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

[Pratters]

SS, three tests are too less to discount a great and give leeway to some one else in comparison with other players. If evaluation is the goal, a lot of factors have to be considered. If reaching a result quickly is the goal without objectivity, your method can decieve you to show x or y is better but it doesn't give the true answer.

 

[Fratboy]

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

As opposed to assuming he would have done well had he played more despite no indications to that effect ?

This is so simple, its ridiculous the discussion has gone so far.

Player A averages 20 outside the SC. Player B averages 20 outside the SC.
Player A averages 20 in the SC. Player B averages 60 in the SC.

And yet people would have us believe Player B > Player A.

Is it possible Lillee would have rectified his stats in the SC had he played more there ? Yes. Is it equally possible he would have continued with that tripe ? Of course, yes.

Hence you can only go on the proof provided to you. And based on that proof, Lillee cannot occupy the same space as those other bowlers. He will remain a notch below, all other things being equal. Does that make him a bad bowler ? Hell, no. He remains a great bowler, but just not as good as those others. But of course, one does not expect hero worship to be driven by sound reason, as long as one admits it as such.

 

[silentstriker]

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)

Zimbabwe doesn't count. South Africa is the same, Tendulkar slightly better, and Dravid is better in NZ clearly. Then again, Tendulkar has an average of 54 in Australia and 71 in England. Dravid averages more in both of those cases as well. The only thing that Tendulakr has is that he scores much faster and gets on top of bowling, which Dravid doesnt do. Look at the S/R. Also Tendulkar's prime was in a different era of bowlers.

But if you want to say Dravid is better, I won't argue with you because that case certainly can be made.

If you look at the bowling S/R of Lillee and others, you won't see that type of difference.

 

[Fratboy]

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)

A 40+ batting average does not compare to a bowling average of 60. Bowling attacks tin general in the 2000's have been inferior to those of the 90's, and pitches are flatter too. You're comparing a player who had his prime in the 90's with one who who blossomed in the 2000's.

 

[Fratboy]

But if you want to say Dravid is better, I won't argue with you because that case certainly can be made.

Agreed. There certainly is a case for Dravid being the better batsman overseas, even after accounting for the different playing conditions in the 90's and 2000's.

@Aussietragic, I know you're running this thing, but the results of the polls aren't iron clad axioms. Democracy has its flaws.

 

[aussie tragic]

A 40+ batting average does not compare to a bowling average of 60. Bowling attacks tin general in the 2000's have been inferior to those of the 90's, and pitches are flatter too. You're comparing a player who had his prime in the 90's with one who who blossomed in the 2000's.

Then how about Lara. He's only played 3 tests in India and he averages only 33.00. I guess we better discount him as his record is in the same category as Lillee.

Or more than likely, due to only a few tests being considered, these records are just a blip on otherwise outstanding careers

 

[silentstriker]

Then how about Lara. He's only played 3 tests in India and he averages only 33.00. I guess we better discount him as his record is in the same category as Lillee.

Or more than likely, due to only a few tests being considered, these records are just a blip on otherwise outstanding careers

Nope, subcontinent is a test for pace bowling, not necessarily for batting. For batting, India is just another country. If you are going to argue against my method, why not actually argue against what I'm actually saying instead of creating straw man arguments?

And he averages 51 in the subcontinent.

 

[Fratboy]

Then how about Lara. He's only played 3 tests in India and he averages only 33.00. I guess we better discount him as his record is in the same category as Lillee.

Or more than likely, due to only a few tests being considered, these records are just a blip on otherwise outstanding careers

You're clutching at straws here.

Lara has scored 1082 runs @ 51.52 in 11 tests in the Sub continent. Perhaps you forgot those two other subcontinental countries that qualify as test nations ? Or are you claiming Murali wasn't enough of a challenge ?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

As opposed to assuming he would have done well had he played more despite no indications to that effect ?

This is so simple, its ridiculous the discussion has gone so far.

Player A averages 20 outside the SC. Player B averages 20 outside the SC.
Player A averages 20 in the SC. Player B averages 60 in the SC.

And yet people would have us believe Player B > Player A.

Is it possible Lillee would have rectified his stats in the SC had he played more there ? Yes. Is it equally possible he would have continued with that tripe ? Of course, yes.

Hence you can only go on the proof provided to you. And based on that proof, Lillee cannot occupy the same space as those other bowlers. He will remain a notch below, all other things being equal. Does that make him a bad bowler ? Hell, no. He remains a great bowler, but just not as good as those others. But of course, one does not expect hero worship to be driven by sound reason, as long as one admits it as such.

One series is too little to be judged on. Joel Garner had one series against India where he averaged 43 and was dropped for the fifth Test - ooh, he's awful!

Also, the pitches were rather different in the series Lillee and Garner played:

First Test: The Pakistanis had the sense to bowl their spinners, while Australia only went in with one + a bits-and-pieces all-rounder and had to use Lillee. (yes, it was a bad performance, but Garner had his fair share of too.)

Second Test: Average runs per wicket: 83.25 - on that kind of batting strip it's pretty much random who gets wickets

Third Test: Average runs per wicket: 50.75

By contrast, the average runs per wicket in the Pakistan Tests when Garner got his record of 10 @ 19.2? 22.8.

 

[aussie tragic]

Nope, subcontinent is a test for pace bowling, not necessarily for batting. For batting, India is just another country. If you are going to argue against my method, why not actually argue against what I'm actually saying instead of creating straw man arguments?

Actually SS, if you look closer you'll see that I was replying to Fratboys post, who did mention batting, which may explain why you think I didn't address your argument

 

[Fratboy]

One series is too little to be judged on. Joel Garner had one series against India where he averaged 43 and was dropped for the fifth Test - ooh, he's awful!

Also, the pitches were rather different in the series Lillee and Garner played:

First Test: The Pakistanis had the sense to bowl their spinners, while Australia only went in with one + a bits-and-pieces all-rounder and had to use Lillee. (yes, it was a bad performance, but Garner had his fair share of too.)

Second Test: Average runs per wicket: 83.25 - on that kind of batting strip it's pretty much random who gets wickets

Third Test: Average runs per wicket: 50.75

By contrast, the average runs per wicket in the Pakistan Tests when Garner got his record of 10 @ 19.2? 22.8.

You're missing the point here. All you have in favour of Lillee is potential. But cricket doesnt deal in that. The currency of cricket is performance. Unless one does perform to a decent level he cannot be elevated to the status of someone else who actually did perform. Maybe it's unfair, but its the truth.

 

[Fratboy]

Actually SS, if you look closer you'll see that I was replying to Fratboys post, who did mention batting, which may explain why you think I didn't address your argument

Well mate, my bringing in batting into the discussion was in the context of batting outside the SC being the subcontinental batsman's equivalent of a non-SC pacer being tested in the SC.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

You're missing the point here. All you have in favour of Lillee is potential. But cricket doesnt deal in that. The currency of cricket is performance. Unless one does perform to a decent level he cannot be elevated to the status of someone else who actually did perform. Maybe it's unfair, but its the truth.

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.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Who knows he wasn't just out of form when he played in Pakisan? Even the best have bad games, and series (except Bradman).

 

[silentstriker]

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.

Yes, because thats what I am doing. I am calling Lillee a rubbish bowler who couldn't take a wicket if his life depended on him. He was not even fit to represent India as a 5th bowler. If you read my posts and Fratboy's posts, that is clearly the only conclusion you can come to.

If you look back at this thread, you will clearly see that I have repeatedly said Lillee isn't fit enough to represent Bangladesh 4th XI. Thank you for finally understanding that.

 

[silentstriker]

I am done with this thread. If you want to disagree with me, thats fine. But someone needs to try disagreeing with what I am actually saying, instead of these annoying little posts that I have to constantly reply to saying the same thing over and over and over again.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Don't you think you're going a bit overboard SS?

 

[Slifer]

I think I get the point SS is trying to make. If you have bowlers with similar stats one must find a way of separating such bowlers. In this case, they are separated according to their performances in the subcontinent, which historically have been the tougest place for pace bowling. So in the case of a Hadlee vs a Lillee both of whom have similar stats (not really but for the sake of argument) the separation somes when one considers how they did in the toughest environment for pace bowlers(ASIA).I

I also think we should also consider how bowlers perform against the best batting line-up of their era both home and away.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yes, because thats what I am doing. I am calling Lillee a rubbish bowler who couldn't take a wicket if his life depended on him. He was not even fit to represent India as a 5th bowler. If you read my posts and Fratboy's posts, that is clearly the only conclusion you can come to.

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).

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I think I get the point SS is trying to make. If you have bowlers with similar stats one must find a way of separating such bowlers. In this case, they are separated according to their performances in the subcontinent, which historically have been the tougest place for pace bowling. So in the case of a Hadlee vs a Lillee both of whom have similar stats (not really but for the sake of argument) the separation somes when one considers how they did in the toughest environment for pace bowlers(ASIA).I
.

Yeah, but you can only do that if you've actually got a statistically significant sample size. Four Tests doesn't qualify as that.