Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

[Prince EWS]

Feel its always harsh to judge a bowler on something he could not achieve but not from a fault of his own

William Lillywhite FTW then. Not his fault they didn't have Test matches back in the 1830s.

 

[archie mac]

IMO. Lillee and Marshall are both as eligible to claim the 'best after Barnes' title as any bowler can be. DKL is rated as better than Marshall in many lists, but It would be a fallacy to claim Marshall isn't as highly rated by other experts.

What is most unique about Lillee to me is his destructive streak, seven 10W Halls in 71 games is prodigious bordering on freakish. Garner is the more consistent bowler with the better Yorker and use of Bounce though Lillee had better diversity in his weaponry. I'd back Lillee over any other fast bowler to run through an opposition order on a flat pitch.(With the exception of a young Waqar Younis of course)

Jeff Thomson for one rates Marshall above Lillee.

P.S.:-People should listen more to what those three experts you mentioned have to say about the second greatest batsman ever too.

Thommo? I don't remember reading that

STR? Class act, although they never watched Hobbs

 

[Teja.]

Thommo? I don't remember reading that

STR? Class act, although they never watched Hobbs

Haha, I was bloody shocked too. Always thought he loved Lillee to bits and considered him better than anyone else.

Malcolm Marshall was the best bowler. He was not huge, released the ball late, bowled sharp, was up there, bowled pretty quick. He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did.

'I didn't bowl your little outswingers' | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

I wonder if the 'Bowling Coaches are parasites' comment was a shot on Lillee.

and was kiddin' about the SRT thing mate, Though I do, along with them, consider him the 2nd greatest.(Though Hadlee's opinion that he is better than the Don is ridiculous)

We didn't see Barnes, Spofforth, Amar Singh et al. too. :/

 

[archie mac]

Haha, I was bloody shocked too. Always thought he loved Lillee to bits and considered him better than anyone else.

Malcolm Marshall was the best bowler. He was not huge, released the ball late, bowled sharp, was up there, bowled pretty quick. He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did.

'I didn't bowl your little outswingers' | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

I wonder if the 'Bowling Coaches are parasites' comment was a shot on Lillee.

and was kiddin' about the SRT thing mate, Though I do, along with them, consider him the 2nd greatest.(Though Hadlee's opinion that he is better than the Don is ridiculous)

We didn't see Barnes, Spofforth, Amar Singh et al. too. :/

Yes a shock Still MM was a class act

I also consider SFB to be the greatest ever

 

[Teja.]

Yes a shock Still MM was a class act

I also consider SFB to be the greatest ever

Without a question, hard to argue with Batsmen studying him through Binoculars before playing him, the reviews of him bowling such magical balls and plain cold statistics!

 

[Furball]

Only flaw in your argument is you are biased. Lillee is not even considered as the 2nd best bowler of last 50 years, where as MM is regarded as the best fast bowler ever in cricketing history. To get that distinction, there should be some gulf between them, at least in their record.

Can we stop throwing this rubbish around?

People are perfectly entitled to think Dennis Lillee is the bestfast bowler they ever saw. It doesn't make them biased if, having seen Lillee and Marshall bowl live, they regard Lillee as the finer of the two.

 

[Migara]

Can we stop throwing this rubbish around?

People are perfectly entitled to think Dennis Lillee is the bestfast bowler they ever saw. It doesn't make them biased if, having seen Lillee and Marshall bowl live, they regard Lillee as the finer of the two.

And people are not allowed to think that Marshall was fair way ahead of Lillee or any fast bowler of his era?

 

[Sanz]

And people are not allowed to think that Marshall was fair way ahead of Lillee or any fast bowler of his era?

It is definitely silly to suggest that Marshall was way better than DKL.

 

[Furball]

And people are not allowed to think that Marshall was fair way ahead of Lillee or any fast bowler of his era?

Point out where I said that please. I am asking you to stop accusing people who don't agree with you of being biased, as it's getting extremely tedious.

 

[stephen]

Loved the Thommo article. Particularly thought that this was interesting:

"On a rest day during the Indian tour in 1977-78, Don Bradman was around in the nets. I was bowling only legspin to him, but he had a couple of young blokes trying to get him out. With no pads, no nothing ... for a 68-year-old, he belted the hell out of them on a turf wicket. And he hadn't batted for 20 years. I went back in and said, "Why isn't this bastard playing with us tomorrow?" That's how good I thought he was."

 

[Ikki]

Only flaw in your argument is you are biased. Lillee is not even considered as the 2nd best bowler of last 50 years, where as MM is regarded as the best fast bowler ever in cricketing history. To get that distinction, there should be some gulf between them, at least in their record.

By who? By most experts he is the greatest of all-time.

To be fair Lillee played 90 % of his test career in Australia and England and thejn except newzealand where he played 5 tests ,he did not play pretty much else where. Not ecen in the west indies or in India.

To be classified as the most complete bowler ever ,i would have thought he would have done well everywhere ,a bit like Mcgrath or Akram and adapted everywhere. But since he did not play much anywhere else ,it leaves a lot to the realms of speculation.Though no fault of his ,i do not know how he can be more complete a bowler than Mcgrath,Akram or Ambrose.

And btw,reading this thread and the others about bowlers am i the only one here that rates Akram in the same bracket as your , Lillee's,garner,Holding,Ambrose,Marshall etc....?

I think the only genuine question of him is in the SC. IIRC the WIndies pitches of his time were amongst the most pace-friendly in the world.

Certainly.

But then if u do not consider that being a neccessity for being the most complete bowler ,then it would be unfair on those who have achieved it like Mcgrath,Akram and Ambrose etc...

I don't think people consider Lillee the most complete for having achieved success everywhere but for having everything in his armoury a great should have. In those terms, no matter how much an Ambrose or a McGrath succeeded, they can't compare - certainly not McGrath.

 

[vcs]

To be fair Lillee played 90 % of his test career in Australia and England and thejn except newzealand where he played 5 tests ,he did not play pretty much else where. Not ecen in the west indies or in India.

To be classified as the most complete bowler ever ,i would have thought he would have done well everywhere ,a bit like Mcgrath or Akram and adapted everywhere. But since he did not play much anywhere else ,it leaves a lot to the realms of speculation.Though no fault of his ,i do not know how he can be more complete a bowler than Mcgrath,Akram or Ambrose.

And btw,reading this thread and the others about bowlers am i the only one here that rates Akram in the same bracket as your , Lillee's,garner,Holding,Ambrose,Marshall etc....?

No, I also rate Akram very highly, only below Marshall and McGrath in the last two decades.

 

[The Sean]

No he didn't.

          [B]Matches  Wickets    Runs    Overs   Maidens   Avg.    SR     ER    5WI[/B]
[B]Lillee[/B]      14      67        1800    522.1     106    26.87   53.35  3.295   4
[B]Garner[/B]       7      35        867     284.3      43    24.77   62.25  2.598   1

Better average. More wickets per match, not his fault he didn't play in as many games as Lilee.

Slightly better average, much inferior SR, and much fewer large innings hauls that would actually affect the match. And Lillee did it for twice as many matches. Lillee was the bowler of the tournament and Garner not as good or better than him. Make up some other stat/fact.

Ikki, you also left out Lillee's 12/89 in the one-off match in NZ. As discussed in another thread that match is generally counted by the players, and with it Lillee's WSC record is 79 wickets at 23.91 with a S/R in the 40s.

 

[Ikki]

Thanks Sean. It's quite incredibly how regularly Lillee picked up big hauls - for a fast bowler that is.

 

[The Sean]

And btw,reading this thread and the others about bowlers am i the only one here that rates Akram in the same bracket as your , Lillee's,garner,Holding,Ambrose,Marshall etc....?

No, I also rate Akram very highly, only below Marshall and McGrath in the last two decades.

Add me to that as well - I think Akram well and truly belongs in the very top bracket.

 

[Burgey]

add me to that as well - i think akram well and truly belongs in the very top bracket.

+ 1.

 

[Teja.]

Add me to that as well - I think Akram well and truly belongs in the very top bracket.

Absolutely.

In the last twenty years ,

Waqar>Mcgrath>Akram=Ambrose=Donald>Pollock for mine.

 

[Furball]

Akram's nowhere near Ambrose as a Test bowler.

 

[Thirdman1]

Absolutely.

In the last twenty years ,

Waqar>Mcgrath>Akram=Ambrose=Donald>Pollock for mine.

Are you a Waqar fan boy?

No way Waqar is better than Mcgrath, Donald, Ambrose and Pollock .

 

[Teja.]

Are you a Waqar fan boy?

No way Waqar is better than Mcgrath, Donald, Ambrose and Pollock .

I said 'For mine' for a reason. I know most people will not support my view but there are the few who will and I don't wish to indulge in a statistical debate with you. Thanks.