Ian Botham vs Dennis Lillee

[Johan]

why do people know about Trueman being dropped but not know the English selection policy of the time smh

 

[capt_Luffy]

Asked him to rank his Top 10 Bowlers. Was along the lines "you can't rank them" and was quite skeptical on ranking those who haven't seen, but came up with this:

Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath
Mutthiah Muralitharan
Shane Warne
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee
Jasprit Bumrah
Michael Holding
Malcolm Marshall

 

[Coronis]

why do people know about Trueman being dropped but not know the English selection policy of the time smh

Its not something anyone would know unless they were watching it happen or deliberately researching why players were being dropped. Which normal cricket fans aren’t doing for players 70+ years ago.

 

[Coronis]

Asked him to rank his Top 10 Bowlers. Was along the lines "you can't rank them" and was quite skeptical on ranking those who haven't seen, but came up with this:

Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath
Mutthiah Muralitharan
Shane Warne
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee
Jasprit Bumrah
Michael Holding
Malcolm Marshall

No Garner? Did he not see him bat?

 

[Johan]

Asked him to rank his Top 10 Bowlers. Was along the lines "you can't rank them" and was quite skeptical on ranking those who haven't seen, but came up with this:

Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath
Mutthiah Muralitharan
Shane Warne
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee
Jasprit Bumrah
Michael Holding
Malcolm Marshall

asked my mom to rank the names she gave, reply was

"don't be annoying."

 

[Coronis]

asked my mom to rank the names she gave, reply was

"don't be annoying."

Too late

 

[Thala_0710]

Close:

Wasim
Hadlee
Lillee
Holding
McGrath

He actually does not rates Imran that much.

Gave me 5 more:

Donald
Marshall
Steyn
Ambrose
Bumrah

My dad:
Holding
Marshall
Akram
McGrath
Donald

 

[Johan]

looks like my mum's the best authority on Cricket, RIP to you lads.

 

[subshakerz]

looks like my mum's the best authority on Cricket, RIP to you lads.

No that Boycotts mum.

 

[Johan]

No that Boycotts mum.

of course not, Boycott's mum and grandmum are more knowledgeable on Cricket than him.

 

[kyear2]

I also have Hadlee ahead of Lillee but the difference is that unlike you I only see it as a lack of opportunities on Lillees side compared to Hadlee. Not a skill gap.

Will you please admit that you were wrong about Lillee having issues with his record aside from that?

By the way, I don't dismiss averages. I combine them with wicket tally and SR which you dismiss.

Yes, Lillee basically only played in two countries, home and England. While that is less than ideal, I'm not punishing him for that. As I've said, considering he primarily played in those two countries, home and helpful conditions away, I would expect his numbers to be better.

So no, I'm not saying I'm wrong about anything.

And everyone uses average and s/r, it's that you use s/r and wicket volume as it suits your purpose. Sample size too for that matter.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, Lillee basically only played in two countries, home and England. While that is less than ideal, I'm not punishing him for that. As I've said, considering he primarily played in those two countries, home and helpful conditions away, I would expect his numbers to be better.

What is lacking in his numbers in those countries? Be clear for once.

 

[kyear2]

Would you agree there is a point where less wickettaking, even at a lower average, should be demerited? Like would you rate a 3WPM the same as 5WPM with a 20 average? Of course you wouldn't.

I am really surprised at your position. It's so opposite to how the game is played. Wickets matter most.

And cheap wickets that create pressure depends on bowlers of quality at the other end dismissing bats. In the case of late career Wasim and Ambrose they were simply played out and the other bowlers cashed on.

What was Wasim's average at the end of his career btw? Like after his peak, was it just his wpm or was it that his average also fell away?

And no one is saying that wickets doesn't matter, but you are primarily focusing on small sample size, later career performances.

N.Z was a terribly small sample size and immediately post op and for all intents and purposes only really bowled the first innings of each match.

What you're focusing on however as wicket tally boiled down to usage, which did take a slight dip. But while you dismiss it as pretty averages, do you know how difficult it is to main such averages when you're past your peak?

And if your overall grievance is purely strike rate, we can restart that debate, and I have some stats I can again post for you.

 

[kyear2]

I have already addressed it.

Ambrose had penetration issues post 94 and in all samples outside Eng and Aus, especially home.

I have Imran over Ambrose based on greater success across different conditions (objective fact) and I look at Imran's bowling career 76 to 89, longer than Ambrose anyways, where his numbers are objectively better including wickettaking in several countries.

How many times do you want to debate Imran? Aren't you tired of it?

Penetration issues.

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


And because you're a hypocrite with double standards.

As I said.... every single time you say penetration issues.

 

[subshakerz]

Penetration issues.

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


And because you're a hypocrite with double standards.

As I said.... every single time you say penetration issues.

So your response to my post is to repost your original response? Ok.

 

[subshakerz]

What was Wasim's average at the end of his career btw? Like after his peak, was it just his wpm or was it that his average also fell away?

And no one is saying that wickets doesn't matter, but you are primarily focusing on small sample size, later career performances.

N.Z was a terribly small sample size and immediately post op and for all intents and purposes only really bowled the first innings of each match.

What you're focusing on however as wicket tally boiled down to usage, which did take a slight dip. But while you dismiss it as pretty averages, do you know how difficult it is to main such averages when you're past your peak?

And if your overall grievance is purely strike rate, we can restart that debate, and I have some stats I can again post for you.

Typical. Doesn't address any points.

And you can't call Ambrose in NZ too small a sample but also a success. Make up your mind.

 

[kyear2]

Fact: Barry Richards played 4 tests, therefore does not deserve a mention in an ATG test XI. A fact that everyone here can seem to grasp except one person.

The fact that you and others maintain your mental inflexibility and stubbornness and refused to accept that despite his number of tests that he reached such a level of greatness and had such a brilliant record against the best bowlers of his day, that those who saw and played against him, still rated him the best in the world for over half a decade and the best opener of his era... Has little to do with me.

When the vast majority of fast bowlers in any era all agree than one batsman was the best and fully on par with Richards and Sobers and rated him easily above the level of Sunny, Chappell and Greenidge etc etc, how can that be easily or callously dismissed? We're not even going cross eras, they all played at basically the same time.

And no, not everyone here, sounding like Subs now. There's more than a handful that recognizes his greatness and has him in contention for such recognition. And not just some, but the best and most respected posters on the forum.

It's crazy that the other day, there were some pee and post 1970 all time XI's posted that primarily had Barry included in the post XI's. Not to mention that the same "most here" still has Barry in their 3rd XI's and he all but unanimously made the SA all time XI here as well.

So, and this is a direct question to you, is he eligible or isn't he.

Not to add, that if he can't possibly be in contention, how did he make Cricinfo's 2nd XI, various publication's, former players and even umpire's 1st or 2nd XI's.

In fact how does he make more AT XI's than Sutcliffe? Barry was seen as a top 3 bat of his era, Sutcliffe wasn't mentioned in the same breath of Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Hutton or Headley.

Becuse nuance, context and peer rating is ignored here by too many, including you.

I just find it interesting that the poster that everyone goes to for historical context, references and overall knowledge of this great game, agrees with me on my two main points of contention on the forum.

That Barry, not only his opinion that by some general consensus, is among the top 3 / 4 batsmen of the modern era and on the same level with Sobers, Viv and Sachin as batsmen.... ,and that slip catching is more impactful and important to winning than lower order batting, yet the refrain is always that "everyone here" disagree with you.

Anyways, carry on.

 

[Coronis]

The fact that you and others maintain your mental inflexibility and stubbornness and refused to accept that despite his number of tests that he reached such a level of greatness and had such a brilliant record against the best bowlers of his day, that those who saw and played against him, still rated him the best in the world for over half a decade and the best opener of his era... Has little to do with me.

When the vast majority of fast bowlers in any era all agree than one batsman was the best and fully on par with Richards and Sobers and rated him easily above the level of Sunny, Chappell and Greenidge etc etc, how can that be easily or callously dismissed? We're not even going cross eras, they all played at basically the same time.

And no, not everyone here, sounding like Subs now. There's more than a handful that recognizes his greatness and has him in contention for such recognition. And not just some, but the best and most respected posters on the forum.

It's crazy that the other day, there were some pee and post 1970 all time XI's posted that primarily had Barry included in the post XI's. Not to mention that the same "most here" still has Barry in their 3rd XI's and he all but unanimously made the SA all time XI here as well.

So, and this is a direct question to you, is he eligible or isn't he.

Not to add, that if he can't possibly be in contention, how did he make Cricinfo's 2nd XI, various publication's, former players and even umpire's 1st or 2nd XI's.

In fact how does he make more AT XI's than Sutcliffe? Barry was seen as a top 3 bat of his era, Sutcliffe wasn't mentioned in the same breath of Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Hutton or Headley.

Becuse nuance, context and peer rating is ignored here by too many, including you.

I just find it interesting that the poster that everyone goes to for historical context, references and overall knowledge of this great game, agrees with me on my two main points of contention on the forum.

That Barry, not only his opinion that by some general consensus, is among the top 3 / 4 batsmen of the modern era and on the same level with Sobers, Viv and Sachin as batsmen.... ,and that slip catching is more impactful and important to winning than lower order batting, yet the refrain is always that "everyone here" disagree with you.

Anyways, carry on.

Woah. This post has many fascinating insights and new information that it encourages me to change my mind.

 

[subshakerz]

The fact that you and others maintain your mental inflexibility and stubbornness and refused to accept that despite his number of tests that he reached such a level of greatness and had such a brilliant record against the best bowlers of his day, that those who saw and played against him, still rated him the best in the world for over half a decade and the best opener of his era... Has little to do with me.

When the vast majority of fast bowlers in any era all agree than one batsman was the best and fully on par with Richards and Sobers and rated him easily above the level of Sunny, Chappell and Greenidge etc etc, how can that be easily or callously dismissed? We're not even going cross eras, they all played at basically the same time.

And no, not everyone here, sounding like Subs now. There's more than a handful that recognizes his greatness and has him in contention for such recognition. And not just some, but the best and most respected posters on the forum.

It's crazy that the other day, there were some pee and post 1970 all time XI's posted that primarily had Barry included in the post XI's. Not to mention that the same "most here" still has Barry in their 3rd XI's and he all but unanimously made the SA all time XI here as well.

So, and this is a direct question to you, is he eligible or isn't he.

Not to add, that if he can't possibly be in contention, how did he make Cricinfo's 2nd XI, various publication's, former players and even umpire's 1st or 2nd XI's.

In fact how does he make more AT XI's than Sutcliffe? Barry was seen as a top 3 bat of his era, Sutcliffe wasn't mentioned in the same breath of Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Hutton or Headley.

Becuse nuance, context and peer rating is ignored here by too many, including you.

I just find it interesting that the poster that everyone goes to for historical context, references and overall knowledge of this great game, agrees with me on my two main points of contention on the forum.

That Barry, not only his opinion that by some general consensus, is among the top 3 / 4 batsmen of the modern era and on the same level with Sobers, Viv and Sachin as batsmen.... ,and that slip catching is more impactful and important to winning than lower order batting, yet the refrain is always that "everyone here" disagree with you.

Anyways, carry on.

Yeah but what about Van Der Bijl?

 

[akilana]

Penetration issues.

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


And because you're a hypocrite with double standards.

As I said.... every single time you say penetration issues.

he'll overlook this post and ask you again to make the same post..