Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[kyear2]

Lillee played majority of his tests in England, Australia and NZ. He was more effective than Mcgrath in these countries. Rest unknown.

Akram played 18 years, Mcgrath 15
If you compare first 15 years of their career, not much difference there.. From what i remember Akram's ER was better and had more 5 wickets / Match and 10 wickets / match. Also McGrath played more pace friendly conditions, had massive support from better and consistent batsmen, fielders and WK. Actually Pak fielders costed Akram more runs per match than the diffrence in the averages. ( and there were dropped catches too)
Catches contributed more than 2/3 of McGrath's Wicket tally.. Akram took majority of his wickets by clean bowled or LBW.

When talking about Mark Waugh or Ponting, people always blah blah about their fielding and explains how that helped the team immensely.. But the same people wont factor this when comparing with other team bowlers. I dont understand this.
Either Mark Waugh did nothing special in the field or He helped the bowlers to achieve better numbers.He was not Schrödinger's fielder to be both useless and useful at a time.

In a recent thread, I offered that Akram was the most difficult bowler for me personally to rate.

The two above arguments do wear on me.

He played longer than most other bowlers, should be focus on his elongated prime or rate him over his career? If we do the former the wpm goes up and the average comes down.
Ponting is similarly punished for going a bit beyond his peak, while Viv (CW apart) less harshly so. I don't agree with taking from the beginning because that all contributed to his growth, and guys like Sobers also had a way too young start and even stated in a different disciple. But where do we cut off, and do we also do the same for Ponting and other guys? It opens Pandora's box to a certain degree.

Then there's the fielding conundrum. The crazy part is that it's brought up by people who then say slip fielding doesn't matter, but I'll ignore that for now.

Lillee had the Chappell brothers; McGrath had Warne, Waugh and Ponting; Ambrose has Lara and Hooper; Marshall had Lloyd, Richards and Richardson; Steyn had Smith, Kallis and deVilliers. There's no way that didn't make a difference for them, Hadlee too had his guys, even Murali had Jayawardene. Yes it mattered, how much, I honestly don't know and can't quantify.

I don't think he's the GOAT, but think he's in the top 10 and definitely in my second tier of pacers along with Lillee, Donald, Garner, Lindwall, Holding.

 

[Fanboy375]

Dennis Lillee easily for me.

• Lillee was a better matchwinner. He took 6 tenfors in 31 wins vs Wasim's 2 tenfors in 41 wins.
• Lillee more impactful. He took a lot more big hauls, including significantly more 10 fors and almost the same number of 5 fors in 34 less matches.
• Lillee took far more wickets per match - over 5 wpm vs under 4 wpm is a big difference over a long career. If Lillee had maintained his wickets per match over the same number of matches as Wasim, he would have ended up with well over 100 more wickets.
• Lillee took a far higher proportion of top order wickets. Wasim very rarely ran through a top order and his proportion of lower order wickets is among the highest of the great fast bowlers.
• Lillee led his attack for almost his whole career. Wasim had Waqar who was statistically a better bowler for the first half of their careers.

What about his underperformance in Asia?

 

[sayon basak]

But overall career wise its Lillee..

You still hold that opinion?

 

[subshakerz]

You still hold that opinion?

It's a tossup now.

 

[Migara]

Chappell said something about Lillee and why he prefers him to McGrath. Kind of makes sense given that Lillee has an insane number of WPM and rated as the greatest by his peers (although Wasim is also rated as the greatest by his peers).

"Lillee could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker"

That shows McGrath is better. Bowling 10 mph slower he can give that extra 10 overs per match which could decide it.

 

[bagapath]

That shows McGrath is better. Bowling 10 mph slower he can give that extra 10 overs per match which could decide it.

//Bowling 10 mph slower he can give that extra 10 overs per match//

But in reality that didn't happen though

Lillee averaged 43 overs per match; and McGrath 39.

Lillee bowled faster and more overs per match.
McGrath bowled tighter and struck quicker (marginally)
Lillee took more wickets per test (because he bowled more)
McGrath averaged less (with better ER and SR)

Lillee ran through more oppositions regularly. (more frequent five-firs)
McGrath tasted more even success across the globe.

It is just a matter personal preference. There is no way to choose one over the other universally.

 

[subshakerz]

There is no way to choose one over the other universally.

The recent breakdown showed McGrath is just about as highly rated a pacer by this recent gen of ex-cricketers than Lillee was in his time, which was a surprise.

But I think McGrath just was a more effective performer and in 50 years, his name will be more celebrated.

 

[Johan]

McGrath and Lillee are fundamentally different bowlers, it's silly to break it down to "10 mph quicker"

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath and Lillee are fundamentally different bowlers, it's silly to break it down to "10 mph quicker"

Yeah bad take by Ian Chappell.

 

[Prince EWS]

McGrath could do everything Lillee could do, at 9 standardised runs per wicket cheaper.

 

[Johan]

McGrath could do everything Lillee could do, at 9 standardised runs per wicket cheaper.

couldn't rock a moustache, was very much a long hair merchant

 

[Van_Sri]

Don’t know why Wasim Akram was mediocre in English Conditions

 

[Johan]

Don’t know why Wasim Akram was mediocre in English Conditions

too much movement, and Engish batters play bowlers like him very well

 

[subshakerz]

Don’t know why Wasim Akram was mediocre in English Conditions

He had an early series as a teen.

Then a great series in 92.

Then underwhelming series in 96 and 2001 (career end).

The real disappointment was 96 since he was in his peak, and he actually bowled well then in several spells, but for some reason he didn't end up with a large haul.

 

[subshakerz]

too much movement, and Engish batters play bowlers like him very well

He did well in Lancashire.

 

[Johan]

He did well in Lancashire.

think Stewart is one of the direct reasons for his average in England.

 

[subshakerz]

think Stewart is one of the direct reasons for his average in England.

Stewart such an underrated guy against pace.

 

[Johan]

Stewart such an underrated guy against pace.

Yeah, him and Robin Smith are very underrated against pace.

 

[Van_Sri]

 

[Qlder]

What about his underperformance in Asia?

I have to say, judging pace bowlers on where they didn't play, or didn't play enough is one of the strangest criteria I've ever seen (they could only bowl where they were selected to play).

Fun fact: Up until 1985 only 6 pace bowlers had held the prestigious world record for most wkts taken in a career. Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes, Bedser, Trueman and Lillee. Of these 6 world record holders, none of them had played a test in Asia before Lillee did in 1980.