the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

[C_C]

Bradman never played Test cricket outside of Aust and England? No one questions his right to be considered a great batsman?

Why do you bring up bradman to back up Lillee ?
Did Lillee have bradmansque figures that would nullify such differentiation ? does he have something like 400 wickets from 50 matches @ 7.50 runs per wicket ?

 

[C_C]

Something no other bowler has ever done, other than freak one-offs like Gillespie-McCullum.

Well no bowler broke half a dozen stumps during their careers either....doesnt mean he was the fastest....

 

[Richard]

No, it doesn't, but it clearly does mean that he did something no-one else has ever done.
Either that or he just happened to bowl at a lot of terribly crafted stumps.
Speed isn't what would have broken those stumps - it'd have to be something else. Possibly, as I say, that they were poorly made.

 

[Goughy]

He didn't have some Jedi-like skill of knowing where the ball would pitch. You bowl one that pitched leg and hit off, it'd get him out as easily as anyone else.

This is not quite accurate, As I mentioned in a previous thead and batsmans advantage is in their anticipation. Bradman could pick the length quicker than any other and get into position very early. This allowed great shot selection.

He did know where the ball would pitch earlier than others (whether this is Jedi-like I do not know)

 

[archie mac]

2 reasons:
1, his team never played outside
2, conditions in Australia and England varied far, far more in his day than conditions around The World do, even now, in 2001-2006.

Aust. toured SA in 1935/36 but Bradman did not tour

 

[archie mac]

Why do you bring up bradman to back up Lillee ?
Did Lillee have bradmansque figures that would nullify such differentiation ? does he have something like 400 wickets from 50 matches @ 7.50 runs per wicket ?

Simply to demonstrate that players do not have to perform in every Test nation to be considered a great player.

Lillee only played 4 Tests in the SubCon. one when he was past his best. The other three on flat tracks that Imran did not perform on either. In fact in one of the matches Imran told Lillee that he was not going to play in the match because the pitch was a nightmare for fast bowlers.

Your whole argument seems to be that Lillee never performed outside of Aust, Eng, NZ, well a few games would help.

 

[C_C]

Simply to demonstrate that players do not have to perform in every Test nation to be considered a great player.

You dont have to. I agree.
But unless you got figures like Bradman's, foregoing the subcontinent alltogether or playing only in the subcontinent, never playing in the backyard of the best team of yer time, etc. puts a huge dent in yer resume- especially when there are others who've accomplished all that with distinction and your figures are actually inferior than their's and as such, its hype to regard someone like that as 'the best' or 'cream of the crop'. I rate Lillee somewhere in the top 20 pacers ever. But he's outside my top 10.

 

[C_C]

No, it doesn't, but it clearly does mean that he did something no-one else has ever done.
Either that or he just happened to bowl at a lot of terribly crafted stumps.
Speed isn't what would have broken those stumps - it'd have to be something else. Possibly, as I say, that they were poorly made.

Perhaps the pads were also very poorly made ?

 

[Jono]

Simply to demonstrate that players do not have to perform in every Test nation to be considered a great player.

No one's denying Lillee wasn't a great.

But its hard to look past someone with an outstanding record in the sub-continent which Lillee didn't have, plus did everything Lillee did outside the sub-continent too when deciding between two greats.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No one's denying Lillee wasn't a great.

But its hard to look past someone with an outstanding record in the sub-continent which Lillee didn't have, plus did everything Lillee did outside the sub-continent too when deciding between two greats.

The fact is, he didn't play in the subcontinent. Attempting to use that fact to somehow prove that he's massively overrated is just a shoddy attempt to lance a great player, entirely equivalent to me arguing that Murali is crap because he averages 120 or something in Australia in tests. If he had played extensively in the subcontinent and done poorly, then it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that it was a concern when pitting him against Marshall and company. He didn't, though.

The fact is, if Lillee had played in India, he undoubtedly would have been successful. His record on flat pitches is exemplary, the accolades he recieves from his contemporaries are second to none, and his record against Indian batsmen is nothing short of incredible, averaging 20 in tests against them (not to mention having the wood entirely over Gavaskar) and something like 14 in ODIs. Just as certain is the fact that if Murali had played a dozen tests in Australia his average wouldn't be anything higher than 30 odd here. Anyone who argues that Murali has some sort of massive hole in his record that prevents him from being among the best spinners of all time because he has a shocking average in Australia is being ridiculous, and the same is true of Lillee and the subcontinent.

 

[C_C]

Attempting to use that fact to somehow prove that he's massively overrated is just a shoddy attempt to lance a great player, entirely equivalent to me arguing that Murali is crap because he averages 120 or something in Australia in tests

Except that it isnt the same - Not playing in the subcontinent is equivalent to not playing in OZ, ENG, RSA and NZ.

The fact is, if Lillee had played in India, he undoubtedly would have been successful

I find it highly unlikely that he would've succeeded. Lillee specialised in bowling short and short-off-a-good-length outswingers. That length will get you pillored in IND. I see no evidence to suggest that Lillee is anything apart from the Anil Kumble of pacers - demon in situations that suit him, rabbit/unproven in alien conditions.

Anyone who argues that Murali has some sort of massive hole in his record that prevents him from being among the best spinners of all time because he has a shocking average in Australia is being ridiculous, and the same is true of Lillee and the subcontinent.

That isnt the ONLY criterion and equating subcontinental conditions with Australia is massively narrow opinion. The subcontinent has all the climatic zones barring the arctic. It has a few dozen grounds today and even in the days of Lillee there ere over a dozen and half destinations for playing cricket.
Skipping the subcontinent is equivalent to skipping ENG-AUS-NZ-RSA completely.
Plus he didnt go to the backyard of the WI-the best batting lineup of his time..played one match there and that was an utter flop.

In today's terms, it would mean Murali getting all but a couple of wickets (literally) outside of SL/IND/PAK, playing one soliary test in AUS and not visiting any non-subcontinental nations for cricket.
And if Murali's record looked like that, it no doubt would take away from his 'greatness'.
People moan about Murali's so-called home pitch advantage. Well he has stellar record in ALL nations barring IND and OZ. Lillee only has a good record in pace-friendly conditions ala ENG/AUS and NZ. ( not stellar- while Murali's record as a spinner can only be matched by Warne-and that too-being very very generous to Warney, Lillee's record is eclipsed by many)

If Kumble played his entire career in IND and found one reason after another not to tour, he too would have a much much better average and be considered 'the greatest' by some.....

 

[Sanz]

If Kumble played his entire career in IND and found one reason after another not to tour, he too would have a much much better average and be considered 'the greatest' by some.....

But if there are only two kind of pitches Subcontinet and non-subcontinet, why is Kumble's Average so good in Sri Lanka and Pakistan ?

Apparently Kumble has a better average in Australia, SA, WI, NZ than than he has in SL & PAK. So shall we assume that the pitches in SIM, BD, IND, AUS, SA, WI are same and pitches in NZ, SL, PAK and England are of one kind ? At least that's what you will conclude when you make your decision by looking @ a bowler's average.

 

[C_C]

But if there are only two kind of pitches Subcontinet and non-subcontinet, why is Kumble's Average so good in Sri Lanka and Pakistan ?

Apparently Kumble has a better average in Australia, SA, WI, NZ than than he has in SL & PAK. So shall we assume that the pitches in SIM, BD, IND, AUS, SA, WI are same and pitches in NZ, SL, PAK and England are of one kind ? At least that's what you will conclude when you make your decision by looking @ a bowler's average

Performance of one solitary bowler does not reflect the general trend of the pitches over the years. It reflects on Kumble.

 

[Sanz]

Performance of one solitary bowler does not reflect the general trend of the pitches over the years. It reflects on Kumble.

Add Bedi to the List - His Avg. in Ind, Aus, NZ, ENG, WI is less than half of his avg. in Pak

Add Bhajji to the list, He doesn't have an avg. in Pak, went wicket less

Add to lis Chandra, Prasanna, Qadir, Mushtaq and probably most of the spinners ever to play the game and I guarantee you that you wont be able draw a conclusion that India,Pak, SL pitches are of one kind.

And the fact is that they aren't.

 

[Sanz]

Kapildev averages 26.49 in India, 24.58 in Australia, 23.11 in WI According to your logic the pitches must be similar in these 3 countries. (According to you that's pitch type 1)

And Hold yourself up - Kapil avgs 40 in Pak, 42 in NZ, 39 in Eng, 37 in SA, 33 in SL (According to your logic - That's pitch type 2)

According to me - that logic is ********.

 

[archie mac]

Kapildev averages 26.49 in India, 24.58 in Australia, 23.11 in WI According to your logic the pitches must be similar in these 3 countries. (According to you that's pitch type 1)

And Hold yourself up - Kapil avgs 40 in Pak, 42 in NZ, 39 in Eng, 37 in SA, 33 in SL (According to your logic - That's pitch type 2)

According to me - that logic is ********.

I have given up the debate it has become to silly. I watched them both bowl and they were both great bowlers, I just think Lillee a little better and only a little.

I just find it hard to understand that even though every batsman of the period and every bowler of the period and every respected judge of the period rate Lillee the best, that he some how can not be considered because he did not play enough in India?

 

[C_C]

Add Bedi to the List - His Avg. in Ind, Aus, NZ, ENG, WI is less than half of his avg. in Pak

Add Bhajji to the list, He doesn't have an avg. in Pak, went wicket less

Add to lis Chandra, Prasanna, Qadir, Mushtaq and probably most of the spinners ever to play the game and I guarantee you that you wont be able draw a conclusion that India,Pak, SL pitches are of one kind.

And the fact is that they aren't.

Umm... WTF ? Qadir's record in Pakistan is far better than in IND..and if you think IND-PAK pitches are polar opposites or there is any bigger difference than in ENG-OZ pitches, sorry to say, you know very little about pitches then.

 

[C_C]

I have given up the debate it has become to silly. I watched them both bowl and they were both great bowlers, I just think Lillee a little better and only a little.

I just find it hard to understand that even though every batsman of the period and every bowler of the period and every respected judge of the period rate Lillee the best, that he some how can not be considered because he did not play enough in India?

He did not play enough ( and what little he did, he sucked) in the entire subcontinent
He did not play enough ( and what little he did, he sucked) in the Caribbean
His record against the WI ( best batting team of the 70s-late 80s) is poorer than some of his contemporaries like Imran, Hadlee, etc.
His record against Pakistan,West Indies and SL are rather ordinary, with over 50% wickets comming against the hapless English.
ZERO performance outside pacer's paradise ( England,Aus, NZ).

Does not compare with the kinda established record Hadlee, Marshall, Imran, Ambrose, McGrath,Wasim,Donald, etc. have.
Great bowler nonetheless...just not 'cream of the crop' for me.
Reputations and impressions be damned.
I am sure i can find someone alive today who would swear by Spofforth.

 

[archie mac]

He did not play enough ( and what little he did, he sucked) in the entire subcontinent
He did not play enough ( and what little he did, he sucked) in the Caribbean
His record against the WI ( best batting team of the 70s-late 80s) is poorer than some of his contemporaries like Imran, Hadlee, etc.
His record against Pakistan,West Indies and SL are rather ordinary, with over 50% wickets comming against the hapless English.
ZERO performance outside pacer's paradise ( England,Aus, NZ).

Does not compare with the kinda established record Hadlee, Marshall, Imran, Ambrose, McGrath,Wasim,Donald, etc. have.
Great bowler nonetheless...just not 'cream of the crop' for me.
Reputations and impressions be damned.
I am sure i can find someone alive today who would swear by Spofforth.

He broke down in the WI with stress fractures of the back, give the man a break. He bowled well against the Windies in WSC against the best team in the world.

Again one series in Pakistan on flat tracks where Imran did nothing of note.

The England sides he played against were quite strong, they were the best Test side in the World in the early 70s. And defeated the Aussies in 1977, 1981.
Impressions from the players who played against him I will take every day of the week over some Stats.

And to be honest Donald and Wasim did not face the Windies at their peak for their whole careers.

And Spofforth was a great bowler, and I would agree with anyone who thought him one of the greatest bowlers ever.

 

[C_C]

Impressions from the players who played against him I will take every day of the week over some Stats.

I wont, simply because impressions against Lillee is absolutely irrelvant to impressions against McGrath and not comparable.
Lot of bowlers came to age at different times. Whether the person missed due to injury (and he missed ALL the tours of WI due to injury ? so he gets injured for the subcontinent and he gets injured all the time when they gotto go to the WI....bloody convininent i would say!)
or financial greed, the bottomline is, he didnt achieve it.
You get ranked through your achievements. Not your potential.
You fail to write the exam, you get a zero. Period.

PS: The English batting was no great shakes for much beyond the first few years in the 70s.
PPS: Wasim and Donald faced OZ batting at their best. When you compare bowlers across the eras, you have to compare by the same criterion carefully : not record against a particular team but record against the 'best team' of that time.