Lillee vs McGrath

[Wallaby]

I saw both - I was a teenager when Lillee was THE Australian Fast Bowler that all kids wanted to be. He was a legend. With the explosion in interest in cricket that happened in the early 70s leading right through Packer, Lillee was the poster boy. I was as good at Lillee at most things - wearing my shirt half-unbuttoned, flicking the sweat off my brow, having a 60-metre runup, the appeal - never quite mastered that actual bowling thingy, however.

McGrath never reached that Legend status, because Warne took it. At his absolute best, I think McGrath was as good a bowler as Warne at his absolute best - Warne was more valuable because there was no other bowler in the world like him anywhere near his ability (except sometimes McGill). If McGrath missed a test (which he hardly ever did) you replaced him with another medium pacer with perhaps 70% of his ability. If Warne missed, you had to hoipe McGill was on his game because there was no-one else in the world even close. This led to McGrath being under-appreciated a bit.

Lillee v McGrath? I think McGrath was better. Not by much.

 

[eth-dog]

I won't vote but both have outstanding records. Dennis also played in a time that there weren't as many tests as there were during McGrath's era.

 

[Belnakor]

McGrath never reached that Legend status, because Warne took it. At his absolute best, I think McGrath was as good a bowler as Warne at his absolute best

Agreed.

Mcgrath is actually criminally underrated for mine. His record in all conditions - outstanding.

you also need to add

1) His performance in big games was outstanding. There is a reason why he holds basically every World Cup record for bowling
2) His ability to target the best batsman and take them down. Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Kallis these guys all struggled against him. Tendulkar probably played 1 good innings total when he had to face Mcgrath. Warne got taken to pieces by both Lara and Sachin when they got set.

 

[DaRick]

Years ago on this forum, I called Dennis Lillee 'overrated'. That was the wrong choice of word - the man was a legend.

However, in terms of sheer effectiveness, it is difficult for me to go past McGrath, though I can certainly understand why people may vote for Lillee. He was quick, intelligent, physically courageous and extremely charismatic. Even my father waxes lyrical about him so I can only guess how people who saw him live on TV or in the flesh felt. Even Johnson, who was nowhere near as good a bowler as Lillee overall, could make the hairs stand on end at times. One must also consider his performances during WSC and against the ROW (though going to WSC was his choice).

McGrath does not have 1/10 of Lillee's charisma and I doubt that even when he was younger he bowled at more than 140 km/h. By the time he was 30, he averaged around 130 km/h from memory. Nonetheless, he was almost robotic in his accuracy, had an impressive injury record, bowled extremely well in all conditions and could do it all when he felt like it. For instance, while he was never big on conventional or reverse swing, he could certainly use it at the right time. I remember him castling Mervyn Dillon with one reverse-swinging yorker at the GABBA, for example. During the second half of his career he also bowled on some very flat pitches, whereas Lillee's pitches were usually more sporting. Additionally, Lillee never learnt to bowl in the subcontinent (probably for lack of opportunity, but still).

So McGrath it is, though by a very thin margin.

 

[footyfan1978]

Best In order I have seen since 1974

Hadlee
Lillee
Marshall
Holding
Steyn
Ambrose
Donald
McGrath
Akram
Roberts

Best Fast Bowler I have seen if you could have them on their best day would be Jeff Thomson. Simply the most destructive bowler I have seen.

Lucky bastard to have seen all of them in their prime.

I rate Wasim Akram only behind Hadlee and Lillee of that lot in time I watched.

I rate Ambrose, Garner and McGrath all similar types where their height was used to ultimate effect even if they were not as quick as others. Garner was still damn quick though but as not as quick as more athletic Michael Holding or Andy Roberts. Still blows my mind at one stage West Indies had all of Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall bowling in same team. Love to see how some guys of more recent times like Warner and Hayden dealt with that lot all in one attack. I have a feeling not so well as they did against sides with just one or two genuine paceman of quality.
Maybe Holding and Imran Khan just behind Wasim Akram for my 4th and 5th best pace bowlers. Then any of Roberts and Marshall 6th and 7th. I actually rate McGrath next line down ahead of Donald, Ambrose and Steyn but on a par with Joel Garner. Ryan Harris very best is not far off these guys to be honest He was closest in style to Malcolm Marshall but not quite as quick. Courtney Walsh for longevity probably past them all but he was not quite in these guys class to be honest. I think guys like Mitch Johnson and Gillespie best was better than Walsh but short of all the names above. Thommo fastest bowler ever but I find it hard to rate him on skillset as simply only saw him well after his best and he clearly was playing only on heart then as he was nowhere near as quick in Tests I saw him bowl in 1980's. My guess he was no quicker than Mitch Johnson in his last Test we saw last week. Without the pace of his pre-shoulder injury I don't think Thommo had enough other skills to offset the drop off in pace. Guys like Lillee were able to improve other aspects of their bowling when the express pace was no longer there.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I don't like to compare Lillee with McGrath. Entirely different bowlers with differing roles, played in different eras, etc. McGrath was a great pace bowler who carved out a career relatively unaffected by serious injury. Obtained a tremendous record through uncanny accuracy. Ably supported by the likes of Gillespie, Lee and Warne, was able to bowl as if it were another day in the office. I am not detracting from his career at all, he won many Test matches for Australia in a great career.

Lillee came along with Australian cricket was at it's lowest ebb. McKenzie had retired and the attack consisted of average pace bowlers and part time spinners. He dared to bowl quick, as quick as he could, and was instrumental in lifting the profile of Australian cricket. However, at still a very young age, his career was effectively over. A crippling back injury saw him lost to the game for nearly 2 years as he not only rehabilitated his injury, he also worked on a new action to enable him to play cricket again.

Dennis performed super human feats and only really received support for a short time with Thommo and to a lesser degree Massie. If Lillee didn't bowl well, Australia lost. The metamorphosis that saw him progress from an up and down quick to a thinking bowler who could move the ball both ways, in the air and off the pitch was amazing.

His performances in World Series Cricket confirmed him to be the greatest bowler in the world, even with the presence of the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Imran, etc. He was at his peak in this period and it is a great pity that these matches don't even count towards 1st Class records.

For mine, I've not seen a bowler come close to Lillee in terms of inspiration and match winning determination. Easily the best quick I've ever seen. I will never forget the 3rd Test in Sydney against Pakistan in 1972-73 where the Pakis needed just 158 in their 2nd Innings for victory. Eight ball overs in those days, and despite carrying a bad back, Lillee bowled an unbroken spell of 23 overs to help Max Walker clean the Pakis up for 106, the final 7 wickets falling for 23 runs. Once again, like Massie's 16 wickets at Lords, it was Lillee who did the early damage.

Then there was the 1st Test against Pakistan in 1976-77 at Adelaide Oval. With Thommo off with an injured shoulder, and Gilmour off with gout, Lillee took on the fast bowling responsibilities and bowled 47.7 8-ball overs out of a possible 66 at one end to take 5 wickets on an unresponsive pitch.

Just an amazing cricketer.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I rate Wasim Akram only behind Hadlee and Lillee of that lot in time I watched.

Same here. Those two have been the outstanding quicks in all the years I've watched Test cricket.

 

[PaddyO]

Lillee came along with Australian cricket was at it's lowest ebb. .

A top 7 of

Lawry
Stackpole
Ian Chappell
Redpath
Walters
Greg Chappell
Marsh

is not "lowest ebb".

 

[PaddyO]

You can't really split them. To me it's like trying to compare Viv Richards to Sachin Tendulkar. Pointless. Completely different players.

The outstanding thing about McGrath was his consistency in using his skills against all opponents in any conditions/country.

The outstanding thing about Lillee was his bullishness in using his skills when it mattered most.

If I had to choose I'd take Lillee for a must win test, but I'd take McGrath if I wanted someone to lead my bowling attack in all conditions for the next 5 years.

And arguments aside, this is pure sex:

Lillee
McGrath
Miller
Warne
O'Reilly

 

[Jimthegreat]

I

Pakistan had Sarfaraz Nawaz and Imran Khan around the same time Lillee was playing, I don't know about any quality Pakistani spinners in the '70s. Maybe they still prepared turners when Australia toured to negate Lillee, but McGrath played on many turners in India and Sri Lanka and still did fantastically well.

I don't care who they had then they were flat, low, slow, spinning roads at that point of time. I was around then and remember well. When McGrath played on sub continent pitches there was no way pitches were going to be spinning tracks with Warne in the side.

 

[Jimthegreat]

A top 7 of

Lawry
Stackpole
Ian Chappell
Redpath
Walters
Greg Chappell
Marsh

is not "lowest ebb".

1970-71, we were s**t. You can take that to the bank from someone who was around. We changed our bowlers nearly every Test and Killer was last in line believe it or not. Greg Chappell was only just starting and Lawry was sacked for the last Test, never to return.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Years ago on this forum, I called Dennis Lillee 'overrated'. That was the wrong choice of word - the man was a legend. Even my father waxes lyrical about him so I can only guess how people who saw him live on TV or in the flesh felt.

My father doesn't, but that's because DK tried to make vets go for the long runs with the rest of the club when he was in charge at Melville.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

I


I don't care who they had then they were flat, low, slow, spinning roads at that point of time. I was around then and remember well. When McGrath played on sub continent pitches there was no way pitches were going to be spinning tracks with Warne in the side.

It's not possible (or at least, it's incredibly difficult) to prepare seamer friendly wickets in India especially, but also elsewhere in the subcontinent. The cricket season for the most part coincides with the subcontinent's dry season, and during the monsoonal wet season, it rains too much for cricket to be played. If a pitch is prepared with grass on it the heat will kill it off in one or two days max.

So if you don't produce a turner the only other thing you can roll out is a flat batting wicket. McGrath didn't take his subcontinental wickets on greentops fresh out of Trent Bridge or bouncing tracks imported from the WACA, he would have to deal with more or less had the same kind of surfaces as Lillee would have.

And India at least certainly didn't fear Warne. They produced dustbowls all the time when Australia toured. Kumble and Harbhajan knew how to exploit them, while Warne always went for plenty.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

For example:

Seamers take 4 wickets, spinners take 24 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64100.html

Seamers take 5 wickets, spinners take 28 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63794.html

Seamers take 10 wickets, spinners take 26 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63921.html

Seamers take 13 wickets, spinners take 20 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64100.html

On these same strips where seamers (who don't have the weapon of express pace) did nothing, McGrath was a giant.

This idea that Warne was somehow deliberately negated by Indian curators is baseless, he just wasn't good enough in India. If on the same strip Harbhajan can take 15-for and Warne takes 2 in the match, then obviously the pitch offers plenty of turn.

 

[The Speaker]

It's not possible (or at least, it's incredibly difficult) to prepare seamer friendly wickets in India especially, but also elsewhere in the subcontinent. The cricket season for the most part coincides with the subcontinent's dry season, and during the monsoonal wet season, it rains too much for cricket to be played. If a pitch is prepared with grass on it the heat will kill it off in one or two days max.

There has actually been a lot of consternation for a number of years now about the amount of green tracks in the Ranji Trophy. Medium pacers who are able to get an advantage from the conditions have dominated the wicket taking charts for years, even though there is no chance of them being good enough for Tests.

 

[Royal Flash]

For example:

Seamers take 4 wickets, spinners take 24 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64100.html

Seamers take 5 wickets, spinners take 28 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63794.html

Seamers take 10 wickets, spinners take 26 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63921.html

Seamers take 13 wickets, spinners take 20 wickets http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64100.html

On these same strips where seamers (who don't have the weapon of express pace) did nothing, McGrath was a giant.

This idea that Warne was somehow deliberately negated by Indian curators is baseless, he just wasn't good enough in India. If on the same strip Harbhajan can take 15-for and Warne takes 2 in the match, then obviously the pitch offers plenty of turn.

There should be an asterisk against Warne's record in India though.

When he went there in 1998 his shoulder was absolutely stuffed due to chronic overbowling due to McGrath and Gillespie both missing and he underwent surgery on it shortly after that tour and didn't play again until the Sydney test against England in 1999 and didn't find any form until the World Cup that year.

In 2001 he was just coming back from missing the entire Australian summer after finger surgery and was overweight and rusty as buggery and bowled accordingly so you could hardly say the Indians saw the best of him in either series.

When we finally beat India in India in 2004 Warne finally played them when he was fit and uninjured and returned much better figures. He took 14 wickets in 3 tests at an average of 30, which whilst not outstanding by his standards (after all India do play spin very, very well) was a vast improvement on his two previous visits to India and a truer reflection of what he was capable of producing over there imo.

 

[DaRick]

There should be an asterisk against Warne's record in India though.

When he went there in 1998 his shoulder was absolutely stuffed due to chronic overbowling due to McGrath and Gillespie both missing and he underwent surgery on it shortly after that tour and didn't play again until the Sydney test against England in 1999 and didn't find any form until the World Cup that year.

In 2001 he was just coming back from missing the entire Australian summer after finger surgery and was overweight and rusty as buggery and bowled accordingly so you could hardly say the Indians saw the best of him in either series.

When we finally beat India in India in 2004 Warne finally played them when he was fit and uninjured and returned much better figures. He took 14 wickets in 3 tests at an average of 30, which whilst not outstanding by his standards (after all India do play spin very, very well) was a vast improvement on his two previous visits to India and a truer reflection of what he was capable of producing over there imo.

Also missed out on bowling on that nightmare pitch in Mumbai where Michael Clarke (!) took 6/9.

 

[Slax]

Lillee by the length of the Flemington straight

 

[PaddyO]

F

This idea that Warne was somehow deliberately negated by Indian curators is baseless, he just wasn't good enough in India. If on the same strip Harbhajan can take 15-for and Warne takes 2 in the match, then obviously the pitch offers plenty of turn.

Or just the fact that Indian batsman are very good at playing spin, especially on their home pitches.

When India have never produced an ATG paceman (Kapil comes close) it shows what their batsman grow up playing against and on.

How many overseas spinners have actually been successful in India vs India?

 

[western royboy]

Or just the fact that Indian batsman are very good at playing spin, especially on their home pitches.

When India have never produced an ATG paceman (Kapil comes close) it shows what their batsman grow up playing against and on.

How many overseas spinners have actually been successful in India vs India?

Swann / Panesar

 

[DaRick]

Swann / Panesar

Don't forget Nicky Boje.

 

[Duritz]

Michael Clark.

 

[Belnakor]

When we finally beat India in India in 2004 Warne finally played them when he was fit and uninjured and returned much better figures. He took 14 wickets in 3 tests at an average of 30, which whilst not outstanding by his standards (after all India do play spin very, very well) was a vast improvement on his two previous visits to India and a truer reflection of what he was capable of producing over there imo.

this is a very good point.

i should also point out that Tendulkar had a shocking series and he was generally the guy who took Warne to pieces.

 

[Belnakor]

How many overseas spinners have actually been successful in India vs India?

Richie Benaud

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Swann / Panesar

My god, was that a series too far for the golden generation of Indian batsmen or what? It was quite something to watch. It's great watching any bowling unit work like that. Anderson was very good in that series too.