[Matt79]

How's your Trumper-Hill comparison going?

Hill has already done that for us all and saved us the effort.

 

[archie mac]

So was Bob Simpson. Relevance? Little. Clem Hill was better than Hayward, Gary Sobers was better than Simpson. Gary Sobers was better than Clem Hill, by a pretty big distance.

Just thought I would take the chance to comment on a great, that does not get a mention on here very often

Both were the best in the world for a period, how would have Sobers faired in Hill's day, and vis a vis how would have Hill gone in Sobers day? Hill played a couple of the all time great innings in Test cricket, I am not sure how you rate Sobers better by 'a pretty big distance', better yes but you seem like you are comparing Sachin to Chopper

 

[archie mac]

Hill has already done that for us all and saved us the effort.

Modest man, their averages are almost the same, I think on style Trumper was the best, with no doubt, but when it comes to the scoring of runs it is a different story, and he was fit to lick his boots

 

[Perm]

Just thought I would take the chance to comment on a great, that does not get a mention on here very often

Both were the best in the world for a period, how would have Sobers faired in Hill's day, and vis a vis how would have Hill gone in Sobers day? Hill played a couple of the all time great innings in Test cricket, I am not sure how you rate Sobers better by 'a pretty big distance', better yes but you seem like you are comparing Sachin to Chopper

Chopper? You can't rate Hill higher just because of a couple of innings, when Sober was more consistent and score more heavily throughout his career.

 

[Matt79]

Modest man, their averages are almost the same, I think on style Trumper was the best, with no doubt, but when it comes to the scoring of runs it is a different story, and he was fit to lick his boots

But Trumper wasn't really trying half the time

 

[pasag]

Perm, how much do you know about Clem Hill, if I may ask?

 

[archie mac]

I'm not saying they are better bowlers than Lillee, but they were able to perform in adverse conditions against hostile opposition, which Lillee didn't. Richard Hadlee and Malcolm Marshall were able to do exactly the same, not that long after Lillee failed. You are failing to see my point, Lillee failed in Pakistan, others succeeded. In all other areas they may have been evenly matched, so in which case you would judge on their career in Pakistan, where others were able to peform and Lillee did not. I'm not saying Lillee wasn't a fantastic bowler, because he was, but there have been better.



Please don't use the roll-eyes on me, I've tried to be civil and bring up points but you continue to look past them and miss what I'm saying. Lillee is a better bowler than Imran, IMO, so by doing that you would prove nothing to me. By having a good series in a country where it's difficult to perform they are showing that they can handle bowling in adverse conditions, which Lillee couldn't. Please stop being so ignorant. Dennis Lillee failed in Pakistan, and other bowlers have succeeded. That means they have performed against all opposition in all conditions.

I do understand your points Perm, but I do not agree with them, your argument is that they performed in Pakistan and Lillee did not, meaning they did something that Lillee was unable too. But I do not rate that argument and I think it is silly, and you and others keep making it, under the false impression that I do not understand, I do, but do not rate it, and I feel it means absolutely nothing, when comparing bowlers or batsman. And if I do not rate it than I will say it is silly, and if you do not agree with that, that is okay

 

[archie mac]

Chopper? You can't rate Hill higher just because of a couple of innings, when Sober was more consistent and score more heavily throughout his career.

Hill was very consistent, and was as good if not better than a number of his contemporaries, he did not score more heavily than Garry, but neither did anyone in his era, you can't compare the game that Sobers was involved in and the one Hill played: un covered wickets, pitch preperation not as advanced, Three day Tests (a lot of them), and a number of other things.

I did not say that Hill was better than Sobers, just that I could make a case, that he was close

 

[archie mac]

But Trumper wasn't really trying half the time

I don't remember ever reading that?

Or are you winding me up?

 

[silentstriker]

Trumper = Dhoni. A lot of people liked him, but in the end, not a very good batsman.

 

[pasag]

Trumper = Dhoni. A lot of people liked him, but in the end, not a very good batsman.

This is the SS I remember from old

 

[SJS]

I don't remember ever reading that?

Or are you winding me up?

BTW, you know Trumper averaged 33.3 as an opener but 48.8 in the middle order and its not as if he just played a couple of innings lower down. It is 37 innings against 52 as opener. He scored nearly half his runs lower down, 5 of his 8 centuries including his only double century.

Wonder if he would have been afar more successful player at 3 or 4 in the order. An average of nearly 50 in THOSE times would suggest so.

 

[archie mac]

BTW, you know Trumper averaged 33.3 as an opener but 48.8 in the middle order and its not as if he just played a couple of innings lower down. It is 37 innings against 52 as opener. He scored nearly half his runs lower down, 5 of his 8 centuries including his only double century.

Wonder if he would have been afar more successful player at 3 or 4 in the order. An average of nearly 50 in THOSE times would suggest so.

Well I did bat him at No.5 in My All Time XI

 

[archie mac]

Trumper = Dhoni. A lot of people liked him, but in the end, not a very good batsman.

I have reported this post

 

[SJS]

Well I did bat him at No.5 in My All Time XI

I remember.

btw, here are some other interesting but less known facts about famous cricketers.

Colin Blythe, a really slow left arm orthodox spinner, actually opened the bowling in 13 of the 19 tests he played in ! Wilfred Rhodes too opened the bowling but not as often as Blythe.

Clyde Walcott, considered by many as the finest batsman keeper ever, actualy kept wickets for only the first 15 of his 44 test matches and then never again !

Jack Hobbs opened the bowling for England on more than one occasion.

 

[SJS]

Well I did bat him at No.5 in My All Time XI

I did not realise there was such a big difference in how he performed as an opener and in the midlle order till I checked

 

[archie mac]

I remember.

btw, here are some other interesting but less known facts about famous cricketers.

Colin Blythe, a really slow left arm orthodox spinner, actually opened the bowling in 13 of the 19 tests he played in ! Wilfred Rhodes too opened the bowling but not as often as Blythe.

Clyde Walcott, considered by many as the finest batsman keeper ever, actualy kept wickets for only the first 15 of his 44 test matches and then never again !

Jack Hobbs opened the bowling for England on more than one occasion.

I did not realise there was such a big difference in how he performed as an opener and in the midlle order till I checked

Yes I was surprised by the Trumper thing you discovered, I do not remember anyone pointing that out before.

Was not uncommon to open with your best bowler in those days regardless of speed. I think Armstrong was considered the inventor of opening with two fast bowlers circa 1921. Although JWHT opened with Foster and Barnes in 1911/12, still not convinced of Barnes speed.