-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is Imran one of the 10 best bowlers ever?
- Thread starter Francis
- Start date
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The big thing with Lillee, Joy, is that he may not score as highly as others in terms of stats but in terms of 'peer-review', Lillee scores as high as anyone. Many of his opponents (including Viv, Kallicharan, etc.) rated him highly and have publically done so on numerous occasions. Now, you might not put much stock in that because it's true that we're not talking hard numbers here but it's still significant; the profile of guys like Ambi and McGrath (McGrath especially was just thought of as a very good line bowler) was never very high until their opponents started publically saying what they thought of them. That was when their true worth became more well-known. It's in cases like these that ability trancends mere numbers and where someone who's experienced some of that you have to offer can offer a greater insight. Sheer weight of numbers was (unfairly) never enough for people to rate Rahul Dravid as highly as many do now after his opponents started publically saying how tough he is to bowl to.
To give an example of where peer-review is also illuminating, how often do Jacques Kallis's opponents, even if he's just beat up on them a bit, publically say he's the greatest batsman who ever lived and deserves his 55 average? Not too often.......
That there is a large part of why Lillee is rated so highly here; not just because of the flashing crucifix or the aggressive image but because so many of his opponents over the years have said he was one of the best they faced. It's not scientific (falsifiable, testing or measureable) but it's not insignificant either.
To give an example of where peer-review is also illuminating, how often do Jacques Kallis's opponents, even if he's just beat up on them a bit, publically say he's the greatest batsman who ever lived and deserves his 55 average? Not too often.......
That there is a large part of why Lillee is rated so highly here; not just because of the flashing crucifix or the aggressive image but because so many of his opponents over the years have said he was one of the best they faced. It's not scientific (falsifiable, testing or measureable) but it's not insignificant either.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Just how good were the batsmen in the 80s?C_C said:
The great players bar Border (Richards, Gavaskar and Chappell) peaked in the 70s.
Sa couldnt play
Aus were crap with the exception of Border.
WI had a few very good players but no greats other than a fading Richards
Eng had Gower and Gooch - hardly all timers
India no-one of note (Vengsarkar was probably as good as anyone)
Pakistan - same
NZ had Crowe and were therefore the only team that was demonstrably better than the 70s
In other words, there is an argument to say that the bowling records of bowlers in the 80s were inflated.
Last edited:
C_C
International Captain
Umm.social said:
Pakistan had Miandad
Viv averaged almost 50 ( 49+) through the 80s
There was Border.
Greenidge and Haynes were great openers and they matured in the 80s ( averaged 45.89 and 41.25 respectively).
Lloyd played 44 matches ( thats 11 short of half his career) through till the mid 80s and averaged 52
Gavaskar averaged 46 or so in the 80s.
Richardson was brilliant throughout the 80s, so was Border.
As such, the batting standards in the 80s were not lower than the 70s.
And besides, that has little bearing on Lillee who played mostly against England and the WI (that too, at home).
Lillee played all but 5 matches outside Australia, New Zealand and England.
In other words, his record is on perfect pacer/seamer pitches and as such, is disproportionate.
Proclaiming Lillee as the greatest is no different than proclaiming Kumble as the greatest leggie based on Kumble's record on spinning pitches ( subcontinent) and forgetting his performance overseas.
If overseas performance counts against Kumble in the Kumble-Warne debate, Lillee's lack of performance and experience in non-perfect conditions should count against him too.
C_C
International Captain
Which is why i consider Lillee to be a great bowler. However he is not in contention for 'greatest fast bowler ever' or even close to it in my opinion. Sure, his peers rated him very highly but the peers also rated Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Holding, etc. pretty highly. And they have much better performances than Lillee - both empirically and on unfavourable conditions(such as the subcontinent). As such, they emphatically surpass Lillee IMO.Top_Cat said:
Lillee was in the right place at the right time with the right image, which exgaggerates his worth IMO. Infact, he wouldnt be an automatic in my OZ alltime XI either - McGrath,Warne and Davidson get considered before Lillee does in my books.
imran is certainly not among the top 100 batsmen of all time but as good and as talented and as explosive a batsman as botham was, imran was technically superior, and was better against pace and at least comparable against spin through the latter 1/3rd of his career when he was in the pakistan team almost as a specialist batsman who could bowl.Swervy said:
Thoughts on all-rounders...
For the first time on this board i actually agree with u. And ill like to add that Keith Miller is also worth mentioning when comparing other all-arounders to Sobers.
Well gee what a complement
Anyway yeah the thing I like about Imran and Miller was that they were both "even" all-rounders. They could almost bat and bowl equally as good which is a great quality. All rounders are the toughest players to judge because their stats can show they're "OK" at both. One day he might make a century and bowl bad, hurting his bowling stats. Another day he might bowl well and bat poorly, making his batting stats look terrible. But he's winning game after game. It's been said Botham was A LOT better than his stats indicate as well.
Thoughts on Lillee
I don't think me or C_C need to go over the Lillee thing, but I thought I'd add. Lillee was the main striker in a team which wasn't full of great bowlers all the time. Jeff Thompson had a very short peak and was pretty useless at the end of his career. By the 80s is was mosty Lillee. Thompson's two best series with Lillee were the 1974/75 Ashes and the 1975/6 West Indies tour.
Ian Chappell was often criticsed during the 70s, for bowling Lillee too much because Lillee was bowling for too long. This ultimately hurt Lillee's stats. It's the reason he averages more wickets per match than Hadlee - he bowled more in matches.
Lillee, on average bowled 264 balls per match, Hadlee bowled 255 balls per match. Hadlee bowled off short run ups and bowled borderline medium pace. Lillee was always expressed, always going after you. The fitest cricketer there was. I'm not presenting this as an argument because we've gone as far as possible on this but:
-Lillee bowled more than Hadlee in matches in their career
-Lillee, somebody who's more prone to getting tired, kept going and his stats aren't far behind Hadlee. One ball behind on on s/r and two runs behind on average for an express bowler who's carrying a team.
Lillee carried the Aussie attack for quite a while. Australia's best period was when they had Max Walker, Rodney Hogg and a primed Jeff Thompson behind him.
It should also be noted that his most prolific taking year (1981) came when Jeff Thompson wasn't in the team for most of the year. Lillee had to carry that attack that year.
Thoughts on Viv Richards...
Somebody made the terrific point a while ago that Tendulkar's average is only so high because of the not outs he's gotten. Now I personally think that if Tendulkar kept going, he'd have more double-century's so we can't chastise him on that. But I make this point because Richards was known for a couple of things:
1. Impact! He made centuries when they counted. He made double-centuries when provoked. No cricketer blew teams away so easily when it mattered, be it for Sommerset or the Windies.
2. Viv Richards did not believe in losing and the West Indies never lost under him. He made runs when they were meant to be runs.
3. Being an entertainer who, if his team was in a good position, would take an easy approach to batting after he made a century and go out. Once he made a century, that was it... unless the West Indies needed a big score.
Now I make this point, and I haven't done the legistics, but Richards only has 12 not outs in his career! I wonder how that would compare to others like Sobers, who had 21 not outs in his career. Take the not outs out of the equation and:
Sobers averages 50.2... 7 runs are taken off him.
Viv averages around 47... so three runs are taken off him.
When Tony Grieg said he's make the Windies grovell in 1976, that was like digging a grave because Viv was enough pride for an entire team. He was somebody who made runs when he wanted to, and if his team was ahead, and he made a century, insted of declaring, he'd just hit out and get out.
I think people underrate Richards ability to make runs when they were needed and that he did what all batsmen do when they're ahead, play with a reckless regard. Try and think of Richards as Kevin Pietersen when he started. Batsmen didn't know where to bowl to (they do now). They never found that out.
Imran Khan rates him the best batsmen he ever faced I believe. People here at CW seem to always make opinions based solely off stats... just stats... doesn't matter if somebody made centuries when it counted, when the team was down, when things were against them. Only Viv didn't care, 3-30 meant nothing to him, it would soon be 3-130. The ability to impact games is just incredible with Viv... he changed games in sessions and if you judge greatness on the contribution to the team, not just on stats, Viv's up there.
Richards is also, IMO, the greatest character crickets ever had.
For the first time on this board i actually agree with u. And ill like to add that Keith Miller is also worth mentioning when comparing other all-arounders to Sobers.
Well gee what a complement
Anyway yeah the thing I like about Imran and Miller was that they were both "even" all-rounders. They could almost bat and bowl equally as good which is a great quality. All rounders are the toughest players to judge because their stats can show they're "OK" at both. One day he might make a century and bowl bad, hurting his bowling stats. Another day he might bowl well and bat poorly, making his batting stats look terrible. But he's winning game after game. It's been said Botham was A LOT better than his stats indicate as well.
Thoughts on Lillee
I don't think me or C_C need to go over the Lillee thing, but I thought I'd add. Lillee was the main striker in a team which wasn't full of great bowlers all the time. Jeff Thompson had a very short peak and was pretty useless at the end of his career. By the 80s is was mosty Lillee. Thompson's two best series with Lillee were the 1974/75 Ashes and the 1975/6 West Indies tour.
Ian Chappell was often criticsed during the 70s, for bowling Lillee too much because Lillee was bowling for too long. This ultimately hurt Lillee's stats. It's the reason he averages more wickets per match than Hadlee - he bowled more in matches.
Lillee, on average bowled 264 balls per match, Hadlee bowled 255 balls per match. Hadlee bowled off short run ups and bowled borderline medium pace. Lillee was always expressed, always going after you. The fitest cricketer there was. I'm not presenting this as an argument because we've gone as far as possible on this but:
-Lillee bowled more than Hadlee in matches in their career
-Lillee, somebody who's more prone to getting tired, kept going and his stats aren't far behind Hadlee. One ball behind on on s/r and two runs behind on average for an express bowler who's carrying a team.
Lillee carried the Aussie attack for quite a while. Australia's best period was when they had Max Walker, Rodney Hogg and a primed Jeff Thompson behind him.
It should also be noted that his most prolific taking year (1981) came when Jeff Thompson wasn't in the team for most of the year. Lillee had to carry that attack that year.
Thoughts on Viv Richards...
Somebody made the terrific point a while ago that Tendulkar's average is only so high because of the not outs he's gotten. Now I personally think that if Tendulkar kept going, he'd have more double-century's so we can't chastise him on that. But I make this point because Richards was known for a couple of things:
1. Impact! He made centuries when they counted. He made double-centuries when provoked. No cricketer blew teams away so easily when it mattered, be it for Sommerset or the Windies.
2. Viv Richards did not believe in losing and the West Indies never lost under him. He made runs when they were meant to be runs.
3. Being an entertainer who, if his team was in a good position, would take an easy approach to batting after he made a century and go out. Once he made a century, that was it... unless the West Indies needed a big score.
Now I make this point, and I haven't done the legistics, but Richards only has 12 not outs in his career! I wonder how that would compare to others like Sobers, who had 21 not outs in his career. Take the not outs out of the equation and:
Sobers averages 50.2... 7 runs are taken off him.
Viv averages around 47... so three runs are taken off him.
When Tony Grieg said he's make the Windies grovell in 1976, that was like digging a grave because Viv was enough pride for an entire team. He was somebody who made runs when he wanted to, and if his team was ahead, and he made a century, insted of declaring, he'd just hit out and get out.
I think people underrate Richards ability to make runs when they were needed and that he did what all batsmen do when they're ahead, play with a reckless regard. Try and think of Richards as Kevin Pietersen when he started. Batsmen didn't know where to bowl to (they do now). They never found that out.
Imran Khan rates him the best batsmen he ever faced I believe. People here at CW seem to always make opinions based solely off stats... just stats... doesn't matter if somebody made centuries when it counted, when the team was down, when things were against them. Only Viv didn't care, 3-30 meant nothing to him, it would soon be 3-130. The ability to impact games is just incredible with Viv... he changed games in sessions and if you judge greatness on the contribution to the team, not just on stats, Viv's up there.
Richards is also, IMO, the greatest character crickets ever had.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sorry but simply not true; you can see plenty of footage of Lillee bowling off his short-run in the 1977 Centenary Test, at least 7 years before he retired. In fact correct me if I'm wrong, oh knowledgeable Kiwi's, but did Hadlee not get the idea to bowl off a short-run from Lillee? Even someone as aggressive as Holding did it; it's smart.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
And Wasim bowled off five steps at times.... And Mahanama, I think it was, said that it only made him more quick and dangerous than off his normal run up. I guess it is all about the rhythm.Top_Cat said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I remember Damien Fleming gaining a few yards when he changed to a shorter run.
Sorry but simply not true; you can see plenty of footage of Lillee bowling off his short-run in the 1977 Centenary Test, at least 7 years before he retired.
It varied through-out his career. I've seen footage of him from 1972 and his run up was massive. After his injury his run up didn't didn't produce any more pace, so he shortened it. So it varied. Just on his run up, beautiful, prototypical... his action is the basis for all fast bowlers with him going side on and then with a beautiful rock back and execution.
In fact correct me if I'm wrong, oh knowledgeable Kiwi's, but did Hadlee not get the idea to bowl off a short-run from Lillee? Even someone as aggressive as Holding did it; it's smart.
Hadlee got everything off Lillee, Lillee was his inspiration. Hadlee thought Lillee accomplished everything in cricket, including performing on absolutely horrifric wickets. However, Hadlee's run-up was shorter, even after Lillee shortened his run up. In fact Hadlee came under great criticism in the early parts of his career because he wasn't generating the pace of say, Dennis Lillee, and people thought he was lazy because he didn't go back for a more expressed run up.
He wasn't lazy, he was economical and he put a high price on accuracy and movement as opposed to pace. But even at its shortest, Lillee's run up was longer.
And run up is somewhat besides the point, it's the energy expended. And Lillee bowled faster than Hadlee using more energy on release, yet Lillee bowled more on average per match. Wasim Akram had a run up of 15 yards and was more expressed than Hadlee. The point is the Lillee expended more energy, yet bowled marathon spells.
It varied through-out his career. I've seen footage of him from 1972 and his run up was massive. After his injury his run up didn't didn't produce any more pace, so he shortened it. So it varied. Just on his run up, beautiful, prototypical... his action is the basis for all fast bowlers with him going side on and then with a beautiful rock back and execution.
In fact correct me if I'm wrong, oh knowledgeable Kiwi's, but did Hadlee not get the idea to bowl off a short-run from Lillee? Even someone as aggressive as Holding did it; it's smart.
Hadlee got everything off Lillee, Lillee was his inspiration. Hadlee thought Lillee accomplished everything in cricket, including performing on absolutely horrifric wickets. However, Hadlee's run-up was shorter, even after Lillee shortened his run up. In fact Hadlee came under great criticism in the early parts of his career because he wasn't generating the pace of say, Dennis Lillee, and people thought he was lazy because he didn't go back for a more expressed run up.
He wasn't lazy, he was economical and he put a high price on accuracy and movement as opposed to pace. But even at its shortest, Lillee's run up was longer.
And run up is somewhat besides the point, it's the energy expended. And Lillee bowled faster than Hadlee using more energy on release, yet Lillee bowled more on average per match. Wasim Akram had a run up of 15 yards and was more expressed than Hadlee. The point is the Lillee expended more energy, yet bowled marathon spells.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
How good was Lillee ?
Since all of us know nothing about it (of course there are those who know everything about everything), I thought let me see if anyone else had positive opinions of the Aussie fast bowler. Well the selection of cricketers I quote may not count for much amongst venerable ACC’s(*) but I think one could say they knew a little, just a little, I daresay, about the game. The stats from their test careers shows they might have an idea of what bowling was all about. So here we are.
‘If Dennis Lillee isn’t the greatest fast bowler then he must come very close to being so.
For a start he’s always had great control, which means he can vary his line of attack and his pace at will, and at his peak he was very fast.’
‘- that flowing run, that lovely rhythmic action, the rgular exciting crash of wickets as stumps go flying or Marsh celebrates another catch. Any boy wanting to bowl fast should study Lillee’s action. Like Michael Holding, he is a joy from the moment he starts his run. Lillee is certainly a legend with Larwood and Lindwall...’
‘..he was a tremendous bowler…he had to bowl at his best for so long against so many great batsmen. From the day I first saw him in 1972, he’s been the best bowler of my era.
‘He had so many injury problems, but he has always battled through them. He fights all the time, never shirks a responsibility: he came to Pakistan in 1980 and took just three wickets in three tests, but he bowled his heart out, trying every tactic and keeping up his aggression. That’s the sign of fast bowling greatness – when it’s hot, the wicket is slow and your side needs a breakthrough.
Unlike Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and John Snow, great bowlers who sometimes needed to be cajoled, Dennis Lillee never gave up, but made things happen by sheer will power. With a superb action, he was really quick for a long time and he was great in a crisis when he simply had to get wickets for his side.’
‘…he unquestionably is one of the all time great quick bowlers in the game. As far as I am concerned, he is the last of (the),,classical fast bowlers.
He is fast bowling perfection. Like all truly great pacemen…..he possesses a fine running action worthy of an Olympic athlete. Couple the way he moves with balance, rhythm, fire in the belly, stamina and a big heart and you are close to greatness. The last piece of the jigsaw is the bowling action which in the case of Dennis Lillee is superb. His action and timing cannot be bettered.’
His left arm reaches for the sky and points towards fine leg so that he is always side-on to the batsman and looking round the left side of his left arm. Then the right arm comes over the top, swings across close to his body and finishes outside his left leg. Finally there is that sweet controlled follow-through which reduces the strain on his body.
Although Lillee’s speed is derived mostly from his body action, this is by no means its sole contribution. Dennis’s ability to swing the ball late, mainly away from the left hander, to cut it back sharply off the pitch, vary his pace and to slip in a bouncer without telegraphing his intention, all derive from his action.’
That man is remarkable. He can bowl anything. He’s certainly the greatest fast bowler that I have seen – probably the best of all time. I certainly can’t imagine anyone being better than him.
I bowled a fair bit in tandem with Dennis Lillee. He was, quite simply, the greatest fast bowler of my era. He had technical expertise, fitness, the physical build, stamina and determination to match with any fast bowler of any time.
‘…Dennis Lillee for my money was the best of them all. I find it hard to believe that there has been a more complete quick bowler. When he needed to, he could bowl fast on any surface, anytime and anywhere. And there was more to him than that. A lot of quick bowlers come charging in, and let go and don’t really know what they are doing and where the ball is going to pitch. ‘DK’ knew exactly what he wanted to do, and his control was complete.
‘Dennis Lillee was the greatest fast bowler of the modern era in Australia, may well have been the greatest ever”
CONCLUSION : Inspite of getting just three wickets in three tests in Pakistan, Lillee could bowl after all
Since all of us know nothing about it (of course there are those who know everything about everything), I thought let me see if anyone else had positive opinions of the Aussie fast bowler. Well the selection of cricketers I quote may not count for much amongst venerable ACC’s(*) but I think one could say they knew a little, just a little, I daresay, about the game. The stats from their test careers shows they might have an idea of what bowling was all about. So here we are.
‘If Dennis Lillee isn’t the greatest fast bowler then he must come very close to being so.
For a start he’s always had great control, which means he can vary his line of attack and his pace at will, and at his peak he was very fast.’
‘- that flowing run, that lovely rhythmic action, the rgular exciting crash of wickets as stumps go flying or Marsh celebrates another catch. Any boy wanting to bowl fast should study Lillee’s action. Like Michael Holding, he is a joy from the moment he starts his run. Lillee is certainly a legend with Larwood and Lindwall...’
- David Gower (8231 test runs) England captain and one of the best left handed batsmen ever
‘..he was a tremendous bowler…he had to bowl at his best for so long against so many great batsmen. From the day I first saw him in 1972, he’s been the best bowler of my era.
‘He had so many injury problems, but he has always battled through them. He fights all the time, never shirks a responsibility: he came to Pakistan in 1980 and took just three wickets in three tests, but he bowled his heart out, trying every tactic and keeping up his aggression. That’s the sign of fast bowling greatness – when it’s hot, the wicket is slow and your side needs a breakthrough.
Unlike Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and John Snow, great bowlers who sometimes needed to be cajoled, Dennis Lillee never gave up, but made things happen by sheer will power. With a superb action, he was really quick for a long time and he was great in a crisis when he simply had to get wickets for his side.’
- Imran Khan (362 test wickets) Pakistani fast bowling great
‘…he unquestionably is one of the all time great quick bowlers in the game. As far as I am concerned, he is the last of (the),,classical fast bowlers.
He is fast bowling perfection. Like all truly great pacemen…..he possesses a fine running action worthy of an Olympic athlete. Couple the way he moves with balance, rhythm, fire in the belly, stamina and a big heart and you are close to greatness. The last piece of the jigsaw is the bowling action which in the case of Dennis Lillee is superb. His action and timing cannot be bettered.’
His left arm reaches for the sky and points towards fine leg so that he is always side-on to the batsman and looking round the left side of his left arm. Then the right arm comes over the top, swings across close to his body and finishes outside his left leg. Finally there is that sweet controlled follow-through which reduces the strain on his body.
Although Lillee’s speed is derived mostly from his body action, this is by no means its sole contribution. Dennis’s ability to swing the ball late, mainly away from the left hander, to cut it back sharply off the pitch, vary his pace and to slip in a bouncer without telegraphing his intention, all derive from his action.’
- Fred Truman (307 test wickets) English fast bowling great
That man is remarkable. He can bowl anything. He’s certainly the greatest fast bowler that I have seen – probably the best of all time. I certainly can’t imagine anyone being better than him.
- Bob Willis (325 wickets) English fast bowler and captain
I bowled a fair bit in tandem with Dennis Lillee. He was, quite simply, the greatest fast bowler of my era. He had technical expertise, fitness, the physical build, stamina and determination to match with any fast bowler of any time.
- Ashley Mallet(132 wickets) Australian off spinner
‘…Dennis Lillee for my money was the best of them all. I find it hard to believe that there has been a more complete quick bowler. When he needed to, he could bowl fast on any surface, anytime and anywhere. And there was more to him than that. A lot of quick bowlers come charging in, and let go and don’t really know what they are doing and where the ball is going to pitch. ‘DK’ knew exactly what he wanted to do, and his control was complete.
- Botham (383 wkts) England fast bowler and captain discussing Thomson, Garner Holding and Lillee.
‘Dennis Lillee was the greatest fast bowler of the modern era in Australia, may well have been the greatest ever”
- Richie Benaud (248 wkts) Australian legspinner all rounder and captain
CONCLUSION : Inspite of getting just three wickets in three tests in Pakistan, Lillee could bowl after all
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm with SJS and an awful lot of cricketers whose judgement I would be happy to rely on when it comes to deciding whether Lillee was an all-time great or not.
One of the best bowlers I ever saw.
One of the best bowlers I ever saw.
C_C
International Captain
Never said that he wasnt an alltime great.luckyeddie said:
Just said that his greatness tends to get exgaggerated. Javed Miandad is an alltime great batsman but if someone said that he is the best post-war batsman, that would be an exgaggeration. Likewise with Lillee IMO. And i rarely rely on the opinion of others to form my opinion in intangiable matters.
the difference is miandad has never been projected as the best post-war batsman at least not by people who matter anyway....whether you like it or not, the opinions of knowledgable, vastly experienced cricketers matter more than yours in evaluating what you rightly refer to as these intangibles....and the fact that you don't respect their opinion just devalues yours even more...C_C said: