Why is Lillee rated above Imran?

[smash84]

He was playing tests only because of the WC? Either ways that's no excuse.

I didn't mean he completely declined around 86-87, I meant that's when his decline actually started around then and got worse from then on.

Yes he was basically playing so that he could be there till the WC and bring in funding for his cancer hospital.

But that is what I am saying that his decline did not start in 86. He was bowling very well in 86. In fact according to Imran he bowled at one of his finest in the 1988 series against the WI and that he had worked really hard for it as well.

 

[bagapath]

He was playing tests only because of the WC? Either ways that's no excuse.

I didn't mean he completely declined around 86-87, I meant that's when his decline actually started around then and got worse from then on.

no metal quality. imran was playing cricket only for the sake of leading his team in the 92 WC. so his bowling in tests was not considered important by himself. it is not an excuse. it is a fact that he retired after the 87 WC and was brought back to lead his team a year later to make sure they had a real leader at the helm.

also, on 02 jan 1989, after 73 tests, imran averaged 21.91 for 334 wickets. it is so phenomenal a record that there is no question that he is one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time, if not the best ever. his last 15 tests, when he wasnt a leading bowler anymore, was when his average sightly went up. still he averaged one run less than lillee overall.

 

[ankitj]

But one thing I would say that differentiates Lillee and Akram is the value of wickets game.

Agree with that part fully

 

[social]

As an Australian, I love Lillee but there is little doubt in my mind that he is overrated and that has something to do with media focus at the time (e.g. how many western media outlets recognised India as being one of, if not the best, teams in the world in the early 70s)

On the other hand, Imran was underrated for much of his career despite being an absolute genius who was the first bowler to combine express pace with swing in both directions by both conventional and reverse means.

Personally, I'd pick him before Lillee every day of the week and that is without taking into account his batting and captaincy skills

 

[smash84]

As an Australian, I love Lillee but there is little doubt in my mind that he is overrated and that has something to do with media focus at the time (e.g. how many western media outlets recognised India as being one of, if not the best, teams in the world in the early 70s)

On the other hand, Imran was underrated for much of his career despite being an absolute genius who was the first bowler to combine express pace with swing in both directions by both conventional and reverse means.

Personally, I'd pick him before Lillee every day of the week and that is without taking into account his batting and captaincy skills

wow.....that is a big call to make Social

 

[hang on]

As an Australian, I love Lillee but there is little doubt in my mind that he is overrated and that has something to do with media focus at the time (e.g. how many western media outlets recognised India as being one of, if not the best, teams in the world in the early 70s)

On the other hand, Imran was underrated for much of his career despite being an absolute genius who was the first bowler to combine express pace with swing in both directions by both conventional and reverse means.

Personally, I'd pick him before Lillee every day of the week and that is without taking into account his batting and captaincy skills

big call there. where would paddles fit into this, out of curiosity? to make it even more interesting, what would your dream fast bowling lineup be?

 

[kyear2]

not really. Imran was arguably the finest bowler in the world from 1980-88. If you call that a peak then I am fine with it but he was very good for a long period of time (unlike Waqar Younis)

IIRC both Marshall and Hadlee were both more highly regarded and statistically better (especially home and away and especially Marshall in all conditions) than Imran during that period.

 

[smash84]

IIRC both Marshall and Hadlee were both more highly regarded and statistically better (especially home and away and especially Marshall in all conditions) than Imran during that period.

As usual, you don't . I couldn't find the period uptil 80-1988 but I found it up till the end of 1989 and still Imran has a better avg than both and a better SR than Hadlee. Ikki posted the other list which was till 80-88 (I am not sure if it was him or somebody else).

Cricket Records | Records | 1980s | Test matches | Best strike rates | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[subshakerz]

Imran vs. Lillee, very close but I give Imran a slight edge. The typical stuff that people give in favor of Lillee (he came back well after injury, he bowled superbly in the WSC) all apply to Imran as well. But Imran has a few advantages:

- Imran simply has a more well-rounded record, its undeniable. Imran experienced success in the subcontinent and in the WI, along with England and Australia, while Lillee only played 5 matches outside of England, Australia and NZ and did nothing of note in any of them. How on earth can anyone say that this is not a point in favor of Imran, or claim that Lillee has a more complete record? Would it be wrong to say that Lara has an advantage over Tendulkar if Tendulkar had only played 5 matches outside of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka?

- While Imran had a natural inswinger and Lillee a natural outswinger, Lillee's own keeper and captain point out that Lillee didnt have a good yorker and had trouble getting rid of tailenders. Can you say Imran suffered from the same weakness? No.

- Against the best batting lineup they both faced, the WI, Imran has a much better record, and that too having faced them both home and away.

- I would argue that at Imran's peak, when he combined mastery over swing, including reverse swing, and pace, he was more lethal and productive. In fact, he achieved a higher rating than any other post-war bowler. Reverse swing adds a new dimension to Imran's bowling as well, and all other factors being equal, should give more weight to his side.

 

[abmk]

Imran vs. Lillee, very close but I give Imran a slight edge. The typical stuff that people give in favor of Lillee (he came back well after injury, he bowled superbly in the WSC) all apply to Imran as well.

Not quite .. One factor is Lillee was banned for quite some time due to the WSC, Imran was not .

I- Against the best batting lineup they both faced, the WI, Imran has a much better record, and that too having faced them both home and away.

That had more to do with the pitches IMO. Pak-WI matches tended to be more on the bowler friendly side those days and contests b/w those 2 were low-scoring more often than not .....

Lillee also did well vs WI XI in the WSC .....

 

[subshakerz]

That had more to do with the pitches IMO. Pak-WI matches tended to be more on the bowler friendly side those days and contests b/w those 2 were low-scoring more often than not .....

Lillee also did well vs WI XI in the WSC .....

Really? Imran did better so its must be the pitches then. As if the pitches in Pakistan in the 80s were both bowling-friendly than what Lillee bowled on at home in Australia.

 

[abmk]

Really? Imran did better so its must be the pitches then. As if the pitches in Pakistan in the 80s were both bowling-friendly than what Lillee bowled on at home in Australia.

I'm only stating what I did based on the reports of those matches, the scorecards and stats

Pak - WI matches in which Imran played, batting average = 26.3 in 18 matches

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Aus - WI matches in which Lillee played, batting average = 33.75 in 12 matches

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In Pak , the WI - Pak contests involving Imran , the batting averages are actually worse, 21.61 in 10 matches

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...e=1383;team=4;template=results;type=aggregate

 

[smash84]

That had more to do with the pitches IMO. Pak-WI matches tended to be more on the bowler friendly side those days and contests b/w those 2 were low-scoring more often than not .....

Lillee also did well vs WI XI in the WSC .....

 

[smash84]

I'm only stating what I did based on the reports of those matches, the scorecards and stats

Pak - WI matches in which Imran played, batting average = 26.3 in 18 matches

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Aus - WI matches in which Lillee played, batting average = 33.75 in 12 matches

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In Pak , the WI - Pak contests involving Imran , the batting averages are actually worse, 21.61 in 10 matches
Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

And this is directly the result of pitches being good or the bowlers making an impact???

 

[abmk]

And this is directly the result of pitches being good or the bowlers making an impact???

I'd say both ..... Just have a look at the scorecards in those matches. Just had a brief glance again , 2/3 scores of 300+ , don't think there was a even a score of 400+ !

 

[Prince EWS]

It's a really faulty way of looking at things though. It makes it impossible to actually bowl really well on a pitch considered flat because the moment you actually do so and dismiss a team for under 300, the pitch isn't considered flat anymore.

 

[subshakerz]

In Pak , the WI - Pak contests involving Imran , the batting averages are actually worse, 21.61 in 10 matches

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

You can look at that in two ways. Either somehow bowling in Pakistan in the 70/80s was easier for pacemen than in Australia, which you can believe if you like, or maybe the better standard of bowlers on both sides has a lot to do with it. Those matches had Imran, Wasim, and Waqar along with Qadir on one side and Marshall, Garner, Croft, Walsh, Bishop and Ambrose on the other.

 

[abmk]

You can look at that in two ways. Either somehow bowling in Pakistan in the 70/80s was easier for pacemen than in Australia, which you can believe if you like, or maybe the better standard of bowlers on both sides has a lot to do with it. Those matches had Imran, Wasim, and Waqar along with Qadir on one side and Marshall, Garner, Croft, Walsh, Bishop and Ambrose on the other.

@ bold part : there in lies the flaw in your argument .... I'm referring to the pitches in those Pak-WI encounters only ......not overall .....

Strong bowling line ups of course were a part of it, but so were the pitches in those matches. Why does it have to be either ???? Seriously ??

This is the performances of the batting sides vs the WI in that period:

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Pak averaged the least vs WI , 23.53

This is the overall performance of the sides in that period:

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Pak are the second highest with an average 34.71

Why did WI bowlers have their best performance ( statistically ) vs the the 2nd best batting side ( statistically ) in that time-period ?

 

[abmk]

It's a really faulty way of looking at things though. It makes it impossible to actually bowl really well on a pitch considered flat because the moment you actually do so and dismiss a team for under 300, the pitch isn't considered flat anymore.

Well not quite .... atleast not by keen observers of the game .

Again, like I said, what I said is not just based on the scorecards but also the reports of those matches ....

 

[smash84]

It's a really faulty way of looking at things though. It makes it impossible to actually bowl really well on a pitch considered flat because the moment you actually do so and dismiss a team for under 300, the pitch isn't considered flat anymore.

haha.....This