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

[Fratboy]

SS, It is unfair on Lillee because he played just 3 tests in the subcontinent. That is too less to discount a giant in comparing with other players for me.

Hypothetical: New Indian batsman emerges. Plays 70 tests in his entire career, of which only 3 tests were in England/NZ/SA/Aus (assuming Aus are in their non-flat-pitches era, ie: not present day) where he averages 15. But ends up with a career average of 55.

Would those rah rah-ing Lillee place him in the same category as Dravid/Ponting/Kallis etc when the question of his place in history comes up ?

 

[silentstriker]

SS, It is unfair on Lillee because he played just 3 tests in the subcontinent. That is too less to discount a giant in comparing with other players for me.

Garner played 3 only. If Garner had played 3 and averaged as Lillee did, then it would be a different situation.

 

[silentstriker]

Hypothetical: New Indian batsman emerges. Plays 70 tests in his entire career, of which only 3 tests were in England/NZ/SA/Aus (assuming Aus are in their non-flat-pitches era, ie: not present day) where he averages 15. But ends up with a career average of 55.

Would those rah rah-ing Lillee place him in the same category as Dravid/Ponting/Kallis etc when the question of his place in history comes up ?

No, I would not place him in the same category as Tendu/Dravid/Ponting, etc.

No way. It wouldn't even be close.

I really don't judge Indian batsman by how they do in India. Thats why Azhar is not a great batsman for me, a good one to be sure, but not great.

 

[Pratters]

Garner played 3 only. If Garner had played 3 and averaged as Lillee did, then it would be a different situation.

For me, it is unfair for Lillee as I said. We will just agree to disagree here..

 

[Fratboy]

For me, it is unfair for Lillee as I said. We will just agree to disagree here..

Well, I can guarantee that not a soul would rate the Indian batsman in the hypothetical case, so Lillee can curse his luck all he wants tbh.

 

[Pratters]

Well, I can guarantee that not a soul would rate the Indian batsman in the hypothetical case, so Lillee can curse his luck all he wants tbh.

What does this have to do with Indian batsmen? Nothing.

 

[Fratboy]

What does this have to do with Indian batsmen? Nothing.

It has everything to do with comparing a player with his peers.

 

[Pratters]

It has everything to do with comparing a player with his peers.

I don't see why had to use Indian in your example.

 

[Fratboy]

I don't see why had to use Indian in your example.

You could replace it with Pakistani/Sri Lankan/Bangladeshi and the question still remains open.

 

[Pratters]

Sure I would put him in same category... A lot of people who voted for Lillee feel the same as well.

 

[Fratboy]

Sure I would put him in same category...

Good for you. Pretty bad that won't be the general consensus.

 

[Pratters]

Good for you. Pretty bad that won't be the general consensus.

How have most people voted for Lillee here then? 2nd in the poll looks general consensus to me.

 

[aussie tragic]

Well, I can guarantee that not a soul would rate the Indian batsman in the hypothetical case, so Lillee can curse his luck all he wants tbh.

Yeah, cursing his luck that he was selected by CW members as the 2nd best bowler during 1966-85. Can't wait for the post-war XI when Marshall, Lillee, McGrath, Ambrose and whoever is picked in the 1946-65 XI (Wes Hall?) come up against each other.

 

[Fratboy]

How have most people voted for Lillee here then? 2nd in the poll looks general consensus to me.

They've gone on reputation. How many of those do you think have actually seen Lillee bowl live ? You're just covering your base with a statement you have been forced into by your initial argument. The common refrain whenever a sub continental batsman emerges is invariabely, " Lets see how how does outside the subcontinent." Without fail. Consistently. To assume otherwise is folly.

 

[Pratters]

They've gone on reputation.

That is a bit arrogant to discount CW members in such a way.

How many of those do you think have actually seen Lillee bowl live ?

A lot of people from Lillee's generation have and speak volumes of him. Are they going on reputation as well. Not really.

You're just covering your base with a statement

Erm, I countered your statement. No need to go hyper.

The common refrain whenever a sub continental batsman emerges is invariabely, " Lets see how how does outside the subcontinent." Without fail. Consistently. To assume otherwise is folly.

Bradman never played and thus didn't do well in the subcontinent. Going by your logic, maybe he is not great too.

 

[Fratboy]

That is a bit arrogant to discount CW members in such a way.



A lot of people from Lillee's generation have and speak volumes of him. Are they going on reputation as well. Not really.

Yes, they are. Sorry. Was he a great ? Yes. At the level of the others who actually did well in the sub continent ? No.

Erm, I countered your statement. No need to go hyper.



Bradman never played and thus didn't do well in the subcontinent. Going by your logic, maybe he is not great too.

Missing the point completely. 99.94 is so ridiculously ahead of the rest that it merits no argument. Besides, we're not comparing players cross-generational. We're comparing players with their peers. And I dare say Dravid and company would feel insulted if you came out and claimed a batsman with no credentials outside the subcontinent to be as good as them as you have done.

 

[Pratters]

At the level of the others who actually did well in the sub continent ? No.

Based on 3 tests. Helps you evaluate a player so well.

 

[silentstriker]

If a bowler averages 30 and does well in the subcontinent vs. a bowler averages 20 and does badly, its not a contest.

This is about comparing bowlers with similar stats who played in a similar period.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[silentstriker]

Based on 3 tests. Helps you evaluate a player so well.

Garner also played 3. Do I wish he had played more? Yea, but he didn't and it sucks for him.

Or maybe its great for him because if he got demolished in the subcontinent more, he wouldn't be held in as high regard.

 

[aussie tragic]

And I dare say Dravid and company would feel insulted if you came out and claimed a batsman with no credentials outside the subcontinent to be as good as them as you have done.

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)