Ian Botham vs Dennis Lillee

[Thala_0710]

I mean I've seen some reputable XIs where Hammond play witb Kallis instead of Sobers there too

Some of the modern guys, also pick all time XIs where they don't put Bradman into the XI.
So, there's no limit to ridiculousness.

 

[Coronis]

Some of the modern guys, also pick all time XIs where they don't put Bradman into the XI.
So, there's no limit to ridiculousness.

I mean if they start out with a restriction of “modern players” or “players they’ve seen” thats perfectly fine.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I mean if they start out with a restriction of “modern players” or “players they’ve seen” thats perfectly fine.

Yeah, I have seen a few practically that despite not stating so...... Ex-players have a knack to only make ATXIs with those they played with. At most they throw in a player whom they idolised growing up.

 

[Coronis]

Why?? They are kinda cute in a very try hard way.......

(Btw started Simpsons, will tell you how I feel after I finish S2)

You’re a slow binger fyi, but yay!

 

[capt_Luffy]

You’re a slow binger fyi, but yay!

Had the mid sems, just finished on Friday

 

[kyear2]

D.K. Lillee

 

[kyear2]

I prefer most ATG batsmen & bowlers over Botham and Kapil

Easily agree.

 

[kyear2]

I think Lillee is likely nearly as a good as Hadlee McGrath except not enough opportunities away.

Considering where he played, his numbers should have been better.

Still top 10 guy obviously, not as good as Hadlee for me.

 

[subshakerz]

Considering where he played, his numbers should have been better.

Still top 10 guy obviously, not as good as Hadlee for me.

You are being intellectually lazy and don't bother to look at the blemishes in Hadlees record.

Lillee took 231 wickets@23.7 in 44 tests with a SR of 49.9 at home.
Hadlee took 201 wickets@22.9 in 43 tests with a SR of 53 at home.

Lillee took 96 wickets@20.5 in 16 tests with a SR of 50 in England.
Hadlee took 70 wickets in 14 tests@24.9 with a SR of 58.9 in England.

Hadlee took 15 wickets@27 in 4 tests in WI, a bit poorer than 23@28 in 5 tests for Lillee during WSC.

Now I never heard you argue that Hadlee has below par numbers at home, in England or WI? Why this double standard with Lillee?

And for the record, Lillee has amazing numbers especially at home and only someone who is blind average reader can think otherwise.

Can you explain to me how Lillee is taking more wickets per test than Hadlee at home despite Hadlee having less competition and arguably even better wickets?

 

[kyear2]

Honestly you guys are too OCD about bowling averages in a way that is counter to how the game is played.

As long as your wickettaking is high, you can afford to have a bowling average of 23.

A 23 bowling average with a healthy SR is better than a 20 bowling average with a high SR.

In fact I think this point is obvious but I am frankly shocked how many on this board gets suckered into supporting low average low wickettaking bowlers.

So I would like to be clear.

What exactly is a good s/r and at which point does it become too high?

 

[subshakerz]

So I would like to be clear.

What exactly is a good s/r and at which point does it become too high?

I suppose it changes for everyone. But wicket tally at a healthy rate matter more than anything, even slightly cheaper average. There is no point being cheap in tests if you can't take wickets.

But for individual countries, ideally you want a sub 25 average and SR not more than early 50s and 4WPM but averaging 25-27 is still very good as long as wicket tally and SR is healthy. This is contextual of course depending on sample, etc.

For overall career, sub 24 average and SR in early 50s and 4WPM are benchmarks for me, falling below which I consider blemishes.

 

[kyear2]

He definitely is. As is Lillee IMO.though it's not a popular opinion on this board.

Ambrose in

Pak. - 60
S.A. - 57
Eng. - 55
Aus - 48

Imran Khan in (preferred period in brackets)

Aus. - 67 (63)
Eng. - 62 (59)
Ind. - 61 (61)
N.Z. - 75 (66)

McGrath in

Eng. - 40
Ind. - 57
Pak. - 63
S.A. - 63

Why again should Ambrose alone be below Lillee?

 

[Coronis]

You are being intellectually lazy and don't bother to look at the blemishes in Hadlees record.

Lillee took 231 wickets@23.7 in 44 tests with a SR of 49.9 at home.
Hadlee took 201 wickets@22.9 in 43 tests with a SR of 53 at home.

Lillee took 96 wickets@20.5 in 16 tests with a SR of 50 in England.
Hadlee took 70 wickets in 14 tests@24.9 with a SR of 58.9 in England.

Hadlee took 15 wickets@27 in 4 tests in WI, a bit poorer than 23@28 in 5 tests for Lillee during WSC.

Now I never heard you argue that Hadlee has below par numbers at home, in England or WI? Why this double standard with Lillee?

And for the record, Lillee has amazing numbers especially at home and only someone who is blind average reader can think otherwise.

Can you explain to me how Lillee is taking more wickets per test than Hadlee at home despite Hadlee having less competition and arguably even better wickets?

Probably because he got to bowl 2 innings more often.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose in

Pak. - 60
S.A. - 57
Eng. - 55
Aus - 48

Imran Khan in (preferred period in brackets)

Aus. - 67 (63)
Eng. - 62 (59)
Ind. - 61 (61)
N.Z. - 75 (66)

McGrath in

Eng. - 40
Ind. - 57
Pak. - 63
S.A. - 63

Why again should Ambrose alone be below Lillee?

What do these stats this have to do with Lillee?

You again are inserting Imran in the conversation and will whine later that I am obsessed with him.

 

[subshakerz]

Probably because he got to bowl 2 innings more often.

Did he? How much more often?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Did he? How much more often?

84 innings 231 Wickets
75 innings 201 Wickets

 

[subshakerz]

84 innings 231 Wickets
75 innings 201 Wickets

So Lillee still has a higher WPI.

 

[kyear2]

Sorry but this is just typical blind lazy average reading.

There is no way Ambrose is better in England for example. Nor is Ambrose that great at home in WI compared to Lillee at home. Pakistan is too small a sample for Lillee and Ambrose there mixed too.

Ambrose is ATG in Aus, I will give him that, but that's the only argument he has in favor of him and it's frankly overdone because he didn't have the skillset to be nearly the same force anywhere else.

So please tell us.

If not average, what's the best gauge for bowlers?

And if it's so easy, why have so few ended up under 21?

And who says Ambrose lacked the skill set, you?

 

[kyear2]

Tier 1 : Marshall. Hadlee. McGrath. Steyn
Tier 2 : Ambrose. Donald. Imran. Holding. Lillee. Akram.
There is a small difference in bowlers in same tier

No great issue with the order at all, just see it slightly different.

Tier 1
Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee

Tier 2
Steyn | Ambrose | Warne | Muralitharan

Tier 3
O'Reilly | Imran | Donald | Lillee | Holding | Wasim | Lindwall | Garner | Trueman | Bumrah | Davidson | Pollock | Cummins

Might be missing someone, and it gets really tight after Wasim and the order varies thereafter.

 

[Johan]

for me personally

Tier 1
Marshall | McGrath | Barnes | Hadlee

Tier 2
Ambrose | Steyn | Warne | Murali

Tier 2.5
Tiger | Imran

Tier 3
Trueman | Lillee | Garner | Holding | Donald | Lindwall | Wasim | Bumrah | Davidson

Tier 4
Cummins | Roberts | Pollock | Walsh | Waqar Et cetera

It's in order bar Tier 4