Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[Jono]

Yeah that definitely playes a part.

But that doesn't necesarily denigrate the view of those who rate Imran ahead of Lillee, or Marshall ahead of Lillee, Mcgrath ahead of Lillee (which I do). I respect Prince's view (just as an example, only because it was an early post in this thread) that he believes Imran was the better bowler than Lillee even if he never saw Lillee (or perhaps never saw both).

I think not seeing a certain player is definitely a "hole" in one's argument, but it doesn't take away your right to argue that someone was better (so long as the points you use to argue aren't ****). If you've done your research, both statistically and taking into account views from respected journalists, peers etc. and come out thinking Imran was better than Lillee, so be it.

My main point to Ikki was there is no reason to be "sensitive" about Lillee's record because it is very rarely attacked. Maybe on CW his name comes up a bit, but even then he has more supporters than detractors. Far far more.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah that definitely playes a part.

But that doesn't necesarily denigrate the view of those who rate Imran ahead of Lillee, or Marshall ahead of Lillee, Mcgrath ahead of Lillee (which I do). I respect Prince's view (just as an example, only because it was an early post in this thread) that he believes Imran was the better bowler than Lillee even if he never saw Lillee (or perhaps never saw both).

I think not seeing a certain player is definitely a "hole" in one's argument, but it doesn't take away your right to argue that someone was better (so long as the points you use to argue aren't ****). If you've done your research, both statistically and taking into account views from respected journalists, peers etc. and come out thinking Imran was better than Lillee, so be it.

My main point to Ikki was there is no reason to be "sensitive" about Lillee's record because it is very rarely attacked. Maybe on CW his name comes up a bit, but even then he has more supporters than detractors. Far far more.

Yeah I agree with that.

Still think you're a **** though.

 

[kyear2]

There are very few people who say this though. The great majority, without ever seeing him bowl much or seeing his stats, will just believe (rightly) that Lillee is one of the best fast bowlers of all time because he gets SO much press, compliments etc. Cricketweb is definitely not the majority view on Lillee.

I'd say Lillee gets far far more attention and praise than Marshall.

To you rightly so?

 

[Furball]

I realise Marshall is of a slightly different era, but I thought the cricketing consensus was that Marshall was the greatest by a pretty distinct margain?

 

[ankitj]

I realise Marshall is of a slightly different era, but I thought the cricketing consensus was that Marshall was the greatest by a pretty distinct margain?

Marshall didn't make Bradman's and Benaud's all time XI but Lillee did. Lillee also was ahead of Marshall in ESPN legends of cricket and in the voting for Wisden 5 cricketers of the century. So I think consensus seems to be that Lillee is the greatest fast bowler.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

I'd say Lillee gets far far more attention and praise than Marshall.

Not in my experience. There's a huge fanbase that does not rate Lillee because of those three tests in Pakistan.

The average CWer is much more knowledgeable about the game's history than your average cricket fan from outside. Hence, I feel that most quality players are rated appropriately here.

 

[Jono]

I realise Marshall is of a slightly different era, but I thought the cricketing consensus was that Marshall was the greatest by a pretty distinct margain?

Definitely not the case. Common cricketing opinion has Lillee ahead. He is almost always in a an XI ahead of him or mentioned by peers as the best ahead of Marshall.

I'd have Marshall ahead but I would never scoff at someone who said Lillee was better because so many respected cricketing personalities and journalists say that.

 

[Jono]

To you rightly so?

What? I am not really putting forth an opinion on Imran vs Lillee. Just saying Lillee is barely called overrated by cricketing fans. Maybe some fans on CW but that's a minority.

 

[benchmark00]

Everyone knows Jono is the measure of what public opinion is, on every topic in the world.

 

[Jono]

Do you reckon there are a lot of people who think Lillee is overrated?

 

[kyear2]

Marshall didn't make Bradman's and Benaud's all time XI but Lillee did. Lillee also was ahead of Marshall in ESPN legends of cricket and in the voting for Wisden 5 cricketers of the century. So I think consensus seems to be that Lillee is the greatest fast bowler.

Both Bradman and Benaud have one thing in common and that is shared with about half the voters for The Wisden selectors, and that is that they are both Australians.
But lets start with Bradman's XI, which has 7 Australians, including Don Tallon, Arthur Morris and Ray Lindwall, who though great, is no Marshall. And speaking of fast bowlers on the team, Alec Bedser also made it before MM. Note that Morris and Barry Richards (he of the 4 test matches) made the team before Hobbs and Hutton. The only modern player he selected was Sachin, and that was because he reminded the Don of himself. The team selected had the two spinners that the Don played with and only five batsmen with Tallon at 6.
Hardly an impartial or credible selection.

 

[GotSpin]

Bradman's XI was posted after his death. I don't always consider it entirely reliable

 

[Sanz]

Both Bradman and Benaud have one thing in common and that is shared with about half the voters for The Wisden selectors, and that is that they are both Australians.
But lets start with Bradman's XI, which has 7 Australians, including Don Tallon, Arthur Morris and Ray Lindwall, who though great, is no Marshall. And speaking of fast bowlers on the team, Alec Bedser also made it before MM. Note that Morris and Barry Richards (he of the 4 test matches) made the team before Hobbs and Hutton. The only modern player he selected was Sachin, and that was because he reminded the Don of himself. The team selected had the two spinners that the Don played with and only five batsmen with Tallon at 6.
Hardly an impartial or credible selection.

No XI can be 100% impartial but I am not sure why would anyone doubt the credibility of his selection.

 

[Top_Cat]

Because they weren't backed up with statistics. Rumour is Bradman never even once used Statsguru.

*shock*

 

[kyear2]

As far as Benaud's team was concerned, this team was a lot more balanced and credible and more representative of different era's, but from his short lists, he named a total of nine fast bolwers (3 from the all rounder list) and none were named Marshall, while all six fast bowlers named to his short list 3 were Australian and 3 were English. I wonder how many other people would name their top 9 fast bowlers of all time and not have Marshall included. Deduce what you may.

The closest to an inpartial all time xi is the one selected here and the one by Cricinfo (though still dont know how Akram made that one). All of the others are just favourite lists or opportunities to grind an axe.

 

[Sanz]

I don't think you get it, Benaud wasn't set out to elect the most impartial XI (as if it is possible to make one), he picked an XI that he preferred and I am not sure how can one say that his choices were wrong.

In the 80s I don't think I ever thought or that there was a clear cut winner among the great bowlers of that era (70s-80s) that included Holding, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Marshall, Garner, Roberts. Infact I have a feeling that If I were to pick an XI in the 80s, I would have excluded Marshall myself because I certainly then thought Imran, Hadlee, Lillee and Garner were better or atleast a combination that I preferred and thought gave me a better chance of winning.

 

[Sanz]

The closest to an inpartial all time xi is the one selected here and the one by Cricinfo (though still dont know how Akram made that one). All of the others are just favourite lists or opportunities to grind an axe.

'A complete pace attack' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio at ESPN Cricinfo

Why Akram makes it.

Oh and if you watch the clip, you will notice that Ian Chappell rates Lindwall and Lillee both better than Mcgrath.

 

[smash84]

As far as Benaud's team was concerned, this team was a lot more balanced and credible and more representative of different era's, but from his short lists, he named a total of nine fast bolwers (3 from the all rounder list) and none were named Marshall, while all six fast bowlers named to his short list 3 were Australian and 3 were English. I wonder how many other people would name their top 9 fast bowlers of all time and not have Marshall included. Deduce what you may.

The closest to an inpartial all time xi is the one selected here and the one by Cricinfo (though still dont know how Akram made that one). All of the others are just favourite lists or opportunities to grind an axe.

But Richie's XI (as Sanz mentioned) was his favorite XI and not exactly an impartial XI. Secondly agree with Sanz there that Malcolm Marshall had lots of competition (even in his own team) and while Marshall may be called the best by some there was a very small by which he was better than the others. So even if Marshall was included in Richie's XI I don't think it would have made a huge difference to the effectiveness of the side

 

[Burgey]

I don't think you get it, Benaud wasn't set out to elect the most impartial XI (as if it is possible to make one), he picked an XI that he preferred and I am not sure how can one say that his choices were wrong.

In the 80s I don't think I ever thought or that there was a clear cut winner among the great bowlers of that era (70s-80s) that included Holding, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Marshall, Garner, Roberts. Infact I have a feeling that If I were to pick an XI in the 80s, I would have excluded Marshall myself because I certainly then thought Imran, Hadlee, Lillee and Garner were better or atleast a combination that I preferred and thought gave me a better chance of winning.

Man, Garner gets comparatively overlooked so often it's incredible. What a bowler he was.

 

[ankitj]

Garner got shortchanged in the ESPN's WI all time XI for Holding. Do guys who have seen them both reckon that it was a fair choice?