How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Perm]

That is the point as far as I am concerned they prove nothing at all and the theory is ridiculous, try and keep up

Well archie, to be perfectly honest, I find that very ignorant.

Maybe if you read somemore on Clem you would agree with me I know if you read somemore you would not use such words as ridiculous, Sobers was better, but it is not so far removed that you could not make a case for Hill

You could make a case for Hill, certainly. However I don't think it would be a very strong one, not when trying to compare him to Sobers.

 

[Matt79]

How long have you been posting on this forum Matt?

More than happy to call it quits, Maybe it should be locked

But refuse to let others have the last word unless it is locked

I'm not wanting to be hypocritical or kill others enjoyable discussion, but this one is just going around in circles and it really just has boiled down to a matter of opinion regarding the significance of a couple of aspects of Lillee's career. Neither side is going to prove their case to the satisfaction of the other, neither interpretation is empirically 'wrong' or 'silly', and neither side seems to be enjoying the debate either.

Just putting in my two cents...

 

[The Sean]

So is Hills

I know mate - just paraphrasing the argument used against Trumper on here sometimes.

 

[Ikki]

So you're dismissing mine and others arguments as silly because they prove a point about a player that you disagree with?

They don't prove a point to him and neither to me. I don't see 3 tests to prove anything, neither does it to Archie and some others. And even if it does, it's certainly not enough to shift the preference, as far as me, Marshall, Hadlee and Khan are concerned, as to who is the best.

 

[archie mac]

Well archie, to be perfectly honest, I find that very ignorant.



You could make a case for Hill, certainly. However I don't think it would be a very strong one, not when trying to compare him to Sobers.

Because I don't agree with you and others? Because I think cricket does not vary as much from country to country as others? I can assure you I study these things a lot before deciding on my opinion, and I use to think the same way as you, when I was a younger man, but I have changed my mind it the last few years, after much consideration and lots and lots of reading

As for Hill I still think if you read up on him, you would not find it as far fetched as it appears simply on averages, and some ranking that someone comes up with, cricket has so many variables that you can always find holes in any ranking system

And yes I do rank Sobers in front of Clem

 

[Goughy]

To boil the career of Lillee down to 3 games is nonsensical.

The Pakistan series represents 4% of his career. To use that as a reason why he cannot be the best instead of focusing on the vast majority of 96% carries no logic.

Its possible to go as far as saying that Lillee had an incomplete portfolio in terms of games outside Aus and England but to then place undue weight on that fact misses what was achieved.

All the evidence points to Lillee as a great, to look at where there is no evidence enters the realms of conjecture.

Looking at 3 games in Pakistan is a far too small a sample size to draw any conclusion.

Sobers played over twice as many (7) in NZ and averaged 15 with the bat. Does that mean Sobers cant be seen as a great?

As Ive said before, I personally dont have Lillee at the top of my fast bowling tree but there are many more outlandish ideas than that out there. Apart from his record, he was the prototype fast bowler and the father of 'modern' era quicks.

 

[Richard]

The Pakistan series represents 4% of his career. To use that as a reason why he cannot be the best instead of focusing on the vast majority of 96% carries no logic.

Its possible to go as far as saying that Lillee had an incomplete portfolio in terms of games outside Aus and England but to then place undue weight on that fact misses what was achieved.

This is precisely what I mean. No-one is judging Lillee especially harshly on that single series in Pakistan. The judgement would be exactly the same had he missed it.

For me, there were other bowlers who did everything Lillee did and more.

 

[Richard]

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

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 )

TBH Sean I can't believe I'm reading this from you. How on Earth can you possibly say that typical wickets don't differ from country to country?

Also, how can you not see that there are so many other things besides condition of the wicket that mean playing in different places is a worthwhile thing to do?

Also, of course taking top-order wickets is far more important for a bowler than taking lower-order wickets (the best, obviously, can do both). I can't believe anyone would suggest otherwise.

 

[SJS]

To boil the career of Lillee down to 3 games is nonsensical.

The Pakistan series represents 4% of his career. To use that as a reason why he cannot be the best instead of focusing on the vast majority of 96% carries no logic.

Its possible to go as far as saying that Lillee had an incomplete portfolio in terms of games outside Aus and England but to then place undue weight on that fact misses what was achieved.

All the evidence points to Lillee as a great, to look at where there is no evidence enters the realms of conjecture.

Looking at 3 games in Pakistan is a far too small a sample size to draw any conclusion.

Sobers played over twice as many (7) in NZ and averaged 15 with the bat. Does that mean Sobers cant be seen as a great?

As Ive said before, I personally dont have Lillee at the top of my fast bowling tree but there are many more outlandish ideas than that out there. Apart from his record, he was the prototype fast bowler and the father of 'modern' era quicks.

 

[SJS]

The basic problem with all these arguments is the faulty premise that statistics alone can tell the entire story and are a sufficient criteria to make all kinds of 'uneducated' judgement.

 

[Richard]

Sometimes stats are irrefutable though. No-one can possibly argue that Dennis Lillee was successful in the subcontinent - there's no way to do that. None, zilch, zip, zero, O, etc.

 

[SJS]

Sometimes stats are irrefutable though. No-one can possibly argue that Dennis Lillee was successful in the subcontinent - there's no way to do that. None, zilch, zip, zero, O, etc.

Read my lips Richard. I know its difficult but try sometime.

the faulty premise that statistics alone can tell the entire story and are a sufficient criteria to make all kinds of 'uneducated' judgement

The uneducated 'judgement' in this case does not relate to whether or not Dennis Lillee was successful in the subcontinent but whether that alone proves he was not the bowler he was. Greatest, one of the top two, top ten. top twenty - whatever.

 

[Richard]

IMO, it proves he was not the greatest seamer of all-time (or, as I prefer, the post-19th-century period). Because others did what he did, and were successful in the subcontinent to boot.

It does not prove he was not a top-five, even, bowler. Let alone a top-ten. But best? No.

 

[Goughy]

Sometimes stats are irrefutable though. No-one can possibly argue that Dennis Lillee was successful in the subcontinent - there's no way to do that. None, zilch, zip, zero, O, etc.

In the same way stats show that Bradman wasnt successful in the subcontinent as well.

Thats where a point proved by stats becomes irelevant.

You, yourself, said it makes no difference to you whether Lillee had missed that Pak series or not as he didnt do enough in the subcontinent as a whole, where others did more.

Well, Bradman never went there. He played his games against India in Australia. Does the fact he never experienced the subcontinent impact his legacy? Does the fact he only played WI at home as well? or how about the fact he never went to SA and just beat up on them at home?

Lillee in the subcontinent is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions and is irrelevant. As there is nothing to base an argument on (as too few games) people are just filling in the blanks with their own conjecture.

 

[Richard]

Lillee was not successful in the subcontinent. This is fact.

What so often people will confuse this with is that he was a proven, conclusive failure there. Which he wasn't. And often when someone says the former they will be taken to be saying the latter.

On the Bradman question - had he played in the subcontinent and done well there (which he presumably would have done) his legacy would be greater still than it is. However, in Bradman's day there was probably more pitch-conditions variation up and down England than there is these days from England to Pakistan. There would still be other differences, of course, as I've said in the but-Lillee-did-well-on-flatties-in-Australia case. However, no-one has ever come close to him on overall achievement, and hence no-one can claim to be better just because they scored in the subcontinent.

 

[Matt79]

IMO, it proves he was not the greatest seamer of all-time (or, as I prefer, the post-19th-century period). Because others did what he did, and were successful in the subcontinent to boot.

It does not prove he was not a top-five, even, bowler. Let alone a top-ten. But best? No.

For someone who normally insists on doing some very heavy selection and interpretation of stats, you're being strangely fundamentalist about these three matches. You're quick to point out that pitches on the subcontinent vary as much as anywhere else - fair enough, the pitches Lillee bowled on were as dead as pitches you'd find anywhere. The man was ill. And the umpiring was substandard. Combined with the small sample size and the fact he's been able to teach plenty of up and coming Indian and Pakistani, and Australian for that matter, bowlers plenty about bowling in 'subcontinent' conditions, it makes those stats largely irrelevant IMO.

 

[Richard]

FFS, I'm getting fairly sick of saying this, but I'll have to keep doing so: I have not once said I believe Lillee was incapable of success in the subcontinent. The simple fact is, he did not achieve it, and others did.

A few of these others also matched him in every other respect too.

 

[Goughy]

Lillee was not successful in the subcontinent. This is fact.

Ignoring the part about Bradman which I think is you squirming a little.

Lillee was not succesful on the subcontinent. This is fact. I agree.

As I said befor, (and you failed to address) is the fact that Sobers played nearly twice as many games in NZ as Lillee did on the subcontinent and was a complete failure there.

Yet you have Sobers above Richards as a batsman. You never follow your own logic. How come Sobers more prolonged failure in NZ is ignored yet you are over hyping a tiny issue with Lillee?

 

[Matt79]

FFS, I'm getting fairly sick of saying this, but I'll have to keep doing so: I have not once said I believe Lillee was incapable of success in the subcontinent. The simple fact is, he did not achieve it, and others did.

A few of these others also matched him in every other respect too.

The fact he wasn't is pretty irrelevant when his only chance at doing so was ruined by other factors and when, by your own admission, he probably could have been if he'd had another shot.

If anyone could come up with some concrete reason as to why he'd be incapable of performing in those conditions, I could accept the argument. But no-one has to my knowledge.

I have no problem with people saying someone like Marshall or Hadlee, or Imran, is better if they're basing that on something those guys could do with the ball that Lillee couldn't, or even on something like "Marshall average 20, Lillee 23, and he had a better strike rate". But this stuff re: Pakistan is just not a strong argument once you start to look at it in any detail IMO.

 

[Richard]

Purely and simply, "did" is more compelling than "probably could have". This is the only reason Marshall, Hadlee etc. trump Lillee where it comes to success in the subcontinent.