Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[Teja.]

Yeah, would love to know the definition of 'complete' here.

Are you asking me or Bhupinder?

 

[vcs]

I don't think there is any argument that Wasim was better than Ambrose personally, unless you're saying who you preferred to watch.

What would you argue in favour of Wasim that made him better?

Yeah, it's partly watchability that comes into it for me. For example, this spell to Dravid.

YouTube - Rahul Dravid bowled superbly by Wasim Akram

I'm not sure Curtly would have adapted as well as Wasim to dusty subcontinental wickets, he tended to be a metronome at times, I felt, rather than varying things. Of course, it's all conjecture, because he didn't play enough in the subcontinent. Only 6 matches, and he never bowled in India.

 

[stephen]

Teja is quickly becoming one of my favourite posters. Always offers insightful and unbiased comments IMO.

 

[Sir Alex]

Are you asking me or Bhupinder?

Was primarily aimed at the one who used it first. But would like to hear your thoughts as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

teja is quickly becoming one of my favourite posters. Always offers insightful and unbiased comments imo.

Exactly, he must be stopped.

Seriously, agree with the above.

 

[andyc]

Lillee. Garner was not even the best West Indian bowler of his generation. If it was Lillee vs Marshall then ... I dont know.

For a lot of Lillee's later career he had very little in the way of bowling support.

Reading this thread I'm SHOCKED and SURPRISED how people from a certain region just love to vote against Australian players. You could have an Australian bowler with 250+ wickets up against some kid from their local under 10 team in a poll and they would still vote against the Australian.

Posts like this do nothing to further the discussion, slippyslip. While you might think that Lillee is certainly better than Garner, other people are still entitled to express their opinions without being accused of having an agenda against players of a certain nationality.

 

[zaremba]

Think both were great bowlers, but went for Lillee as he was the ultimate fast bowler back in his day. Garner had towering height, which made him awkward to play, and was very good too. Would have happily voted for either really.

This.

I voted for Garner mainly because he was the ultimate at what he did, and when I was growing up he was the scariest bowler in the world. Stats, meh. Both have got great records and this one has to come down to personal preference. The other reason I voted for Big Bird is because the poll is close (but being edged by Lillee) and I voted to keep it as close as possible, because that's how it should be when you're talking about these two.

 

[grecian]

Garner for me every time, and I saw both. Created wickets for others with his miserly bowling too, best yorker ever also. To say he was just "very tall" is fairly ludicrous IMHO, and every bit as bad as the people who just blather on about Sri Lanka in respects to Lillee.

Would be nice if these threads could just support their faves and not rubbish others and bring up conspiracy theories about why people are voting that way, but hoping for too much.

Both great bowlers. 21-21 ATM, very good.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Garner for me every time, and I saw both. Created wickets for others with his miserly bowling too, best yorker ever also. To say he was just "very tall" is fairly ludicrous IMHO, and every bit as bad as the people who just blather on about Sri Lanka in respects to Lillee.

Would be nice if these threads could just support their faves and not rubbish others and bring up conspiracy theories about why people are voting that way, but hoping for too much.

Both great bowlers. 21-21 ATM, very good.

You've cornered the market in ludicrous by taking my post about him being "very tall" seriously. It was a direct to response to the nonsensical "green top bully" description of Dennis Lillee. As a regular frequenter of Taunton in the Richards/Botham/Garner era I saw more of Garner than the vast majority of posters on here did. There's no doubting his prowess as a fast bowler at the highest level. He bowled from a great height and at an awkward length and was supremely accurate. He didn't however have the variation or express pace of many of his contemporaries.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I can only think of two words really...

1. BIG

2. BIRD

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[Burgey]

IMO,

I respect the aura, attitude and commitment Lillee brought to the pitch, and also that at his best, he was very possibly the best bowler to have ever bowled.(Alongside Waqar of 1990-1995)

But Garner seems to be a league ahead of him statistically. No, I'm not discerning the entire debate to a slight difference in statistics but the statistical difference Garner has over Lillee is similar to the one Ambrose has over Walsh.

Lillee's phenomenal strike rate usually explains his slightly higher average compared to other greats, but Garner's SR is even more phenomenal. I'm of the opinion that Lillee is a legendary bowler whose faliure in 4 tests in the sub-continent don't count against him, but overall he'd just make my top 10 pacers of all-time, while Bowlers like Garner and Marshall would definitely make it to the Top 5.

Again, judging purely on bowling abilities, I hope people do not consider it disrespect if I say Lillee is not as good as bowlers like Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Garner et al.

You won't last long around here with reasoned, well thought-out, non-offensive posts like that one mate.

 

[Burgey]

No, you just have a huge victim complex.

Been a bit of that around lately, tbf.



Takes coat, leaves.

Interesting, having seen them both bowl (though I was young admittedly) I don't recall Garner moving the ball around much. I remember him yorking a zillion blokes, and of course he moved it as alarmingly as anyone ever has vertically. Also had immaculate control. Great bowler. Also remember him hitting a six onto the roof of the Members Stand at the SCG in an ODI when I was there - still the biggest six I've seen live.

 

[Burgey]

Only flaw in that argument is Marshall was waaaayyy better than Lillee.

Lillee may mot be even in top 5 pacemen of all time. If you forget about Lohman and Barnes, Marshall, McGrath, Imran, Ambrose, Trueman, Hadlee and Holding have complete records than Lillee. May be in top 10, not in top 5

How do you know that mate? You look at stats and sure Marshall was better, I'd argue he's top two or three all-time. But to say he was waaay better than Lillee is pap, sorry.

FMD you can't be universally rated as highly as Lillee is by those who played with and against him, yet have people who weren't a twinkle in their father's eyes say he was **** because they've looked something up on stats guru. That's ****ing dire. Ask any one who played against him - if they took liberties against him, didn't think he was capable of the sublime as much as anyone who's bowled quick over the years, or if they rated anyone else waaaay better than him. None of them will.

I can't believe a ****ing decimal point or whatever means so much to some people here (when it suits them of course) that they discount the views of those who saw and/ or played with and against these blokes to a ridiculous extent.

They were both great bowlers, as is Garner. I'd argue each of Lillee and Marshall were more complete than Garner, in that they had a wider array of skills in terms of swing, seam etc. But Garner brought other things to the table as well.

I'm biased, but I'd take Lillee over Garner in tests (not ODIs though). Bloke was amazing. Of course though, he failed in 3 tests in Pakistan and one in SL, which makes Mohd Sami and Lasith Malinga better than him, or something like that.

I dunno, I give up. The **** could bowl. End of.

 

[Top_Cat]

My God, loved the edit so much more than the original post. A genuine "Be the better man, let it go...... nah, **** IT." moment.

 

[vcs]

How do you know that mate? You look at stats and sure Marshall was better, I'd argue he's top two or three all-time. But to say he was waaay better than Lillee is pap, sorry.

FMD you can't be universally rated as highly as Lillee is by those who played with and against him, yet have people who weren't a twinkle in their father's eyes say he was **** because they've looked something up on stats guru. That's ****ing dire. Ask any one who played against him - if they took liberties against him, didn't think he was capable of the sublime as much as anyone who's bowled quick over the years, or if they rated anyone else waaaay better than him. None of them will.

I can't believe a ****ing decimal point or whatever means so much to some people here (when it suits them of course) that they discount the views of those who saw and/ or played with and against these blokes to a ridiculouos extent.

They were both great bowlers, as is Garner. I'd argue each of Lillee and Marshall were more complete than Garner, in that they had a wider array of skills in terms of swing, seam etc. But Garner brought other things to the table as well.

I'm biased, but I'd take Lillee over Garner in tests (not ODIs though). Bloke was amazing. Of course though, he failed in 3 tests in Pakistan and one in SL, which makes Mohd Sami and Lasith Malinga better than him, or something like that.

I dunno, I give up. The **** could bowl. End of.

This so much. That's why I hate making judgments on players I never watched play. I don't even vote on polls involving players I didn't watch. But one thing is pretty obvious even to me - when you're comparing two players rated as all-time greats, there's no such thing as a gulf in class or ability (unless one of them is named Bradman). If anything, it usually comes down to subjective judgment and opinion. I made this point on one of the first threads of this nature that I commented on - the Viv Richards vs. Tendulkar in ODI's thread, which turned into an ugly bash-fest involving people who were unwilling to consider this opinion.

 

[Teja.]

How do you know that mate? You look at stats and sure Marshall was better, I'd argue he's top two or three all-time. But to say he was waaay better than Lillee is pap, sorry.

FMD you can't be universally rated as highly as Lillee is by those who played with and against him, yet have people who weren't a twinkle in their father's eyes say he was **** because they've looked something up on stats guru. That's ****ing dire. Ask any one who played against him - if they took liberties against him, didn't think he was capable of the sublime as much as anyone who's bowled quick over the years, or if they rated anyone else waaaay better than him. None of them will.

I can't believe a ****ing decimal point or whatever means so much to some people here (when it suits them of course) that they discount the views of those who saw and/ or played with and against these blokes to a ridiculouos extent.

They were both great bowlers, as is Garner. I'd argue each of Lillee and Marshall were more complete than Garner, in that they had a wider array of skills in terms of swing, seam etc. But Garner brought other things to the table as well.

I'm biased, but I'd take Lillee over Garner in tests (not ODIs though). Bloke was amazing. Of course though, he failed in 3 tests in Pakistan and one in SL, which makes Mohd Sami and Lasith Malinga better than him, or something like that.

I dunno, I give up. The **** could bowl. End of.

This. This. This.

Though I'd take Garner over Lillee, but it all could change the next hour considering how close it is.

 

[Burgey]

My God, loved the edit so much more than the original post. A genuine "Be the better man, let it go...... nah, **** IT." moment.

Been a while since I ranted proper-like mate.

 

[Teja.]

Teja is quickly becoming one of my favourite posters. Always offers insightful and unbiased comments IMO.

Thank you! I do have my own fair bit of bias though.

 

[Sanz]

Yeh Teja Teja Kya hai ? Yeh Teja Teja

YouTube - Yeh Teja Teja kya hai! (Fwd to 40 sec mark)

Sorry Teja, couldn't resist. Gun poster BTW.