Pick TWO opening Bowlers for the 1966-85 World test XI

[adharcric]

Nevertheless, you're calling him the "most OVERRATED bowler ever"

Where was that?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Where was that?

Look in his signature.

Don't know whether that's just to provoke, mind.

 

[adharcric]

Fair enough, I'm exaggerating. Nevertheless, you're calling him the "most OVERRATED bowler ever" - surely that one has to go to Steve Harmison or somesuch, not a man with 355 Test wickets, who was by all accounts fairly unplayable on his day, just because of two flat-track matches in Pakistan.

Garner's behind Lillee on a fair bit of other criteria: he was very rarely the standout bowler in a match, only took five wickets in an innings 7 times (and don't come with the "good attack" excuse, because Marshall and Roberts have plenty more).

Garner has a better average, a better strike rate and a better economy rate. Lillee has more 5-fers and 10-fers and a better reputation among his peers. Don't make it seem like Lillee >>> Garner, because much closer than that.

 

[adharcric]

Look in his signature.

Don't know whether that's just to provoke, mind.

If he actually meant it, I can see why he thinks so after reading your views.

If it was just meant to provoke, it definitely served it's purpose.

 

[silentstriker]

Fair enough, I'm exaggerating. Nevertheless, you're calling him the "most OVERRATED bowler ever" - surely that one has to go to Steve Harmison or somesuch, not a man with 355 Test wickets, who was by all accounts fairly unplayable on his day, just because of two flat-track matches in Pakistan.

He was merely a suberb bowler. Overrated means, people rate him better than he was. He was still superb, but he wasn't the top three-four all time, as people seem to think he was (IMO).

 

[Fratboy]

Um. In his other 67 Tests, he took 352 wickets. This is not performance?

Oh well. Dismiss his whole career based on three flat-track Tests if you like.

Jeez, how about doing some reading before accusing one of 'dismissing his whole career' ? You're having a rant for the sake of having one.
No one is claiming he was a waste of a bowler. Get this into your head. This is all comparative. When there are two bowlers with little separating them, the bowler who showed he could perform decently on pitches considered tough as far as his trade goes, comes out ahead of one who didn't/couldn't.

 

[Slifer]

Fair enough, I'm exaggerating. Nevertheless, you're calling him the "most OVERRATED bowler ever" - surely that one has to go to Steve Harmison or somesuch, not a man with 355 Test wickets, who was by all accounts fairly unplayable on his day, just because of two flat-track matches in Pakistan.

Garner's behind Lillee on a fair bit of other criteria: he was very rarely the standout bowler in a match, only took five wickets in an innings 7 times (and don't come with the "good attack" excuse, because Marshall and Roberts have plenty more).

In the case of Marshall, the reason he took so many ten and five fors was because he was that good!!! And as for Roberts in case u didnt know, for much of his career Roberts bowled as the main bowler so he would have had more opportunities to take ten fors. And even with all their ten/five fors, Garner still took around 4.4 wkts per match (more than the likes of Holding, Roberts, Walsh, Akram etc.). Oh and one last thing, I'd very much like to see "fair bit criteria" for which Garner is behind Lillee.

 

[aussie tragic]

I wonder how many people actually looked at the 3 Lillee tests in Pakistan in 1980.

1st Test - Karachi: Of 33 wkts to fall, 28 went to spinners (Iqbal 11, Bright 10, Ahmed 7).

2nd Test - Faisalabad: Only 12 wkts fell for the whole match, with 2 of those being run outs. The pitch was so dead that all 11 Aussie players had a bowl, and yet only took one wkt between them (also, WK Rod Marsh sent down 10 overs for 51 runs).

3rd Test - Lahore: Of 24 wkts, Iqbal took 5, Imran 4 and Ahmed 2 in two innings, while Bright took 5 and Lillee 3 in one innings. btw, Lillees 3-114 was the best figures for a pace bowler in the series.

Overall, only 69 of a possible 120 wkts fell, with just 12 wkts falling to front-line pacemen (Imran 6, Lillee 3, Sarfraz 2 and Dymock 1). btw, Iqbal took 16, Bright 15 and Ahmed 12, all individually beating the pacemen combined.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh and one last thing, I'd very much like to see "fair bit criteria" for which Garner is behind Lillee.

Me too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Oh and one last thing, I'd very much like to see "fair bit criteria" for which Garner is behind Lillee.

He was not as quick and had less variation, and took eight weeks to grow a moustache whereas Lillee could grow a full beard in three weeks.

 

[PhoenixFire]

How fast actaully was Garner?

 

[silentstriker]

How fast actaully was Garner?

Fast Medium I believe. Not Lillee speed definatly. Though sometimes he could bowl express, most times he didn't.

Of course, thats a pretty ridiculous method to use when judging. Agarkar bowls faster than McGrath. Yes I realize Lillian was joking, but I'm just saying.

 

[PhoenixFire]

It says that he's fast on cricinfo, but on videos i remember him being 83-86. Lillee was 85-90 and beyond sometimes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How fast actaully was Garner?

I've not seen any speed put on him but with the naked eye he didn't appear to have the express pace of his peers. He certainly got more bounce and bowled an awkward length, in County Cricket the batsman often lost sight of the ball as his great height meant he was releasing the ball from above the sight screen.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Garner has a better average, a better strike rate and a better economy rate. Lillee has more 5-fers and 10-fers and a better reputation among his peers. Don't make it seem like Lillee >>> Garner, because much closer than that.

I'm going to love it in twenty years when someone comes up and says "Pollock > Warne", because of a lower average and 60 wickets @ 23.18 in Asia.

The bolded part is what I'll stick to as judgment - people in the time felt Lillee was harder to play than Garner.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm going to love it in twenty years when someone comes up and says "Pollock > Warne", because of a lower average and 60 wickets @ 23.18 in Asia.
.

Um, I didn't know we compared Spinners with Pacemen. I must have missed that 'Underwood vs. Lillee' argument. Everyone knows that all spinners in general have a higher average and strike rates.

You compare fast bowlers with fast bowlers and spinners with spinners.

You guys are clutching at worse and worse straws here.

 

[bagapath]

Using your logic, Tendulkar probably shouldn't have been picked in the 1986-2005 XI because Dravid has a better record then him out of the subcontinent according to the following stats:

In New Zealand: 41.50 (Dravid 64.70)
In South Africa: 42.40 (Dravid 42.11)
In Zimbabwe: 40.00 (Dravid 79.16)

btw, I know a 40+ average is not bad, however his peers have a much better record (your criteria)

love these arguments. i think too many things happened in this thread last night (india time) and i seem to have missed most of the action.

aussie tragic. we nominated dravid for no.3 and sachin for no. 4. so we never chose sachin over dravid. we only picked ponting over rahul and it was mostly for possessing a better strike rate. now, ponting's record in india can be, and it was, used in the same way lillee's performance in pakistan is used now to show a chink in his armor. it is a valid argument. but majority opinion is what we are going by.

i agree with SS in the sense that we need a bit of guesswork to assume lillee's success in the sub continent whereas marshall and hadlee really achieved a lot over there besides possessing an equally impressive record in other countries as well.

i am risking my neck but in my book it is hadlee > marshall > lillee > imran> holding > garner.

 

[aussie tragic]

aussie tragic. we nominated dravid for no.3 and sachin for no. 4. so we never chose sachin over dravid. we only picked ponting over rahul and it was mostly for possessing a better strike rate. now, ponting's record in india can be, and it was, used in the same way lillee's performance in pakistan is used now to show a chink in his armor. it is a valid argument. but majority opinion is what we are going by.

Actually, Dravid was also in the # 4 Poll against Tendulkar and he lost by a huge margin.

As for the majority opinion, simple fact is that 10 people voted for Marshall & Lillee as the opening pair, while 8 voted Lillee & Hadlee, 8 for Marshall & Garner and 7 for Marshall & Hadlee.

Now I'm really looking forward to the Final bowler Poll which should consist of: Hadlee, Imran, Garner, Holding & Thomson, plus the token Bedi, Chandrasekhar & Qadir

btw, has anyone else noticed that someone voted Hadlee in a post, but didn't vote in the poll, which would have made it 26 votes each

 

[bagapath]

10 people voted for Marshall & Lillee as the opening pair

when CMJ selected the best post war XI in 2002 he went for the same combination. i dont mind it too much, actually.

if hadlee makes it in as the third seamer and if beefy is the all-rounder at no. 6, then the two of them, and marshall, can cover lillee's back when this team bowls in the subcontinent

 

[aussie tragic]

if hadlee makes it in as the third seamer and if beefy is the all-rounder at no. 6, then the two of them, and marshall, can cover lillee's back when this team bowls in the subcontinent

Nah, let's just play the test in England where Lillee averages 20.56