Den Cricket Team Selection Discussions

[sherminator]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Awww, I thought we were going by decades! LOL! I took W. Hammond soon as Sobers was gone. He is similar (not as spectacular) to Sobers. He averaged 56 with bat. 37 with bowl (83 Test wickets in 85 matches). Also took 110 Test cacthes as a slip fieldsman.

This persuaded me to go for him. From a link-

Steven Lynch
June 19, 2003
If it weren't for one thing, we could today be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest batsman of all time. Walter Hammond, who was born on June 19, 1903, played 85 times for England over almost 20 years, and averaged 58.45 in Tests. In first-class cricket that average was 56, from over 50,000 runs.
The snag, though, was one that bugged Hammond for most of his career - Donald Bradman. The Don, in his debut series, was an interested observer when Hammond broke the Test record with 905 runs in the 1928-29 Ashes series, and Bradman smashed the record himself with 974 in the next rubber, in 1930. It still stands. Hammond hit 36 double-centuries in his career, more than anyone else ... except Bradman, who pipped him by one.
Hammond was a famously moody character, and his humour can hardly have been improved by those constant comparisons with the incomparable.
In many ways Hammond was a more correct player than Bradman. He was tall and imposing at the crease, and his cover-drive was a thing of beauty. Uniquely, he was the leading Englishman in the batting averages for eight successive seasons (1933-46), and topped 3000 runs three times. He was a handy bowler, with 732 first-class wickets. And he caught like a flytrap, usually at slip - he took 10 catches (a record) in a county match in 1928, and 78 (another record) all told that season.
His career stalled early on, thanks to the sharp-eyed administrator Lord Harris. In those days (1920) the qualification regulations were very strict, and Harris, a Man of Kent, objected to Hammond playing for Gloucestershire when he had been born in Dover. But Hammond made up for lost time when he was allowed to play, before a mysterious illness contracted in the West Indies in 1925-26 kept him out of the whole of the following season.
He started as a professional, albeit a somewhat superior one, and back then it was unthinkable that a pro should captain England. But in 1938 there weren't many suitable unpaid candidates, and Hammond "turned amateur". He wasn't a great success as England captain (Bradman again), winning only four of his 20 matches in charge. That included a rather sad farewell tour of Australia in 1946-47, when he was troubled by fibrositis and gave only glimpses of his former glories with the bat. Again, it didn't help that The Don, who hadn't been expected to play, turned up and reeled off scores of 187, 234, 79, 49, 0, 56*, 12 and 63.
That was the end of Hammond's serious cricket, apart from couple of mildly embarrassing appearances in 1950 and 1951. These days Hammond would be a hero, feted everywhere and a regular in the commentary box - but, prematurely aged, he disappeared to South Africa, where he struggled to find work. He was never the same after a car crash in the early 1960s, and died in Durban in 1965, aged only 62.

 

[John]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Awww, I thought we were going by decades! LOL! I took W. Hammond soon as Sobers was gone. He is similar (not as spectacular) to Sobers. He averaged 56 with bat. 37 with bowl (83 Test wickets in 85 matches). Also took 110 Test cacthes as a slip fieldsman.

This persuaded me to go for him. From a link-

Nothing wrong with your selection Shermy. I am impressed by it. According to all reports you have selected slected one of the greats. His stats verify your selection. . Well done.

 

[sherminator]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Nothing wrong with your selection Shermy. I am impressed by it. According to all reports you have selected slected one of the greats. His stats verify your selection. . Well done.

Not bad for a n00b.

 

[Grimreepah]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Not bad for a n00b.

Haha. Nice try. You're still the bookie's favourite

 

[sherminator]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Haha. Nice try. You're still the bookie's favourite

Who's the bookie?

 

[Grimreepah]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Who's the bookie?

Me. I'll pm you my bank details.

 

[sherminator]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Me. I'll pm you my bank details.

Lol.

 

[POBT]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Pick 14 - Dennis Keith Lillee (Australia)

DK Lillee is quite simply the greatest Australian fast bowler of all time and a contender in most people's books as the greatest fast bowler to have played the game. In an era of great fast bowlers (the 70s were the strongest bowling era of the 20th century IMO), Lillee stood out as the best. He could dismiss a batsman in any way imaginable. He had the pace of Brett Lee, the swing of Terry Alderman or Craig McDermott, the accuracy and bounce of Glenn McGrath, the seam movement of a Jason Gillespie and the aggression of Merv Hughes. In other words, he was the best of every quality bowler to follow him, but all wrapped up in one package.

 

[John]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Pick 14 - Dennis Keith Lillee (Australia)

DK Lillee is quite simply the greatest Australian fast bowler of all time and a contender in most people's books as the greatest fast bowler to have played the game. In an era of great fast bowlers (the 70s were the strongest bowling era of the 20th century IMO), Lillee stood out as the best. He could dismiss a batsman in any way imaginable. He had the pace of Brett Lee, the swing of Terry Alderman or Craig McDermott, the accuracy and bounce of Glenn McGrath, the seam movement of a Jason Gillespie and the aggression of Merv Hughes. In other words, he was the best of every quality bowler to follow him, but all wrapped up in one package.

I would still take McGrath though.

 

[POBT]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

I would still take McGrath though.

At least you would have seen both. Frustrates me no end when people argue that McGrath is better when the most they have seen of Lillee is Cricket Show footage of him kicking Javed Miandad in the arse! I only saw the tailend of Lillee's career and even that is the equal of McGrath IMO. Given that most experts say he was better in the mid-70s, that leads me to favour DK.

 

[John]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

At least you would have seen both. Frustrates me no end when people argue that McGrath is better when the most they have seen of Lillee is Cricket Show footage of him kicking Javed Miandad in the arse! I only saw the tailend of Lillee's career and even that is the equal of McGrath IMO. Given that most experts say he was better in the mid-70s, that leads me to favour DK.

Yep I watched the great D K Lillee bowl. Awesome. I am not knocking your selection, you know that anyway, but I am of the opinion that McGrath is the best I have seen. Believe it or not I have Curtly 2nd and then Lillee. IMO Curtly Ambrose bowled fantastic on marble wickets. I am not trying to downplay Lillee at all as it is a great selection. If I rate McGrath 100/100 I rate Ambrose 99.99/100 and Lillee 99.98/100. It is difficult discussing degrees of excellence and this is why I have problems posting favorite lists be it music, footy whatever. But those three as a pace trio in anyside???
Awesome.

This is going to be interesting. Good stuff.

 

[Grimreepah]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

D.K.Lillee

Wickets - 355
Ave - 23.92
SR - 52.02
ER - 2.76

G.McGrath

Wickets - 551
Ave - 21.61
SR - 51.7
ER - 2.51

I wasn't following cricket when Lillee was going around, but McGrath has Lillee covered in every department. One might say that there was better opposition in the 70s/80s, but the game has since evolved to be more and more favourable to the batsmen. Nowadays we see plenty of people averaging over 50 as a batsman and very few averaging under 25 as a bowler. Lillee was quicker and more physically intimidating, and one might argue that he helped the other bowlers more. But look at McGrath's economy rate. These days we are scoring at 3.5 to 4 runs an over instead of 2.5 to 3. McGrath's economy rate of 2.51 is quite exceptional and I would argue that his ability to build pressure, and thus help the other bowlers is at least equal.

 

[John]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

D.K.Lillee

Wickets - 355
Ave - 23.92
SR - 52.02
ER - 2.76

G.McGrath

Wickets - 551
Ave - 21.61
SR - 51.7
ER - 2.51

I wasn't following cricket when Lillee was going around, but McGrath has Lillee covered in every department. One might say that there was better opposition in the 70s/80s, but the game has since evolved to be more and more favourable to the batsmen. Nowadays we see plenty of people averaging over 50 as a batsman and very few averaging under 25 as a bowler. Lillee was quicker and more physically intimidating, and one might argue that he helped the other bowlers more. But look at McGrath's economy rate. These days we are scoring at 3.5 to 4 runs an over instead of 2.5 to 3. McGrath's economy rate of 2.51 is quite exceptional and I would argue that his ability to build pressure, and thus help the other bowlers is at least equal.

Bloody awesome stats for both players. I am not sure that stats tell the whole truth sometimes but these are compelling to say the least. I am not sure that cricket is a weaker game nowadays. In fact I like the game, test match cricket anyway, more now than ever before. I have been going to the Gabba to watch cricket since 1974 and have watched it on TV when ever I can. Heck I watched NZ v Sri lanka this last week! IMO the game is at an all time high. The across the board brilliance of the Aussie team over the last decade has taken the game to another level. Has anyone watched the history on ABC? To be frank, and I am not attempting to take away from past heros IMO the fielding prior to the late 50's was not anywhere near todays. Put the fat bloke in first slip seemed to be the order of the day.

 

[POBT]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Sorry GR, but stats really don't mean a great deal to me in cricket. I have had this argument on the Cricket Board before. Stats can be interpreted in so many ways. To counter your stats, I could say that Lillee took an average of 5.07 wickets a match and McGrath's average is only 4.55. I could ask you to throw in Lillee's Supertest performances which were against the best side in the world and a composite side of the world's best players.

In cricket, players can't be judged on stats very effectively because so much more goes into the game. For example, what weight do you give to economy rate? I don't really give that much consideration. Averages are driven partly by economy rates so they can be a little flawed too. Strike rate, on the other hand, is a great measure - to an extent. Shoaib Aktar has a great strike rate but you wouldn't judge him on that alone. Total wickets is a good measure of longevity and greatness but that is going to be called into question as merely competent players take a lot more wickets due to longevity. For example, Chaminda Vaas is now ahead of Freddie Trueman - no disrespect to Vaas (who has a pretty tough gig!) but Trueman is a legend of the game. Avg wickets per test is another decent measure although bowling lots of overs generally increases the likelihood of taking more wickets. And how do you judge the quality of opposition?

Stats can be used to separate the great from the good (and Bradman from the greats!). But they can't be used (IMO) to separate peers.

FWIW, Malcolm Marshall has McGrath covered in pretty much all areas but that didn't stop most people voting for McGrath on the Cricket board. That is another problem with stats - people only use them when it supports what they already intuitively believe. I don't have a problem with people simply believing someone is better than another. That is obviously much easier to do if you have seen both players play.

I don't rank McGrath in the top 3 fast bowlers that I have seen play. But I liked John's analysis of Lillee/Ambrose/McGrath - with the proverbial bee's ******** between them. That is my opinion too although I rank the bowlers are in a different order.

 

[Grimreepah]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Sorry GR, but stats really don't mean a great deal to me in cricket.

Perhaps. But for players that I haven't seen, it is the best thing to go by (so long as you try to put them in context). You hear reports from other cricketers for example, but these are clouded by emotion and selective or faded memories. How are you going to judge players from the 30s and 40s without stats?

 

[POBT]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Perhaps. But for players that I haven't seen, it is the best thing to go by (so long as you try to put them in context). You hear reports from other cricketers for example, but these are clouded by emotion and selective or faded memories. How are you going to judge players from the 30s and 40s without stats?

There are a number of ways to judge a player beyond stats. A lot of good cricket histories and docos paint a fairly evenly weighted picture. I also think the recollections of former players are pretty valuable provided you take them with a grain of salt. I reckon you learn who to trust - for example, Neil Harvey and Ian Chappell will always favour players from their eras and always cast aspersions on modern players so I don't really listen to their opinions. Benaud or Lawry are more balanced though. O'Keefe is another one who judges on merit.

I am quite fortunate in that my grandfather used to talk a lot about the Australian and English cricketers he saw in the 30s-50s where there is little archival footage. For example, he thought O'Reilly was the ducks nuts and the best spinner he had seen until Warne. He also loved Alan Davidson and rated him higher than Lindwall and Lillee. Sobers was the best non-Bradman batsman in his eyes.

As I said, an argument over "great" vs "good" can be backed up by statistics. Trying to separate or rank the greats is more subjective and statistic then carry less meaning. For example, Viv Richards is listed by Wisden as one of 5 Cricketers of the Century - and has not been selected in this draft game yet! That is not saying Wisden is wrong or we are wrong - just a subjective judgment.

 

[John]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Sorry GR, but stats really don't mean a great deal to me in cricket. I have had this argument on the Cricket Board before. Stats can be interpreted in so many ways. To counter your stats, I could say that Lillee took an average of 5.07 wickets a match and McGrath's average is only 4.55. I could ask you to throw in Lillee's Supertest performances which were against the best side in the world and a composite side of the world's best players.

In cricket, players can't be judged on stats very effectively because so much more goes into the game. For example, what weight do you give to economy rate? I don't really give that much consideration. Averages are driven partly by economy rates so they can be a little flawed too. Strike rate, on the other hand, is a great measure - to an extent. Shoaib Aktar has a great strike rate but you wouldn't judge him on that alone. Total wickets is a good measure of longevity and greatness but that is going to be called into question as merely competent players take a lot more wickets due to longevity. For example, Chaminda Vaas is now ahead of Freddie Trueman - no disrespect to Vaas (who has a pretty tough gig!) but Trueman is a legend of the game. Avg wickets per test is another decent measure although bowling lots of overs generally increases the likelihood of taking more wickets. And how do you judge the quality of opposition?

Stats can be used to separate the great from the good (and Bradman from the greats!). But they can't be used (IMO) to separate peers.

FWIW, Malcolm Marshall has McGrath covered in pretty much all areas but that didn't stop most people voting for McGrath on the Cricket board. That is another problem with stats - people only use them when it supports what they already intuitively believe. I don't have a problem with people simply believing someone is better than another. That is obviously much easier to do if you have seen both players play.

I don't rank McGrath in the top 3 fast bowlers that I have seen play. But I liked John's analysis of Lillee/Ambrose/McGrath - with the proverbial bee's ******** between them. That is my opinion too although I rank the bowlers are in a different order.

Yeah good post POBT. I am not trying to convert anyone to my views as to who is the best. As I said I do not always take stats as the be all and end all. One thing in your post that I will mention. I have highlighted the point you make about wickets per test. This is a touch deceptive as well as McGrath has had to "contend" with Warne at the other end and due to that I would rate his 4.55 per test outstanding. Still this is all bar room talk and as we all know we are discussing degrees of excellence.

 

[POBT]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

One thing in your post that I will mention. I have highlighted the point you make about wickets per test. This is a touch deceptive as well as McGrath has had to "contend" with Warne at the other end and due to that I would rate his 4.55 per test outstanding.

Yep - and that's my point. All stats are misleading to an extent. 93% of all people know that

 

[John]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Yep - and that's my point. All stats are misleading to an extent. 93% of all people know that

Wrong 93.75%

 

[Grimreepah]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Yep - and that's my point. All stats are misleading to an extent. 93% of all people know that

So what makes Lillee a better bowler?

You said before that he has pace and that he could swing it (neither of which McGrath excels in) but what does it matter how you get a player out? Lillee also has more personality but surely that doesn't come into it either.

Also, in reference to your comment about stats separating the 'great' from the 'good', I see it a different way. Normally players have different strengths and weaknesses. So Brett Lee might have a better strike rate, but Gillespie might have a better average, and you could debate which is the more important. But McGrath has Lillee covered in all stats (except wickets per match which I don't consider all that relevant for the reasons that John has said). So what is your basis for thinking that Lillee is superior?

 

[POBT]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

So what makes Lillee a better bowler?

GR, I did give my reasons for that. Lillee, at the end of his career, was playing in an a pretty average side and, I believe, still bowling as well as McGrath bowls. Having read and heard that he better in the 70s, I can only assume that he was a superior bowler over his career.

You said before that he has pace and that he could swing it (neither of which McGrath excels in) but what does it matter how you get a player out?

It doesn't matter. What does matter is being able to rely on a 3rd, 4th or 5th style of bowling to dismiss a batsman who is playing style 1 and 2 well. I've seen McGrath run out of ideas pretty quickly - he tends to revert to line and length in the hope that the batsman will make a mistake. Why wouldn't you when that gets you to 500 wickets? Lillee used to keep trying things. If the ball wasn't swinging, he'd bowl leg cutters. He'd try an over or two of short pitched stuff. He'd try and buy a wicket by bowling wider outside off stump. In any conditions, Lillee was a handful.

Lillee also has more personality but surely that doesn't come into it either.

That is not really fair to say given that I never argued that personality should count.

Also, in reference to your comment about stats separating the 'great' from the 'good', I see it a different way. Normally players have different strengths and weaknesses. So Brett Lee might have a better strike rate, but Gillespie might have a better average, and you could debate which is the more important. But McGrath has Lillee covered in all stats (except wickets per match which I don't consider all that relevant for the reasons that John has said).

So my stat is not relevant but yours are? I gave reasons why all accepted stats are flawed in some respect - particularly those where a bowler's economy is as important or more important than his wicket taking. The counter argument to "McGrath had to contend with Warne for his wickets" is "Having the best spin bowler of all time in the same side gave McGrath an advantage that no other fast bowler in history has had". Batsmen were given no respite. FWIW, that is the only asterisk on the career of Marshall - he always had quality at the other end.

IMO, strike rates are the best measure of a great fast bowler - and there is bugger all difference between the 2 bowlers in that regard. Given that McGrath's career is ongoing - there is every chance that his will end up being worse. Would that change your opinion? Of course not and nor should it. Because stats should not and do not drive opinions on cricketers.

So on what basis do you think that Lillee is superior?

What makes Shane Warne widely regarded as the best spinner of all time? Longevity is part of it. But his record is not so outstanding compared to Laker, Murali, O'Reilly. But Warne has the ability to turn a match. To make the vital breakthrough. He is the player that the opposition is most wary of. He is the guy you want bowling with the match on the line. With all due respect to McGrath, if I had to survive 1 last over from Warne or one from McGrath to save a match, I'd choose McGrath every time.

Lillee was that to fast bowling in the 70s and early 80s.

Grim, I don't expect you to change your mind on this because there's no right or wrong answer. But when I am picking a World XI, Lillee is close to being an automatic selection. McGrath is about 4th or 5th in line.

 

[Grimreepah]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

I should note, that I don't have any firm opinion POBT. I'm just playing devil's advocate and probing you to see if you can present a case that shows Lillee is better.

Your reasoning is:

What does matter is being able to rely on a 3rd, 4th or 5th style of bowling to dismiss a batsman who is playing style 1 and 2 well. I've seen McGrath run out of ideas pretty quickly - he tends to revert to line and length in the hope that the batsman will make a mistake. Why wouldn't you when that gets you to 500 wickets? Lillee used to keep trying things. If the ball wasn't swinging, he'd bowl leg cutters. He'd try an over or two of short pitched stuff. He'd try and buy a wicket by bowling wider outside off stump. In any conditions, Lillee was a handful.

which is fair enough, but I'm not convinced that it is better than McGrath's approach of relentless consistency and patience. It is also a comparison of 'means', but I think a comparison of 'ends' is better. I know you don't like statistics, but I still think it is best to start from there and then try to put them into context. If we compared Lillee and McGrath in different conditions, I think McGrath would be able to hold his own.

 

[POBT]

Re: Draft game IV - selections

Here's an example of why I don't think that you can use stats to really separate players of the same level. McGrath averages 20.75 against England. Lillee averages 21.00. Close enough to call it even. But until last year, McGrath bowled to arguably the weakest generation of English batsmen of all time. Lillee played in some dominant Australian sides in Ashes series but England were still one of the top sides in the world. Surely that is in Lillee's favour. If I compared McGrath's results against the Windies, they would be substantially better than Lillee's. But McGrath largely bowled to the worst Windies sides since probably the 40s. So, against Australia's more regular opponents, McGrath had the better conditions when you consider the standard of opposition. But on the flipside, McGrath has great figures against a (mostly) quality South African side while Lillee got to cash in before the sub-continent's rise in batting standards.

The problem with a comparison of "ends" is that the results are always going to be subject to other variables and interpretation. For example, how do you determine if McGrath cashed in on good bowling wickets against poor batting line-ups? How do we know how McGrath performed on wickets where every other bowler struggled? How effective was he with an old ball? How often did he provide the vital breakthrough? How often did he produce the match winning spell? Stats don't tell you that sort of thing with any degree of accuracy. And yet, things like that make up such a substantial proportion of judging a cricketer.

It is just so hard to make a valid comparison on statistics. You are right in saying that stats are the starting point - but that simply backs up my argument that stats are used to separate good from great but aren't much use in separating peers. I would prefer to go on what I have seen, heard and read.

 

[Grimreepah]

All valid points POBT and I tried to address those concerns when I provided the stats. And if you are saying that you think Lillee is better because he bowled to better quality batsmen, then that is something that I can make sense of, because it explains why Lillee's stats are better than what they seem.

 

[POBT]

And if you are saying that you think Lillee is better because he bowled to better quality batsmen, then that is something that I can make sense of, because it explains why Lillee's stats are better than what they seem.

That is a point that could be argued either way. I think teams were stronger in the 70s and early 80s. Australia played the majority of its cricket against the Windies and England who had strong sides. Were the batsmen better? I don't know. I still rate Sir Viv as one of the greatest players but his stats don't stack up to a number of batsmen of the modern era. But I think most people would say that Viv is comparable to the Tendulkars and Laras of the modern game, regardless of stats.

Test cricket has certainly changed - people might argue that it is a batsman's game now but I think that the game is still fairly even between batsmen and bowlers. Batsmen attack more now which gives a bowler more opportunity to dismiss them. That favours the accurate steady bowler - the "you miss, I hit" variety. Batsmen might be scoring more runs but teams are also losing 20 wickets in most Tests - that favours the bowler too. Draws are not good for a bowler's wicket taking stats. The most successful bowlers of the modern era are generally super accurate - even Walsh and Ambrose were able to play successfully beyond their used-by date because of their ability to bowl accurately. Pollock is another who relies on accuracy above all else.

In the 70s, batsmen would generally be happy to tick along at 2 an over - bowlers had to attack because batsmen took less risks. The saying "bowlers win matches, batsmen save matches" was truer then than it is now. Result matches were comparatively rare - meaning there were less than 20 wickets taken in a match. When you look at the best bowlers of the 70s, most were very attacking.

Compare Lillee and Holding to McGrath and Pollock. All 4 have been super successful and probably the best fast bowlers of their eras but there is certainly a difference in how they obtained their wickets. I think that it demonstrates that bowlers in the Lillee/Holding era had to attack to take wickets - they had to be more dangerous bowlers because batsmen were more conservative. They had to be able to get through a quality defence with swing, pace, bounce and pitch movement. McGrath's mode of attack is to keep putting the ball in a dangerous area (with a little bit of work on it) and either hoping the batsman's defensive technique does not stand up to scrutiny or that the batsman plays a shot that is not warranted. That has a very viable way of bowling in the modern era. Whether that mode of attack would be successful in the 70s is arguable - batsmen generally were more solid defensively and less inclined to play shots. McGrath is a champion and he would probably have done well anyway but he certainly would have been a different type of bowler to pretty much all of the other successful bowlers around at that time (with the possible exception of Garner who was similar to McGrath in many ways). He is very similar in style to a lot of English bowlers of the 70s and 80s but those guys weren't the dominant bowlers of the era.

See, this is my kind of cricket dicussion. The kind of discussion you can have after 20 beers without Wisden open in front of you!