Yeah but I would need at least one or two truly worldclass series away from home against strong opposition, not just goodish ones, to dispel the idea he isn't somewhat dependent on home conditions for his greatness. Surely that's a fair criteria?
In the WSC Windies series Lillee, Lillee room 23 @ 28.40 while in 1960 Windies Trueman took 20 @ 26.14, I'd take Trueman's work in Windies over Lillee.
depends on what you consider world class, winning your team games on flat decks like 50s or 60s Windies ones against ATG batting is world class to me, but Yeah, Lillee doesn't have constant amazing work in Australia like Lillee does in England, if that's your criteria then it's fair.
Honestly just splitting hairs here really. It's basically even and you know it.
Sure Trueman is better at home but it's not by any landslide. Lillee bowled more to his credit actually.
That's a pretty bad breakdown. Lillee in England is several degrees better than Trueman in Aus. And they are basically even in WI.
Even you concede you wouldn't call Truemans best series away more than good. And you need more than that.
I'd give it to Trueman by a small margin, his series is just more impressive to me, but it's close Yes, and that's kinda have been my whole point.
Trueman averages 20 to Lillee's 24 (WSC included) so I feel like it's a pretty decent gap, Trueman is in running for the GOAT home pacer, Lillee...is not, as good as he is.
That's why I don't treat it as being great in one country and give it enough credibility to offset being worse pretty much everywhere else. Home work is also extremely important with two guys who played most of their games at home.
I hard disagree with that, England of 70s was certainly weaker than Australia of 60s as far as batting is concerned, there's a reason Boycott was seen as a defender of a weak batting lineup.
sure, I do think Lillee's England exceeds Trueman's away projects (though, not by as much as raw averages would suggest due to batting quality) but I don't think that makes up for Lillee being worse in literally every other context and not having an era transcending trait. Like I said, Equal at best.
Honestly think you are reaching man.
Your argument is basically Trueman was better at home honestly. Because he couldn't replicate those level of performances away (Lillee could in England). It's not an argument I would go with unless those home conditions are extraordinarily tough.
He was better at home + in 2/3 of the places that they both toured which to me makes up the away Ashes disparency, and then Trueman has something transcendent and unique among his peers that actually correlated to his skill level, that's basically the tiebreaker for me.
I mean, I said they're relatively close in West Indies but Trueman just has a better argument, that shows that on flat pitches they're gonna be pretty much relative.
He was solid but Ambrose destroyed them many times.
Er, Imran has 80 @ 21 with 43 SR against the West Indies, he was a little more than solid against West Indies.
Only at home though. And that's the rub.
I think we've discussed this enough so far. we discussed this just few messages ago.
Again, so did Imran. In 10 games in the 80s against WI he took 51 wickets@16 home and away.
Ambrose did that in Australia
Yes good talk.
Ok but this started by you suggesting that succeeding against the best team of their time was what set Ambrose ahead. But both Ambrose and Imran did it.
No it's not the only one (he has less tests and longevity and less tours away than his peers outside Eng and Aus) and no it's not minor since you yourself put importance on doing well against the best opposition.