View Full Version : Great fast bowlers of the bygone eras
I agree he is not as good as Akram now and probably won’t be that good in the end.
...I know I harp on it a bit but you should have seen those WI bowlers in the 80s. They had 3 who were all probably better than Akram and then another who was say Dizzy Gillespie standard. All in the same team.
They were an unbelievable, terrifying bowling attack.
I've heard much about the West Indian bowling attack. Here is my order:
1) Marshall
2) Ambrose (around McGrath's level, but he never went to India)
3) Garner (around the same level as Ambrose and McGrath)
4) Holding (around Lillee's skill level, but Lillee is a bit overrated)
5) Croft (retired at his peak - may've declined with age)
6) Walsh (behind Lillee and Holding, endurance was his forte)
7) Bishop (could've been an all-time great but for injury)
8) Roberts (ahead of Gillespie)
9) Patterson (the most overrated of the lot, about as good as Lee)
Plus there were blokes like Sylvester Clarke, who couldn't even get a game! Back in the 1980's, whereever the West Indies looked, they'd find a fast bowler.
As for Johnson, he's not nearly as good as Wasim Akram. He's a lot closer to Wasim than what he was, but he still can't move the ball nearly as consistently as Wasim could. Those balls to Robert Croft were nearly unplayable, BTW (as was one to Dravid back in the late 90's). Johnson is clearly a better batsman, though.
japaljarri
24 Mar 2009, 20:43
I've heard much about the West Indian bowling attack. Here is my order:
1) Marshall
2) Ambrose (around McGrath's level, but he never went to India)
3) Garner (around the same level as Ambrose and McGrath)
4) Holding (around Lillee's skill level, but Lillee is a bit overrated)
5) Croft (retired at his peak - may've declined with age)
6) Walsh (behind Lillee and Holding, endurance was his forte)
7) Bishop (could've been an all-time great but for injury)
8) Roberts (ahead of Gillespie)
9) Patterson (the most overrated of the lot, about as good as Lee)
.
Good post. l'd switch Holding and Garner, disagree over Lillee and switch Bishop and Roberts. Marshall the best bowler l have ever seen.
And Akram, like Lillee was around the 4-5 level here - lethal bowler. He'd get close in a World XI on the grounds of variety (probably just miss). Despite MJ being very good he has miles to go to reach Akram. Much better comparison and more interesting parallels with the great Alan Davidson as drawn by this blog
http://blogs.livemint.com/blogs/silly_point/archive/2009/03/24/australia-v-south-africa-mitchell-johnson-follows-in-the-footsteps-of-alan-davidson.aspx
I've heard much about the West Indian bowling attack. Here is my order:
1) Marshall
2) Ambrose (around McGrath's level, but he never went to India)
3) Garner (around the same level as Ambrose and McGrath)
4) Holding (around Lillee's skill level, but Lillee is a bit overrated)
5) Croft (retired at his peak - may've declined with age)
6) Walsh (behind Lillee and Holding, endurance was his forte)
7) Bishop (could've been an all-time great but for injury)
8) Roberts (ahead of Gillespie)
9) Patterson (the most overrated of the lot, about as good as Lee)
Plus there were blokes like Sylvester Clarke, who couldn't even get a game! Back in the 1980's, whereever the West Indies looked, they'd find a fast bowler.
As for Johnson, he's not nearly as good as Wasim Akram. He's a lot closer to Wasim than what he was, but he still can't move the ball nearly as consistently as Wasim could. Those balls to Robert Croft were nearly unplayable, BTW (as was one to Dravid back in the late 90's). Johnson is clearly a better batsman, though.
I couldn’t split Ambrose or Garner. At their peak they were both very scary mofos.
Holding was sensational too, he was so freaking fast. I don’t think I could rate McGrath above him.
As good as pigeon was, he just did not have the physical intimidation factor that those guys had
There was just nowhere to hide. You could survive a spell by one of the great bowlers of all time and they would bring on another one after him, and then another one after him. They were relentless.
Good post. l'd switch Holding and Garner, disagree over Lillee and switch Bishop and Roberts. Marshall the best bowler l have ever seen.
I know Holding could bowl some classic spells - like against England in 1976, but generally speaking, I fail to see how he was better than Garner (who was often saddled with an older ball and was as miserly as they came). I'm reluctant to switch Bishop and Roberts. I know Roberts took more wickets, concealed his emotions brilliantly on the pitch and bowled more professionally than anyone else during his time, but Bishop was more penetrative and had horrific luck with injury. Without injury, he probably would've been quite a bit better than what he was.
As for Dennis Lillee, I still think he's a bit overrated. He was world-class, sure, but not as brilliant as many say and inferior to McGrath, IMO. Then again, being only 19, I never had the pleasure of seeing him bowl.
And Akram, like Lillee was around the 4-5 level here - lethal bowler. He'd get close in a World XI on the grounds of variety (probably just miss). Despite MJ being very good he has miles to go to reach Akram. Much better comparison and more interesting parallels with the great Alan Davidson as drawn by this blog.
http://blogs.livemint.com/blogs/silly_point/archive/2009/03/24/australia-v-south-africa-mitchell-johnson-follows-in-the-footsteps-of-alan-davidson.aspx
Hmm - doesn't Davidson have a better record with the ball than Wasim (albeit in an era of uncovered pitches)? I'll read it, though. Thanks.
japaljarri
24 Mar 2009, 21:17
As for Dennis Lillee, I still think he's a bit overrated. He was world-class, sure, but not as brilliant as many say and inferior to McGrath, IMO. Then again, being only 19, I never had the pleasure of seeing him bowl.
Ah well, being pretty much twice your age l will pull rank then ;). Having seen them both l've just got Lillee edging McGrath in Aus terms but both all time greats. Then a big gap. Lillee, like Marshall, could do it all and his return after back injury showed just how brilliant a bowler he was. It's hard to explain how seeped into the national psyche Lillee was - As a kid l used to get the days of the year and Lillee's total wickets mixed up.
Bishop l agree could have been anything if not for injury but not worth counting coulds at this level.
Ah well, being pretty much twice your age l will pull rank then ;). Having seen them both l've just got Lillee edging McGrath in Aus terms but both all time greats. Then a big gap. Lillee, like Marshall, could do it all and his return after back injury showed just how brilliant a bowler he was. It's hard to explain how seeped into the national psyche Lillee was - As a kid l used to get the days of the year and Lillee's total wickets mixed up.
Agreed, DK superior to pigeon for me. He was virtually the fast bowling equivalent to SKW.
I couldn’t split Ambrose or Garner. At their peak they were both very scary mofos.
That would probably be due to the physical presence that both were endowed with. Big, black and angry. It would've been an ominous sight from the striker's end.
Holding was sensational too, he was so freaking fast. I don’t think I could rate McGrath above him.
Again, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to. As we both undoubtedly know, being 'freaking fast' is just one prerequisite to being a good quick (as the unfortunate case of Mohammad Sami shows).
As good as pigeon was, he just did not have the physical intimidation factor that those guys had
There was just nowhere to hide. You could survive a spell by one of the great bowlers of all time and they would bring on another one after him, and then another one after him. They were relentless.
No doubt. I have no idea whether having a ridiculous amount of backup would help or hinder your overall record. I guess that it'd depend on the bowler in question. Brett Lee, for instance, was aided greatly by McGrath and co.
Cooldude
24 Mar 2009, 21:33
I agree he is not as good as Akram now and probably won’t be that good in the end.
...I know I harp on it a bit but you should have seen those WI bowlers in the 80s. They had 3 who were all probably better than Akram and then another who was say Dizzy Gillespie standard. All in the same team.
They were an unbelievable, terrifying bowling attack.
I agree, there were better bowlers in the 80s, but I truly thought Wasim was the best quick I saw in the 90s with Ambrose not very far behind at all. He is absolutely wonderful on his day
Ah well, being pretty much twice your age l will pull rank then ;). Having seen them both l've just got Lillee edging McGrath in Aus terms but both all time greats. Then a big gap. Lillee, like Marshall, could do it all and his return after back injury showed just how brilliant a bowler he was. It's hard to explain how seeped into the national psyche Lillee was - As a kid l used to get the days of the year and Lillee's total wickets mixed up.
That's an interesting and revealing anecdote. I have heard vague stories about how Dennis Lillee could fire up a crowd (and a nation, at times), but some bowlers, for whatever reason, generate a lot of thunder, without quite having the record to justify it. Brett Lee, Mohammad Sami and even Shaun Tait are good examples. Lillee was world-class though, unlike those bowlers. He'd probably be in my Top 10 all-time paceman list (and maybe in the top 5 during the 70's and the 80's). I just find it a tad difficult to get around the concept that he's superior to McGrath.
Bishop l agree could have been anything if not for injury but not worth counting coulds at this level.
I guess not, but I would still question (aside from the 40 more wickets) why Roberts would be above him.
We should also remember to take into account pitch conditions, as well. Pitches tended to favour bowlers more in the 80's and 90's than in the 2000's, for many reasons.
Again, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to. As we both undoubtedly know, being 'freaking fast' is just one prerequisite to being a good quick (as the unfortunate case of Mohammad Sami shows).
Yeah but being the fastest bowler on earth was far from Holding’s only attribute. He was the complete package.
DoubleO7
24 Mar 2009, 22:23
Whispering Death! Even his nickname would scare the living bejeebers out of a bastmen.
Since when did this thread turn into glorifying fast bowlers of the bygone eras?
grizzlym
24 Mar 2009, 22:48
That rotating quartet of quality West Indian fast bowlers was both truly frightening and effective. They also hunted as a pack. And if you want the definition of fixturing stupidity, check out the first test at the WACA in 1984. Yep, for some reason some fool thought it would be a good idea to put a weak Australian side against a frightening bowling line up on a quick deck. It was carnage. Holding cut a swathe through us.
japaljarri
24 Mar 2009, 23:18
Damn straight about hunting in packs.
Bearing that in mind we need to throw Waqar into the mix as well
Harder to say on blokes pre 70s/80s whom l have never seen of course
DoubleO7
24 Mar 2009, 23:29
Damn straight about hunting in packs.
Bearing that in mind we need to throw Waqar into the mix as well
Possibly, but he struggled to keep the runs down. Superb strike rate though after 87 Test matches.
Yeah but being the fastest bowler on earth was far from Holding’s only attribute. He was the complete package.
McGrath (at the end of his career, anyway) was close to being so, too, bar the extreme pace. He even learned to pitch full and swing the ball, compensating for his drop in pace.
japaljarri
24 Mar 2009, 23:36
Possibly, but he struggled to keep the runs down. Superb strike rate though after 87 Test matches.
Pretty handy new ball pair though.
That rotating quartet of quality West Indian fast bowlers was both truly frightening and effective. They also hunted as a pack. And if you want the definition of fixturing stupidity, check out the first test at the WACA in 1984. Yep, for some reason some fool thought it would be a good idea to put a weak Australian side against a frightening bowling line up on a quick deck. It was carnage. Holding cut a swathe through us.
The ACB, who were either engaging in poor business practices at that time (probable, given that their cheapness in airfares once caused Bruce Reid to seize up), disliked the players (possible, given WSC and all), or were just plain stupid, decided to do the same thing in 1988/99, giving the West Indies Brisbane, Perth and Melbourne to feast on before Australia managed to fight back on more spin-friendly surfaces. I just looked up that scorecard, actually - Australia were bowled out for 76 in the second dig!
Jimthegreat
24 Mar 2009, 23:39
I know Holding could bowl some classic spells - like against England in 1976, but generally speaking, I fail to see how he was better than Garner (who was often saddled with an older ball and was as miserly as they came). I'm reluctant to switch Bishop and Roberts. I know Roberts took more wickets, concealed his emotions brilliantly on the pitch and bowled more professionally than anyone else during his time, but Bishop was more penetrative and had horrific luck with injury. Without injury, he probably would've been quite a bit better than what he was.
As for Dennis Lillee, I still think he's a bit overrated. He was world-class, sure, but not as brilliant as many say and inferior to McGrath, IMO. Then again, being only 19, I never had the pleasure of seeing him bowl.
Hmm - doesn't Davidson have a better record with the ball than Wasim (albeit in an era of uncovered pitches)? I'll read it, though. Thanks.
I am old enough and had Lillee the best bar none. Had everything and was highly intimidating. Hit the pitch hard at near 150kmh, generated bounce, accurate and so highly skilled with his ball movement in the air and off the pitch. One of the few that could really change the course of a match in one spell. On flat pitches he could shorten his run, slow his pace, and concentrate on ball movement of the wicket and be very dangerous. Closest I saw to him was Hadlee.
I saw Lillee against Pakistan on a real flat MCG track. We made about 550ish and they were 2/330ish. Lillee took the new ball and in the most paralysing spell of breathtaking fast bowling imaginable had had knocked over the rest of the team for about another 20-30 odd runs. Frightening to watch. Then there was the spell in the Centenary Test when we got rolled for 138 then he come on and took 6-29 to bowl England out for 95. Even more frightening was his 8-29 against the Rest of the World in 1971 when he bowled out a team full of some of the greats for just 59. Even domestically in a one-day final WA were bowled out for 77 and he come on and with the most amazing spell ran though Qld as they got bowled out for 62. That included getting Viv Richards for a duck after a real bumper barrage. They were just some examples.
Amazing fast bowler. Unmatched. Unlike the high pressure West Indian fast bowlers hunting in packs, Lillee, other than a couple of years with Thommo, did it alot on his own. I dare say Lillee and Thommo, as a combination, were as frightening as all 4 of the WI quicks together. Maybe more so. Thommo was really unmatched for pace and extracted bounce from just short of a length.
DoubleO7
24 Mar 2009, 23:42
Pretty handy new ball pair though.
Definitely, couldn't argue with that.
japaljarri
24 Mar 2009, 23:44
I am old enough and had Lillee the best bar none. Amazing fast bowler. Unmatched.
Great Lillee post Jim. Only have Marshall definitely ahead of him as there was nothing he couldnt do with the ball and his record on dead pitches on the subcontinent edges him ahead.
OiDwuOhejRQ
a5G4pqb4nns
XH5hgqqIbLU
:thumbsu: Almost nothing beats watching a great fast bowler demolishing batsmen. Oh how I crave a return to those days =(
Wallaby
25 Mar 2009, 08:39
My observations:
1. Lillee was the undisputed best fast fast bowler in the world from about 76-81. He also had a spell as the world's fastest bowler from 70-73 (when he did his back).
2. Holding was never the world's fastest bowler- his early career coincided with Jeff Thomson, and when Thommo got old and slow, Marshall appeared.
3. Everyone talks about the West Indian fast bowlers - they won as many test matches because of their batsmen - Richards, Richardson, Greenidge, Haynes, Lloyd and Dujon - since then (15+ years) they've only had 2 good batsmen - Lara and Chanderpaul. To be a good bowler, you need a batting line-up that can give you some runs to bowl to.
4. The West indian fast bowling strategy relied on bowling 11-12 overs per hour, so the guys could all get some rest - many times they bowled barely 70 overs in a day.
5. If you have done some research on Lillee because he was 'before your time', check out Trueman, Bedser, Lindwall, McDonald, Tate, Larwood, Spofforth..........
6. From what I've seen ('72 onwards - based on their peak seasons):
- Ambrose
- McGrath
- Lillee
- Waqar
- Marshall
-
That rotating quartet of quality West Indian fast bowlers was both truly frightening and effective. They also hunted as a pack. And if you want the definition of fixturing stupidity, check out the first test at the WACA in 1984. Yep, for some reason some fool thought it would be a good idea to put a weak Australian side against a frightening bowling line up on a quick deck. It was carnage. Holding cut a swathe through us.
Remember that well , it was right after we just lost the Adelaide test by a whisker.
The curator was a K1W1.
Lillie was poetry in motion easily the best Aus and as good as any in the world has produced.
grizzlym
25 Mar 2009, 09:03
Remember that well , it was right after we just lost the Adelaide test by a whisker.
The curator was a K1W1.
Lillie was poetry in motion easily the best Aus and as good as any in the world has produced.
I remember the WACA test being the first test in that series. That's what made the fixturing so absurd. But hey, it was so long ago now i might be wrong.
I remember the WACA test being the first test in that series. That's what made the fixturing so absurd. But hey, it was so long ago now i might be wrong.
I could be thinking of a later series.
grizzlym
25 Mar 2009, 09:08
I could be thinking of a later series.
I think we went to the Gabba next. It was like one of those summers of experiments... I was scared just watching those dudes steam in on telly!
grizzlym
25 Mar 2009, 10:18
Akram was magnificient. Saw him bowl at the MCG vs Australia in around 1990-91. He was just making the ball do all sorts of strange things. I really rate him up there with the very best. Incidentally, Mark Taylor hit a top quality century in that match - he looked like the only batsman who had a clue against Akram.
I am old enough and had Lillee the best bar none. Had everything and was highly intimidating. Hit the pitch hard at near 150kmh, generated bounce, accurate and so highly skilled with his ball movement in the air and off the pitch. One of the few that could really change the course of a match in one spell. On flat pitches he could shorten his run, slow his pace, and concentrate on ball movement of the wicket and be very dangerous. Closest I saw to him was Hadlee.
As of last night, I've revised my view of Lillee slightly. The main reason why he averaged just above 24 and not around 23 or lower appears to be because he played for too long. This information is revealing, although I've seen McGrath bowl a few match-changing spells myself (i.e - England at Lords 2005). Plus, McGrath thrived in just about any country, which says something about just how flexible and effective he could be (particularly towards the end of his career) when conditions required. Lillee is still world-class, without a doubt.
I saw Lillee against Pakistan on a real flat MCG track. We made about 550ish and they were 2/330ish. Lillee took the new ball and in the most paralysing spell of breathtaking fast bowling imaginable had had knocked over the rest of the team for about another 20-30 odd runs. Frightening to watch. Then there was the spell in the Centenary Test when we got rolled for 138 then he come on and took 6-29 to bowl England out for 95. Even more frightening was his 8-29 against the Rest of the World in 1971 when he bowled out a team full of some of the greats for just 59. Even domestically in a one-day final WA were bowled out for 77 and he come on and with the most amazing spell ran though Qld as they got bowled out for 62. That included getting Viv Richards for a duck after a real bumper barrage. They were just some examples.
Ah yes, I've seen footage of that Centenary Test - but from what I remember, it was a spicy wicket, which is why bowlers from both sides ran through the opposing batting orders, before the pitch flattened out. It was a classic Test. Lillee did bowl very well, though. To counter that, I offer up McGrath's 8/24 against Pakistan in 2004/05, along with that spell at Lords.
Amazing fast bowler. Unmatched. Unlike the high pressure West Indian fast bowlers hunting in packs, Lillee, other than a couple of years with Thommo, did it alot on his own. I dare say Lillee and Thommo, as a combination, were as frightening as all 4 of the WI quicks together. Maybe more so. Thommo was really unmatched for pace and extracted bounce from just short of a length.
True, but Walker, Lawson, Alderman, Hogg, etc. were all good to very good bowlers and all were useful back-up to Lillee at varying points - just not all-time greats like most of the West Indian pacemen of the 1980's.
Akram was magnificient. Saw him bowl at the MCG vs Australia in around 1990-91. He was just making the ball do all sorts of strange things. I really rate him up there with the very best. Incidentally, Mark Taylor hit a top quality century in that match - he looked like the only batsman who had a clue against Akram.
Didn't Wasim take 11 wickets during that match?
Adelaide Hawk
25 Mar 2009, 18:58
Lillee is a bit overrated.
I stopped reading right here.
Ah yes, I've seen footage of that Centenary Test - but from what I remember, it was a spicy wicket, which is why bowlers from both sides ran through the opposing batting orders, before the pitch flattened out. It was a classic Test. Lillee did bowl very well, though. To counter that, I offer up McGrath's 8/24 against Pakistan in 2004/05, along with that spell at Lords.
But to fully appreciate the genius of Lillee you need to look at his performance in the match as a whole.
In the first innings he came out and blitzed England after Australia had scored only 138, taking 6-26.
In the second innings, when the pitch had flattened out and England went darn close to scoring 460 odd to win, he bowled the most overs in the innings (35 odd - eight ball overs not six), even more than the spinner (Skull). By the time he got the final wicket of the match (Knott), he was bowling cutters at little more than medium pace - so much work had he done. He ended up taking 5-139. I still believe to this day that he, and not Randall, should have been Man of the Match.
I've been following cricket since when Lillee made his debut and he is the best I have ever seen.
DoubleO7
25 Mar 2009, 19:04
I stopped reading right here.
Have a look at his record against Pakistan and the West Indies -
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/6295.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling
*Take note of his record against England as well.
Now compare that record with Malcolm Marshall's record -
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/52419.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling
**Take note of his record against England as well.
Make of that what you will...
I saw Lillee against Pakistan on a real flat MCG track. We made about 550ish and they were 2/330ish. Lillee took the new ball and in the most paralysing spell of breathtaking fast bowling imaginable had had knocked over the rest of the team for about another 20-30 odd runs. Frightening to watch. Then there was the spell in the Centenary Test when we got rolled for 138 then he come on and took 6-29 to bowl England out for 95. Even more frightening was his 8-29 against the Rest of the World in 1971 when he bowled out a team full of some of the greats for just 59. Even domestically in a one-day final WA were bowled out for 77 and he come on and with the most amazing spell ran though Qld as they got bowled out for 62. That included getting Viv Richards for a duck after a real bumper barrage. They were just some examples.
I remember the Pakistan game vividly. I think it was 76/77. That pitch was a dead-set road and Lillee tore them apart on it.
The Rest of the World match saw him go from 2-29 to 8-29 - six wickets for no runs. It was the game which really put his name up in lights.
The one-day final was amazing. WA were bowled out for 77 and, mainly due to Lillee, they bowled Qld out for 62. I remember reading that it was the first time since he had come back from his back injury that he let himself go completely, risking hurting it again. The first over to Richards was a classic. :D
He took 355 wickets in Tests, but took another 60 odd in two seasons of Super Tests in the World Series seasons. And he missed most of the 73 tour of the West Indies and all of the 73/74 season because of his back injury. Simply coming back from an injury that severe in those days was an achievement in itself.
The one-day final 76/77:
MOh-BNyAM_Q
vs Rest of the World 71/72:
OqtMvzOPj8s
2. Holding was never the world's fastest bowler- his early career coincided with Jeff Thomson, and when Thommo got old and slow, Marshall appeared. -
Nah Thommo was not the same after the injury. Was phenomenal before then, but very inconsistent after. Holding was definitely considered the fastest in the world for a number of years.
I stopped reading right here.
Clearly, you're from the school of 'if he disagrees with me, it must be wrong'.
But yeah, that's OK, get lost if you so wish. It reeks of childishness, but who am I to stop you?
:rolleyes:
grizzlym
25 Mar 2009, 20:59
Unlike the high pressure West Indian fast bowlers hunting in packs, Lillee, other than a couple of years with Thommo, did it alot on his own.
Yeah, I agree with that. Lillee was an amazing fast bowler, who would have benefited from being surrounded by high quality bowlers. Statistical anaylsis can only tell you so much. Sure, they give you a finite numerical assessment, which can be coldly compared to other bowlers throughout history. But they don't tell you the context i.e. how those wickets were taken, other factors etc. D K Lillee is a case in point.
But to fully appreciate the genius of Lillee you need to look at his performance in the match as a whole.
In the first innings he came out and blitzed England after Australia had scored only 138, taking 6-26.
In the second innings, when the pitch had flattened out and England went darn close to scoring 460 odd to win, he bowled the most overs in the innings (35 odd - eight ball overs not six), even more than the spinner (Skull). By the time he got the final wicket of the match (Knott), he was bowling cutters at little more than medium pace - so much work had he done. He ended up taking 5-139. I still believe to this day that he, and not Randall, should have been Man of the Match.
Yeah, that sounds like a heroic effort. Really, it does. Lillee himself (having read his autobiography, so as to try and better understand what he did) said that Randall had played a magnificent knock, though. I agree with you, however. Given that he was part of a winning team and given that he was crucial to the victory, Lillee should've been a walk-up for the man-of-the-match.
I've been following cricket since when Lillee made his debut and he is the best I have ever seen.
Fair enough. I respect experience, but looking back, I guess I'll never fully appreciate why you regard Lillee so highly, having never seen the man in action myself bar a few bits of footage (having been born years after he finished up) and given his overall record (admittedly suffering as a result of him playing for a touch too long). I still think he's world-class, though.
Have a look at his record against Pakistan and the West Indies -
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/6295.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling
*Take note of his record against England as well.
Now compare that record with Malcolm Marshall's record -
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/52419.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling
**Take note of his record against England as well.
Make of that what you will...
His figures against Pakistan were badly skewed by one poor series, 79/80, in Pakistan where he took 3-303 in total. Even the greats are allowed a poor series or two.
Anyway, those figures are more than compensated for (for me at least) when he came out and bowled in the second innings vs Pakistan in the final test of 72/73 when he had a stuffed back. Pakistan were chasing a small total and Lillee and Walker bowled Australia to victory. That was the sort of thing which set Lillee apart from the rest.
As for the West Indies figures, well I guess Marshall had the benefit of not having to bowl against his own batsmen. In any case, Lillee only had two series against them when they weren't the dominant force in World Cricket (73, in which he played only one test and took 0/130 odd because his back was still rooted - it was in fact the test in which he broke down & 75/76, when he and Thommo dominated) and I would say overall his returns against them were more than respectable - averaging 4.5 wickets per test.
Fair enough. I respect experience, but looking back, I guess I'll never fully appreciate why you regard Lillee so highly, having never seen the man in action myself bar a few bits of footage (having been born years after he finished up) and given his overall record (admittedly suffering as a result of him playing for a touch too long). I still think he's world-class, though.
His overall record stands at 355 wickets in 71 tests (precisely 5 per test) at an average of 23.92. You are a hard taskmaster. :D
Incidentally, if you want a bit of useless trivia, it is that Rod Marsh completed 355 dismissals in his Test career, which both started and finished in the same series as Lillee.
His overall record stands at 355 wickets in 71 tests (precisely 5 per test) at an average of 23.92. You are a hard taskmaster. :D
Am I? I'm not sure.
I've stated repeatedly that he's world-class - he'd enter into my Top 10 fast bowlers of all time list comfortably - and there's no doubting his courage and heart (maybe Merv and Siddle have taken after him in that regard) - but I still can't quite comprehend why individuals like your good self rank him as being the best of the best, particularly in light of some unflattering stats (even though numbers rarely, if ever, tell the full story). Like I said though, it doesn't help that I never got to see him live.
Incidentally, if you want a bit of useless trivia, it is that Rod Marsh completed 355 dismissals in his Test career, which both started and finished in the same series as Lillee.
Interesting. The Lillee-Marsh partnership was very prolific too, that I do know.
japaljarri
25 Mar 2009, 22:19
Seems as though all of us who were lucky enough to have seen him (and those since) have him at least in the top 2 or 3 rather than the top 10. Fairly telling.
Still have Marshall at 1 myself though.
grizzlym
25 Mar 2009, 23:11
How can you possibly rank the truly great bowlers meaningfully? Statistics only tell you part of the story and, in this case, they're all fairly comparable. Ultimately, it comes down to subjective opinion because, statistically, there isn't a 'Bradman of bowlers'.
And when you've seen the likes of Lillee and Marshall and Garner and Holding et al. ply their trade, you bring something extra to the equation. It doesn't mean you're more informed or better 'qualified'. Nothing like that, but you tend to form an opinion based on more than cold, hard stats or highlight packages. And that's where the conviction comes from.
grizzlym
25 Mar 2009, 23:27
Here's another name I'll throw in the ring as a great fast bowler: Richard Hadlee. He wasn't cut from the same scary cloth as Holding and Co, but what skill the kid had!
Ambrose the best quick I've ever seen, he was the perfect package.
- Bloody quick like Marshall
- Steep bounce due to his height and great action
- Line and length control of McGrath
- Able to move it both ways like Hadlee
- Fire in the belly like Lillee
Next tier down I'd put Marshall, Lillee, Akram, Hadlee
Tier below that I'd put Holding, Garner, Donald, McGrath, Walsh, Waqar.
CanonNo1
26 Mar 2009, 09:55
Wasim Akram for me. Could bowl 12 different balls in a over... a freak.
roostersgal4eva
26 Mar 2009, 09:57
How can you possibly rank the truly great bowlers meaningfully? Statistics only tell you part of the story and, in this case, they're all fairly comparable. Ultimately, it comes down to subjective opinion because, statistically, there isn't a 'Bradman of bowlers'.
And when you've seen the likes of Lillee and Marshall and Garner and Holding et al. ply their trade, you bring something extra to the equation. It doesn't mean you're more informed or better 'qualified'. Nothing like that, but you tend to form an opinion based on more than cold, hard stats or highlight packages. And that's where the conviction comes from.
oh I agree and I would suggest that we would tend to lean towards the bowlers we have seen play
grizzlym
26 Mar 2009, 10:02
oh I agree and I would suggest that we would tend to lean towards the bowlers we have seen play
Yep, and in saying all of that I can't possibly choose between a bunch of them! I mean imagine Lillee bowling with Warne up one end?
courtjester
26 Mar 2009, 12:59
Wasim Akram for me. Could bowl 12 different balls in a over... a freak.
There is a certain amount of freakiness involved in bowling 12 different balls in a 6 ball over....
courtjester
26 Mar 2009, 13:08
So who would people choose as their 3 fast bowlers in an all time greats team?
I'd go for:
Ambrose
Lillee
Wasim Akram
All can fire up, all very quick.
Ambrose: Steepling height and angry stares. Incredible control and economy.
Lillee: Control of swing and pace. Mongrel aggression.
Wasim: Left arm variety. Amazing control of the swinging older ball. Probably the nastiest bouncer of all bowlers.
courtjester
26 Mar 2009, 13:09
(and you'd add Warne to that package and the opposition would rarely make 150)
japaljarri
26 Mar 2009, 13:51
(Of those l have seen) If playing a match unfortunately Lillee (my 3rd best) edged out by Akram only because of the variety Akram offers. Suffice to say l wouldn't be worried if any of them got injured and D.K. had to step in :
Marshall
Ambrose
Akram
And Murali
(just kidding). Warne.
grizzlym
26 Mar 2009, 14:00
I never saw him play (basically because I'm alive and all), but Freddy Trueman sounds like he's up there too. over 300 wickets at 21ish, striking every 49 balls. All i can say about picking 3 fast bowlers is Akram's an automatic selection by virtue of being a left armer. As for the other 2, well I wouldn't be too fussed.
skipper kelly
26 Mar 2009, 14:13
Impossible to rate who was the best, but here goes.
Ambrose
Lillee
Hadlee
Marshall
Wasim and Waqar could make the ball do incredible things but one suspects there was a fair bit of ball tampering happening.
japaljarri
26 Mar 2009, 16:49
You know what l couldnt actually get past my hatred of Hadlee to fully appreciate him :p. Almost the only player l can think of like that! Geez l used to hate it when he slid one through Borders gate...
You know what l couldnt actually get past my hatred of Hadlee to fully appreciate him :p. Almost the only player l can think of like that! Geez l used to hate it when he slid one through Borders gate...
Yeah I am exactly the same, only player I am like that with. He was very, very good, but I have no real idea of where I would rate him.
dr nick
26 Mar 2009, 17:29
Only Wasim Akram and Curtly Ambrose were the blokes ive seen that you just think, yep, our batsmen dont stand a chance today.
Seems as though all of us who were lucky enough to have seen him (and those since) have him at least in the top 2 or 3 rather than the top 10. Fairly telling.
Still have Marshall at 1 myself though.
Yeah, it’s like in 20 years from now kids will be looking at Warne’s record and will be thinking he is overrated.
The raw stats just do not convey the impact some players had on the game. For me Pigeon was a great bowler but DK was a superstar.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
26 Mar 2009, 19:04
Yeah, it’s like in 20 years from now kids will be looking at Warne’s record and will be thinking he is overrated.
The raw stats just do not convey the impact some players had on the game. For me Pigeon was a great bowler but DK was a superstar.
I never saw Lillee bowl but for me the stats are so telling that McGrath would have to be at least the equal of if not better the Lille.
Everyone these days craps on about the roads the game is played on, the rocket launcher bats, the short boundaries, the covered wickets etc, etc and how that inflates batsmen's averages.
What you never hear though is that bowlers who average low 20's are absolute superstars.
When you consider some of the roads that have been put out over the last decade and you see a guy has taken over 500 wickets @ 21 then there is absolutely no doubt that he would fit into any team in history.
McGrath also made a habit of taking down the premier batsmen in the world, surely he is the equal of Lillee and i could make a pretty good case that he is a better bowler. People have this obsession with previous eras but surely in this day and age, if a bowler averages 21 runs a wicket playing on highways then that means he is the best of the best.
Yeah, it’s like in 20 years from now kids will be looking at Warne’s record and will be thinking he is overrated.
The raw stats just do not convey the impact some players had on the game. For me Pigeon was a great bowler but DK was a superstar.
He is a spinner, though. With a few exceptions (like Murali, who is aided greatly by Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and dustbowls), spinners tend to average more than quicks. But yeah, I understand what you mean. We both know that he was an utter champion and a revivalist to boot. The children of tomorrow, however, have not had the luxury of really seeing this for themselves.
I never saw Lillee bowl but for me the stats are so telling that McGrath would have to be at least the equal of if not better the Lille.
Everyone these days craps on about the roads the game is played on, the rocket launcher bats, the short boundaries, the covered wickets etc, etc and how that inflates batsmen's averages.
What you never hear though is that bowlers who average low 20's are absolute superstars.
When you consider some of the roads that have been put out over the last decade and you see a guy has taken over 500 wickets @ 21 then there is absolutely no doubt that he would fit into any team in history.
McGrath also made a habit of taking down the premier batsmen in the world, surely he is the equal of Lillee and i could make a pretty good case that he is a better bowler. People have this obsession with previous eras but surely in this day and age, if a bowler averages 21 runs a wicket playing on highways then that means he is the best of the best.
Yeah, this is more or less how I thought, too (although I merely expressed my sentiment that Lillee's repuation didn't seem to quite correspond to his admittedly already world-class record). If roads can be used to denigrate the achievements of batsmen (like Matt Hayden, for instance), then they can be used to heighten the status of bowlers. Like you, I can't get my head around the idea that McGrath is inferior to Lillee...because neither of us saw Lillee live.
There is a certain amount of freakiness involved in bowling 12 different balls in a 6 ball over....
Unless he's alluding to the high number of no balls that Wasim bowled...
DoubleO7
26 Mar 2009, 19:19
Yeah, it’s like in 20 years from now kids will be looking at Warne’s record and will be thinking he is overrated.
The raw stats just do not convey the impact some players had on the game. For me Pigeon was a great bowler but DK was a superstar.
He is a spinner, though. With a few exceptions (like Murali, who is aided greatly by Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and dustbowls), spinners tend to average more than quicks. But yeah, I understand what you mean. We both know that he was an utter champion and a revivalist to boot. The children of tomorrow, however, have not had the luxury of really seeing this for themselves.
The video quality of today's age will certainly convey the greatness of Warne and other champion bowlers of our time.
He is a spinner, though. With a few exceptions (like Murali, who is aided greatly by Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and dustbowls), spinners tend to average more than quicks. But yeah, I understand what you mean. We both know that he was an utter champion and a revivalist to boot. The children of tomorrow, however, have not had the luxury of really seeing this for themselves.
Yeah, it’s the Andy Flower v Adam Gilchrist argument. I know which one I would want in my team.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
26 Mar 2009, 19:53
Yeah, this is more or less how I thought, too (although I merely expressed my sentiment that Lillee's repuation didn't seem to quite correspond to his admittedly already world-class record). If roads can be used to denigrate the achievements of batsmen (like Matt Hayden, for instance), then they can be used to heighten the status of bowlers. Like you, I can't get my head around the idea that McGrath is inferior to Lillee...because neither of us saw Lillee live.
The problem is that in these comparsions there is so much bias.
Ian Chappell wrote an article on cricinfo after Hayden retired saying basically that he didn't rate Hayden as the best opening batsmen of the last 15 years in Australia, let alone one of our all time great opening batsmen. He said Slater was better because he faced better attacks, there were more holes in the argument then Swiss cheese. However, Chappell knew that cricinfo has a predominantly Indian audience and they'd lap that sort of thing up.
Chappell is never going to admit that McGrath was a better bowler then Lillee, because Chappell played with Lillee and past players like to think that it was better in their day.
To me if a bowler in this day and age takes 500 wickets @ 21 then it is proof that he was a consistent force, performed in all conditions and was capable of playing cricket for long periods without injury.
To me McGrath would have to be a better bowler then Lillee, there have been some absolute gun batsmen around in Lara and Tendulkar and McGrath at times had both of them on a string, especially Lara.
japaljarri
26 Mar 2009, 20:03
The problem is that in these comparsions there is so much bias.
...
in Lara and Tendulkar and McGrath at times had both of them on a string, especially Lara.
Not as much bias as never seeing a bloke bowl live. You keep saying Sean can't be a mod because he has to respect his elders who have seen more cricket. Well on this one the elders like their D.K. ;).
The other broader point is well made and Mcgrath (an out and out champion no doubt) bowled beautifully to both those guys but 'on a string' might be bit much?! Lara played some wonderful knocks against us (averaged 50 odd over 30 odd tests at our peak) and it was a privilege to see them.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
26 Mar 2009, 20:10
The bias i was talking about involved ex-players or supporters applying one "filter" to one player's record and not applying it to another.
For example, Indian fanatic A might say Hayden is a flat track bully who only even scored tons on roads and against crap attacks. Yet Tendulkar faces the same attacks on the same wickets and registers similar scores and is lauded as a cricketing god.
The weak argument, oh Hayden never had to face his own attack. Well he did, at shield level and in the nets.
By the same token ex-players like Boycott and Thommo discredit todays batsmen on the basis of the roads they bat on and the short boundaries and the tree trunks as bats. Yet, the very nature of that argument means that successful bowlers would have to be rated higher then bowlers who registered similar statistics on better wickets to bowl on.
It is a pretty simple theory, but it is often not applied due to a number of reasons. Mainly as some people are going to dislike certain players for whatever reason and as such they will try to discredit their record, especially if the player has a statisitcally awesome record.
Example in point is Indians saying Hayden is a flat-track bully. Yet Sehwag is the messiah.
Secondly, ex-players are going to lean towards players who played in their generation because it makes them look better.
I bet in 15 years time players like Lara and Tendulkar will be saying that these "new punks wouldn't last 5 overs against McGrath and Warne"
grizzlym
26 Mar 2009, 20:37
Like you, I can't get my head around the idea that McGrath is inferior to Lillee...because neither of us saw Lillee live.
There is an inherent futility in trying to rank the greatest of anything. Least of all bowlers, where generations and continents are spanned, and a whole host of other variables are at play. Like how about fast men that operated in the times before helmets? You can't tell me that didn't make their job easier.
I'm not asking you to accept that McGrath is inferior to Lillee, or anyone else for that matter, because to extend on LTD's thought re McGrath, these guys are the best of the best, their records speak for themselves and there aint much to separate them (statistically speaking).
But what you have to accept is that good judges will hold those sorts of opinions - disregarding statistical evidence and casting aside other arguments - because they did see a certain cricketer play regularly.
And perhaps that's all that really separates this caliber of player - what you personally think.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
26 Mar 2009, 22:07
Good judges who cast away statistical evidence?
They are not good judges then, as far as im concerned statistical evidence used in CONJUNCTION with other factors forms the basis of one's opinion on a player.
Fact remains, in just about all respects McGrath is better then Lillee, and there have been some very fine batsmen around in the last decade batting on some very, very flat wickets.
To average 21 and take over 500 wickets proves McGrath is nothing if not durable and fairly injury tolerant.
I just can't understand how past players and supporters can admantly say that Lillee was the better bowler. They are at least the equal of each other, and surely McGrath could well edge ahead when you consider that he has prospered in all conditions. Lillee played the bulk of his career in Australia and in England.
I just feel that the weight of evidence is in McGrath's favour, so much so, that in 10 or 20 years he may well be regarded as our finest ever fast bowler.
I’d say you don’t understand because you have watched one of them bowl for years and years and the other you have probably not seen much more of than a few clips on YouTube.
So far it seems that the majority of people who have actually seen both bowlers disagree with you.
Mario the Lothario
26 Mar 2009, 22:54
McGrath relied on his height and amazing accuracy, then any variance in direction usually came from the seam hitting the pitch.
Lillee could bowl every delivery in the book. Out and Inswinger, Leg and Off Cutter, Bouncer and Yorker. He could bowl them at will, and he could place them on a 20 cent piece.
Dennis Lillee is the finest bowling technician I have ever seen. Closely followed by Marshall and Hadlee.
McGrath relied on his height and amazing accuracy, then any variance in direction usually came from the seam hitting the pitch.
Lillee could bowl every delivery in the book. Out and Inswinger, Leg and Off Cutter, Bouncer and Yorker. He could bowl them at will, and he could place them on a 20 cent piece.
Dennis Lillee is the finest bowling technician I have ever seen. Closely followed by Marshall and Hadlee.
And he was 150kph+.
The regulation field setting when Lillee was bowling. :D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Nine_slips.jpg
Mario the Lothario
26 Mar 2009, 23:23
Maxie Walker in the gully, that has to be a pisstake.
Great pic.:thumbsu:
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
26 Mar 2009, 23:31
I’d say you don’t understand because you have watched one of them bowl for years and years and the other you have probably not seen much more of than a few clips on YouTube.
So far it seems that the majority of people who have actually seen both bowlers disagree with you.
Great way to have an argument isn't it?
Instead of discussing the issue you say i dont understand because i never saw him bowl?
Great argument, really thought provoking.
grizzlym
26 Mar 2009, 23:36
Good judges who cast away statistical evidence?
They are not good judges then, as far as im concerned statistical evidence used in CONJUNCTION with other factors forms the basis of one's opinion on a player. .
Yeah, i was sloppy there articulating my point. Of course in conjunction. I meant that it's next to impossible to separate the handful of truly great fast men by merely comparing their stats. Other info is required.
That's why I totally get how people who've seen Lillee bowl rate him so highly. Because they saw the cricketer, not just the set of numbers he left behind.
But it certainly makes you think about the scheme of things when people who have seen both men bowl, rank Lillee above McGrath. And you can't put it all down to nostalgia or dementia either!
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
26 Mar 2009, 23:38
McGrath relied on his height and amazing accuracy, then any variance in direction usually came from the seam hitting the pitch.
Lillee could bowl every delivery in the book. Out and Inswinger, Leg and Off Cutter, Bouncer and Yorker. He could bowl them at will, and he could place them on a 20 cent piece.
Dennis Lillee is the finest bowling technician I have ever seen. Closely followed by Marshall and Hadlee.
It's the results not the method of getting them, whatever it was it worked, that is undeniable. It gave some bloody good batsmen a lot of sleepless nights, it won Australia a lot of matchs. It worked in all conditions, even the flattest of roads.
McGrath could bowl a bouncer, even at fairly moderate pace he could still give the real hurry up to the best of batsmen. His yorker was first rate as well.
He didnt get much swing but he could reverse the ball.
Lillee played a majority of his cricket in Australian and English conditions, his record in Pakistan and Sri Lanka (even though he only had 2 series in those countries) is poor.
McGrath is IMO at least the equal of Lillee, i have mentioned why i think that, unlike some posters, i don't just say "you never saw him bowl".
It seems like the old timers can't fathom someone being equally as good as Lillee.
grizzlym
26 Mar 2009, 23:59
Gentlemen, I have a question: Lillee, Akram, Marshall, Holding etc are all fast bowlers in the true sense of the word. Is Glen McGrath really a fast bowler? Fast as in fast medium perhaps. But not as in fast fast, like the other dudes.
Mario the Lothario
27 Mar 2009, 00:00
Subcontinent pitches were doctored to dull the Australian attack and this is a time before nuetral umpires. Subcontinent umpires were renowned for their extreme bias.
Then there was the quality of batsmen. Richards, Kahnai, Lloyd, Greenidge, Haynes, Gavaskar, Miandad, the list goes on.
The stats are misleading, Lillee bowled to superior batsmen and missed a prime chuck of his career to WSC.
Watch him bluff one of the greatest batsmen of all time (Viv Richards, NOT Mike Atherton):
MOh-BNyAM_Q
Lillee takes 8 - 29 against the World XI (including Gavaskar, Kanhai, Sobers, Lloyd and Greig)
OqtMvzOPj8s&NR=1
Great way to have an argument isn't it?
Instead of discussing the issue you say i dont understand because i never saw him bowl?
Great argument, really thought provoking.
Yeah mate; to be honest I don’t really think your arguments carry much weight on this one.
A lot of people here have seen a hell of a lot more cricket than you have. You never even saw the bloke bowl, but you are telling all of us that we are wrong and you are right.
People have tried to explain it to you but you just don’t want to listen.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
27 Mar 2009, 00:14
Yeah mate; to be honest I don’t really think your arguments carry much weight on this one.
A lot of people here have seen a hell of a lot more cricket than you have. You never even saw the bloke bowl, but you are telling all of us that we are wrong and you are right.
People have tried to explain it to you but you just don’t want to listen.
Care to explain to me how?
All you have said is that i didn't get the chance to see Lillee bowl so my opinion is invalid?
Your saying stuff that i never said.
I said McGrath is at least the equal of Lillee, i would have thought that to be fairly obvious to be honest
Care to explain to me how?
All you have said is that i didn't get the chance to see Lillee bowl so my opinion is invalid?
Your saying stuff that i never said.
I said McGrath is at least the equal of Lillee, i would have thought that to be fairly obvious to be honest
You said ” To me McGrath would have to be a better bowler then Lillee”
The technical reasons of why he was better have already been discussed. He was dramatically quicker far more skilful and nearly as accurate.
He unquestionably had a greater impact on the game, on the broader cricket world and on Australian culture. He was massively more aggressive and intimidating and had a much bigger presence and personality. DKs ability as a match winner is almost unparalleled.
His bouncers did not “hurry up” the batsman, they nearly ripped their freaking heads off. He could then follow it up with a ripping Yorker, or a vicious inswinger or a leg cutter. All at blistering pace and with superb control.
McGrath has a deservedly forged a reputation as a great bowler. Dk and Warne were icons to their respective generations.
You would understand this if you were there, but you weren’t. These are all intangible things you are not going to understand by just looking at some stats on cricinfo.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
27 Mar 2009, 19:14
You said ” To me McGrath would have to be a better bowler then Lillee”
The technical reasons of why he was better have already been discussed. He was dramatically quicker far more skilful and nearly as accurate.
He unquestionably had a greater impact on the game, on the broader cricket world and on Australian culture. He was massively more aggressive and intimidating and had a much bigger presence and personality. DKs ability as a match winner is almost unparalleled.
His bouncers did not “hurry up” the batsman, they nearly ripped their freaking heads off. He could then follow it up with a ripping Yorker, or a vicious inswinger or a leg cutter. All at blistering pace and with superb control.
McGrath has a deservedly forged a reputation as a great bowler. Dk and Warne were icons to their respective generations.
You would understand this if you were there, but you weren’t. These are all intangible things you are not going to understand by just looking at some stats on cricinfo.
"Dramatically qicker" keep up the adjectives, they don't add a lot to the argument, that was a vicious inswinger, and a ripper yorker, blistering pace, :D :D :D. My favourite though is "massively more aggresive", :D:D:D
I mean lets judge how good a player was at cricket by his personality and his impact on Australian culture. What a great set of criteria.
As far as im concerned, you are stuck in a timewarp, like a lot of people from your generation you cannot except that some cricketers may actually be just as good, if not better, then your heroes from the past.
Lillee's record in the sub-continent is ordinary. McGrath proved himself in all conditions on the flatest wickets against the best batsmen. He is at least the equal of Lillee, you can crap on with all the fancy adjectives you want, he was this, he was that, you sound like a broken record.
Nothing personal.
Yeah, it’s the Andy Flower v Adam Gilchrist argument. I know which one I would want in my team.
Yeah...Flower was a better batsman, but not by a massive amount. As for wicket-keeping, there's no real comparison.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
27 Mar 2009, 20:17
I think you mean the otherway around don't you?
Gilchrist was IMO a very good keeper until the last year or so until retirement. He never got enough credit for that part of his game, sure his last 2 or 3 years with the gloves were not the best but before that he was a keeper of hugh quality.
There is an inherent futility in trying to rank the greatest of anything. Least of all bowlers, where generations and continents are spanned, and a whole host of other variables are at play. Like how about fast men that operated in the times before helmets? You can't tell me that didn't make their job easier.
Yeah, you're perfectly right. Ranking the best of anything is an exercise in subjectivity - always has been, always will be.
But what you have to accept is that good judges will hold those sorts of opinions - disregarding statistical evidence and casting aside other arguments - because they did see a certain cricketer play regularly.
I can accept that they may feel nostalgic for past eras (I know that some ex-players, particularly the inimitable Neil Harvey, do), but disregarding statistical evidence completely seems like a foolish thing to do when rating a player. Numbers never do tell all of the story, but they tell some, if not a large part of it.
And perhaps that's all that really separates this caliber of player - what you personally think.
Subjective opinion obviously plays a large part, but I don't believe statistics and the like should be ignored or anything.
I think you mean the otherway around don't you?
Gilchrist was IMO a very good keeper until the last year or so until retirement. He never got enough credit for that part of his game, sure his last 2 or 3 years with the gloves were not the best but before that he was a keeper of hugh quality.
Hmm?
Flower>Gilchrist - batsman
Gilchrist>>>Flower - keeping
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
27 Mar 2009, 20:34
Statistics can be very misleading over short periods of time, you know, when Martyn went 2 years without scoring a ton (from memory he scored one against SA at the Wanderers and then the next was in Sri Lanka) the media made a big deal about it but he hadn't had a form slump, he was still consistenly getting good scores just no hundreds but he was never in danger of being dropped.
But over a long career, they do tell a story, like any statistical analyse the sample size has to be large enough otherwise there will be bias in the assessment.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
27 Mar 2009, 20:36
I'd have Gilchrist ahead of Flower as a batsmen, no doubt about that. Flower was a fine batsmen but Gilchrist is the best keeper-batsmen of all time.
Scotland
27 Mar 2009, 20:36
All you have said is that i didn't get the chance to see Lillee bowl so my opinion is invalid?
Your opinion is invalid on this matter.
Matthew Richardson has kicked more career goals than Wayne Carey, and has kicked more in a single season than Carey too. Is Richardson the better footballer? I suppose ton-up Franklin is better than both?
You cannot debate the bowling merits of McGrath vs Lillee with those who have seen Lillee bowl when you have not. Why is this so hard to grasp?
DoubleO7
27 Mar 2009, 20:38
I'd have Gilchrist ahead of Flower as a batsmen, no doubt about that. Flower was a fine batsmen but Gilchrist is the best keeper-batsmen of all time.
What makes him so much better than Sangakkara?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
27 Mar 2009, 20:45
The fact that he was a more explosive batsmen in both formats of the game, yet he still averaged over 50 for the vast majority of his career.
What makes him so much better than Sangakkara?
Well, Sangakkara, whilst being a world-class batsman, was significantly affected by the wicket-keeping duties that he used to carry. He didn't hit his peak until he gave them up. Also, his record against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe inflates it somewhat (up to 5 runs, I think).
DoubleO7
27 Mar 2009, 20:52
The fact that he was a more explosive batsmen in both formats of the game, yet he still averaged over 50 for the vast majority of his career.
Batting at number three, do you think Sangakkara has the freedom to thrash the bowling?
Would you take into account that Sangakkara has more Test centuries and half centuries in sixteen less matches into account when comparing the two?
Would you take Sangakarra's far superior Test average (better average in ODI's as well) into account?
DoubleO7
27 Mar 2009, 20:53
Also, his record against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe inflates it somewhat (up to 5 runs, I think).
No it doesn't.
Gilchrist averages 111.76 against Zimbabwe and 71.84 against Bangladesh.
Sangakkara is better against all opposition expect for Zimbabwe, England and New Zealand.
*Statistically speaking of course
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
27 Mar 2009, 20:55
I don't think Kumar keeps anymore does he?
It's a bit rich comparing a keeper-batsmen to a standalone batsmen.
DoubleO7
27 Mar 2009, 20:57
I don't think Kumar keeps anymore does he?
It's a bit rich comparing a keeper-batsmen to a standalone batsmen.
He does in ODI's.
You cannot debate the bowling merits of McGrath vs Lillee with those who have seen Lillee bowl when you have not. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Apparently because those of us who saw both Lillee and McGrath bowl are, to quote the poster concerned:
As far as im concerned, you are stuck in a timewarp, like a lot of people from your generation you cannot except (sic) that some cricketers may actually be just as good, if not better, then your heroes from the past.
Ah, to be young and know it all again. :D
XFactor1979
27 Mar 2009, 21:09
you can have gillespie, you can have mcgrath, you can have brett lee, but curtly ambrose was the most fearsome fast bowler i have seen.
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/DB/012002/032968.jpg
ambrose was a difficult character, australians did not enjoy batting against him. in a series between aus and wi where the aussies had won the series, at the dead rubber at the waca, the windies had clearly won the dead rubber, ambrose DELIBERATELY overstepped and bowled life-threatening bouncers at shane warne.
in an odi match between australia and the windies at the scg, dean jones pointed out that ambrose (wearing a prodominantly dark odi pyjama), was wearing white reflective wristbands that was proving to be too much of a distraction, deano had every right to complain, the white wrist bands, in combination with the white ball, made it difficult seeing conditions batting under the lights at the scg. once ambrose got rid of the wristbands, he proceeded to "hunt" (not get him out) dean jones (but got the rest of the australian batting line up) with some of the most frightening stuff you would see. australians were thoroughly humbled that evening, no thanks to deano
curtly's your bitch
Don't think I know anybody who has seen both and doesn't rate Lillee higher.