How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Richard]

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

Eh? No I didn't.

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?

Eh? I haven't ignored anything you said along these lines! Where was this?

 

[Richard]

Aha. Got it. Did you edit it in?

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?

For me, only the 1968\69 series was worthy of Test-status. I'd no sooner judge anyone on the 1955\56 series as I would judge anyone (yes, including Matthew Hayden) on a sub-par performance against Bangladesh these days.

Sobers would indeed be a more notable career had he succeeded in New Zealand. However, he still outstripped others in his performance elsewhere. Lillee did not.

 

[Matt79]

So him failing against that team doesn't mean anything because that team wasn't good enough to deserve test status? That's a weird way of looking at things...

 

[Richard]

I'd no sooner judge his Test credentials by that series than I would judge someone by their failure in 2 or 3 games against Bangladesh, or Windward Islands, or Western Australia, or Essex.

The only thing I judge Test players on is what I consider worthy of Test status. Not other stuff.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Ikki]

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.

 

[Ikki]

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.

And how did they? When they took wickets, against the same opposition, did they take them in the same situation? Were they under the pump? How good was their help? How good was their batting line-up? Who was performing that day?

I've heard your reasonings before in this case when Swervy asked you to explain. You essentially just sourced averages and strike rates.

 

[Ikki]

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.

But the importance of that 'fact' is how much you think that plays overall. Lillee definitely could but didn't, the others could and did. Alright, doesn't seem much to denigrate a player to say he NEVER could be the best.

IMO his performance against the World XI outdoes that lack of success by a mile.

 

[Richard]

And how did they? When they took wickets, against the same opposition, did they take them in the same situation? Were they under the pump? How good was their help? How good was their batting line-up? Who was performing that day?

I've heard your reasonings before in this case when Swervy asked you to explain. You essentially just sourced averages and strike rates.

The ability of a batting-line-up is completely irrelevant to how good a bowler someone is; and in Test-cricket you're never "off" the pump.

There are more achieved bowlers than Lillee whose help was both excellent and nondescript. As I've said before, though, there are advantages and disadvantages to being part of both strong and weak attacks, and they balance themselves out as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

But the importance of that 'fact' is how much you think that plays overall. Lillee definitely could but didn't, the others could and did. Alright, doesn't seem much to denigrate a player to say he NEVER could be the best.

IMO his performance against the World XI outdoes that lack of success by a mile.

We don't know he definitely could, though - just very probably.

His World XI games were in Australia, were they not? They were also, however high the standard, not Tests (as the artiface in 2005\06 shouldn't have been).

 

[Ikki]

The ability of a batting-line-up is completely irrelevant to how good a bowler someone is; and in Test-cricket you're never "off" the pump.

What? If your batsmen are the best in the world: a) you won't have to face them, b) the performance of other bowlers against them is more important c) if they're performing well, the situation isn't as tense and hence won't be as much of a mental challenge as it would be otherwise.

There are more achieved bowlers than Lillee whose help was both excellent and nondescript. As I've said before, though, there are advantages and disadvantages to being part of both strong and weak attacks, and they balance themselves out as far as I'm concerned.

But who agrees? I think what Lillee did against all other attacks outstrips what guys like Marshall did in the sub-continent. That's why whether you count those 3 tests or not I still see him as the best.

 

[Ikki]

We don't know he definitely could, though - just very probably.

His World XI games were in Australia, were they not? They were also, however high the standard, not Tests (as the artiface in 2005\06 shouldn't have been).

So? Why shouldn't they be counted? What does it matter if they were home? NOBODY does what Lillee did in those games. Those are career best figures against the best batsmen in the world. It just does not happen because you're playing at home or the batsmen weren't taking it as seriously.

 

[Matt79]

They don't fall in the strict statisticians definition of a 'test match' hence Richard attaches no significance to them. The standard of play is irrelevant to his decision to do this.

 

[Goughy]

I'd no sooner judge his Test credentials by that series than I would judge someone by their failure in 2 or 3 games against Bangladesh, or Windward Islands, or Western Australia, or Essex.

The only thing I judge Test players on is what I consider worthy of Test status. Not other stuff.

They were also, however high the standard, not Tests (as the artiface in 2005\06 shouldn't have been).

So you are happy to rule out games that have Test status because you dont like the standard and then rule out high standard games because they dont have Test status.

So many contradictions.

 

[archie mac]

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?

I did not say they do not differ, I said I don't think they differ that much for people on here to say Lillee did not bowl well there, but Hadlee did, so he is the better bowler. And no I do not think is that huge a difference. A flat track at Pakistan is the same as a flat track in Adelaide. Maybe when pitches were uncovered, or in Pakistan and Sth Afr. when they played on matting.

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.

What post are you reading? All I said is Lillee claimed more top order wickets then Imran

So if I understand it, Lillee who had the best leg cutter since Bedser, good bowl a great off cutter, could reduce his pace on slower wickets in Aust and still be a fine bowler, not to mention swing it both ways, you are telling me this man could not take wickets in Pakistan, and can not be rated as high as Imran, Hadlee and Marshall because they did claim wickets in the sub/cont.? The other reason being that the wickets in that country are soooo different from any where else in the world? Someone please help me

 

[Richard]

So you are happy to rule out games that have Test status because you dont like the standard and then rule out high standard games because they dont have Test status.

So many contradictions.

Disagree. It's not a case of high standard = Test-cricket, but it certainly is a case of not high enough standard = certainly not Test-cricket.

You've surely read enough of my ramblings about Bangladesh and that World XI nonsense of 2005\06? I always felt neither merit Test status.

 

[Richard]

So? Why shouldn't they be counted? What does it matter if they were home? NOBODY does what Lillee did in those games. Those are career best figures against the best batsmen in the world. It just does not happen because you're playing at home or the batsmen weren't taking it as seriously.

It's very possible someone could have played NSW in about 1999\2000 and faced a good few of the best batsmen in The World. Should this be placed ahead of something one does against, say, Pakistan or New Zealand? No.

It'd have made no difference, BTW, had they been in Australia or Uganda.

 

[Richard]

What? If your batsmen are the best in the world: a) you won't have to face them, b) the performance of other bowlers against them is more important c) if they're performing well, the situation isn't as tense and hence won't be as much of a mental challenge as it would be otherwise.

So hence in your eyes Lillee whose batting-line-up for most of his career was the best or nearly the best has to be rated slightly lower than, oh, Bob Willis?

I think not.

But who agrees? I think what Lillee did against all other attacks outstrips what guys like Marshall did in the sub-continent. That's why whether you count those 3 tests or not I still see him as the best.

That's your choice. I don't. I think others matched Lillee in other Tests, frankly - there are even a few who had better averages, if only by 1 or 2 points.

 

[Richard]

I did not say they do not differ, I said I don't think they differ that much for people on here to say Lillee did not bowl well there, but Hadlee did, so he is the better bowler. And no I do not think is that huge a difference. A flat track at Pakistan is the same as a flat track in Adelaide. Maybe when pitches were uncovered, or in Pakistan and Sth Afr. when they played on matting.

A flat track in Pakistan may be the same as a flat track in Adelaide, but are you really saying the track is all there is in cricket? Because it's not, and I'd imagine you know it's not. The atmospheric conditions are totally different; the outfields are totally different; and there are a few things off the field that need to be dealt with differently.

What post are you reading? All I said is Lillee claimed more top order wickets then Imran

Exactly, and if so that should count in Lillee's favour, because top-order wickets are > tail-end wickets. I was surprised you seemed to be saying otherwise. If this difference is significant I'd love to hear of it.

So if I understand it, Lillee who had the best leg cutter since Bedser, good bowl a great off cutter, could reduce his pace on slower wickets in Aust and still be a fine bowler, not to mention swing it both ways, you are telling me this man could not take wickets in Pakistan, and can not be rated as high as Imran, Hadlee and Marshall because they did claim wickets in the sub/cont.? The other reason being that the wickets in that country are soooo different from any where else in the world? Someone please help me

I hope I've explained this bit above. I've never said he could not take wickets in Pakistan, just that there are plenty who did, and that a few of them, the likes of Marshall and Hadlee leading the pack, did. Hence, they've achieved more than Lillee.

 

[SJS]

In two tests that he played there Imran averaged a mere 133 runs per wicket at the Oval with a strike rate of 332 !

Wonder what all I can read into these stats when compared with those with better figures at that ground