Lillee vs McGrath

[Bomber Bears]

The durability thing, well in terms of tests played, is in part because McGrath played in an era of more test cricket than the 70's/80's. 124 tests as a quick bowler and 563 wickets at 21.5 is pretty damn good though.

Like I said, I think McGrath's ability to play in all conditions is pretty huge in his favour. I think bowling in an era of smaller boundaries, bigger bats and often flatter pitches likewise makes his record all the better. Not to mention having a guy take 700 wickets up the other end. There are clear arguments in favour of Glenn McGrath

Not to mention that, just because he didn't bowl with the charisma of Lillee, doesn't mean he wasn't a great fast bowler to watch. He made batsmen play constantly and survived on smarts.

And as I also said - probably the best two quicks Australia has had. it really is semantics. I just don't buy McGrath seemingly being dismissed compared to Lillee when he was absolutely outstanding for 13 years.

 

[Viceregal]

Taking it to the extreme was an absurdity though. Completely deflated your argument.

The durability argument is ridiculous. Lillee played 70 tests plus 4 internationals against the RoW plus 14 Supertests in an era when lest test cricket was played than in McGrath's era.

Stop arguing out of your depth and do some bloody research.

*quietly mentions that he was not arguing simply making an off the cuff observation in light of another conversational line...*
*also quietly mentions that he is actually on 'your' side as specified in an earlier post*
*mentions is not a fan of binary conversations and since the response to his casual comment has effectively added to thread derailment wanders off in to the night (ie other threads)*

 

[sherb]

*quietly mentions that he was not arguing simply making an off the cuff observation in light of another conversational line...*
*also quietly mentions that he is actually on 'your' side as specified in an earlier post*
*mentions is not a fan of binary conversations and since the response to his casual comment has effectively added to thread derailment wanders off in to the night (ie other threads)*

Mate, if you want to argue for/against the career of one person over another, that is all good by me.

But please - do it on the basis of actual fact and/or research.

 

[western royboy]

McGrath bowled in an era where bats got better, pitches got better, grounds got smaller. Was consistently dominant.

Talk of Lillie facing stronger teams, but then how many batsmen were averaging 50 plus (or 45 plus) in his era? Compared to McGrath's era, in particular post-2000.

Lillee played played 60 out of 70 tests in Australia or England, with a further five in NZ. All good quick bowling conditions generally (especially Perth back then). His 5 tests (which, in fairness, too small a sample size) in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Windies got him six wickets for 532. McGrath took 72 wickets @ 23 in Asia with his worst an average of 31 against Pakistan. Better overall record way from home.

I did not see Lillee bowl, before my era. But there's basically a counter-argument to every one that supports Lillee as being better.

Really, they're both great bowlers from different era's. Both would be in Australia's all time XI I suspect.

Bats got bigger after McGrath retired - I have a number of ex Test Players sticks in my collection - Rhodes / Gilchrist / Tendulkar- they are nothing like today's clubs.

 

[sherb]

The durability thing, well in terms of tests played, is in part because McGrath played in an era of more test cricket than the 70's/80's. 124 tests as a quick bowler and 563 wickets at 21.5 is pretty damn good though.

Like I said, I think McGrath's ability to play in all conditions is pretty huge in his favour. I think bowling in an era of smaller boundaries, bigger bats and often flatter pitches likewise makes his record all the better. Not to mention having a guy take 700 wickets up the other end. There are clear arguments in favour of Glenn McGrath

Not to mention that, just because he didn't bowl with the charisma of Lillee, doesn't mean he wasn't a great fast bowler to watch. He made batsmen play constantly and survived on smarts.

And as I also said - probably the best two quicks Australia has had. it really is semantics. I just don't buy McGrath seemingly being dismissed compared to Lillee when he was absolutely outstanding for 13 years.

I think you need to be aware that a cricketer can only play in the conditions that his career presents to him.

 

[Bomber Bears]

I think you need to be aware that a cricketer can only play in the conditions that his career presents to him.

Well yeah, although whenever Lillee did play in those conditions he didn't do so well.

 

[sherb]

Well yeah, although whenever Lillee did play in those conditions he didn't do so well.

Tell me how Lillee went in South Africa.

 

[Andrew Mc]

I thought you were better than this.

Do some research. Check the length of the two careers. Almost identical. Didn't know that, did you?

You probably didn't also realize that Lillee lost three seasons due to non injury related causes, did you?

And to argue one long-term cricketer is better than another long-term cricketer because one was injured less is just the most ridiculous thing I think I have read here.

I'm well aware of his career. And I'm well aware of why he "missed" some seasons. And I still think McGrath edges him out. I'm not sure how you're not getting how durability is a factor in the comparison of 2 players. Honestly, it's only a minor factor for me, but it's there.

More pertinent (and perhaps not really Lillee's fault) is that McGrath did the business everywhere. I'd love to be able to compare McGrath v Lillee outside of their happy hunting grounds in AU and England, but it's not easy when Lillee rarely played away from those 2 (for some reason I said 50 of 70 above - it was 60 of 70). And, well, he missed a bunch OS because he was injured/broke down on tour. So yeah, if I needed a bowler to take wickets, anywhere, give me McGrath (hence why I'll pick him in a Lillee v McGrath decision, as per my OP). I really don't know how well he could bowl on the subcontinent (for example), because he simply didn't go there - from the small sample, he wasn't great, but it was just that, a small sample. If I needed a bowler in Australia or England, the decision would be more difficult.

 

[krisholio14]

I would say a change in the mindset of batsmen during the 90's was of benefit to McGrath's bowling. Back in Lillee's prime, every team bar the Windies had at least one or two stonewallers in there - guys that put survival above scoring, whereas the start of McGrath's career coincided with batsmen taking a more aggressive approach.That's a boon for a bowler of McGrath's type.

My vote for Lillee was based on one thing and one thing only really, because they were both amazing bowlers. DK was a master of every facet of fast bowling, whereas McGrath was purely about consistent line and length. Which is why whenever Australia needed something special with the ball, you always felt like when Lillee got the ball he was going to find any way he could to make something happen and usually did.

 

[sherb]

I'm well aware of his career. And I'm well aware of why he "missed" some seasons. And I still think McGrath edges him out. I'm not sure how you're not getting how durability is a factor in the comparison of 2 players. Honestly, it's only a minor factor for me, but it's there.

More pertinent (and perhaps not really Lillee's fault) is that McGrath did the business everywhere. I'd love to be able to compare McGrath v Lillee outside of their happy hunting grounds in AU and England, but it's not easy when Lillee rarely played away from those 2 (for some reason I said 50 of 70 above - it was 60 of 70). And, well, he missed a bunch OS because he was injured/broke down on tour. So yeah, if I needed a bowler to take wickets, anywhere, give me McGrath (hence why I'll pick him in a Lillee v McGrath decision, as per my OP). I really don't know how well he could bowl on the subcontinent (for example), because he simply didn't go there - from the small sample, he wasn't great, but it was just that, a small sample. If I needed a bowler in Australia or England, the decision would be more difficult.

South Africa - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career.
Sri Lanka - entered test cricket in 1982. Lillee played one test in Sri Lanka as a result (when he was 33).
Bangladesh - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career
Zimbabwe - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career
India - Australia toured in 69/70 (before Lillee's career started) and then next in 79/80 (which Lillee missed as WSC players were not selected). Lillee therefore could not play a test in India during his career.
Pakistan - played 3 tests there in 79/80 (and performed poorly) and didn't go on 82/83 tour
West Indies - broke down in first test in 73 - didn't play in rest of series (shouldn't have gone in the first place, due to his back); didn't tour in 78 because he was playing WSC; didn't tour in 84 as he had retired
New Zealand - didn't tour in 73/74 (the domestic season he missed during inury), but went there in 76/7 and 81/82 and performed to his career record.

So - this lack of performance overseas is based on the following?
- No test cricket in the respective overseas country at all against South Africa, India, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe
- One test match against Sri Lanka
- One poor test series against Pakistan overseas (using that measure you must rate Garth McKenzie as a crap bowler following his 69/70 SA tour)
- Par performance against New Zealand overseas
- West Indies: one test where he broke down, missed 4 tests due to injury in the same series and then never got the opportunity to play there again.

As I said my friend - research. That's the go. It really helps to know what you are on about.

 

[crownie]

At their best i would take Lille, and thats going on how good people like Sobers say he was before he injured his back.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

At their best i would take Lille, and thats going on how good people like Sobers say he was before he injured his back.

Before he injured his back, Lillee was an amazing sight to see. Didn't have the smooth run up, he was all arms and legs and 100% effort, and he bowled very quickly indeed. I saw his debut at Adelaide Oval against the Poms where, on an unresponsive pitch, he galloped in and ended up taking 5 wickets. I think we all suspected we were seeing the debut of a future great fast bowler.

Then came the World XI, replacing banned South Africa in 1971-72. Lillee's 8/29 at Perth made the hair stand up on the back of the neck. 2/29 became 8/29 as he ran through the likes of Gavaskar, Engineer, Clive Lloyd, Greig, Sobers, Hutton, Intikhab and Cunis and rocked a powerful World XI out for 59. Then in the next match at the MCG, he blasted out Ackerman, Gavaskar and Graeme Pollock to have 3/2, then topped off a return of 5/48 with the wickets of Sobers and Engineer. How are those names for good measure? I laugh at a suggestion that there weren't too many great batsmen back in Lillee's day. He took 24 wickets in 4 matches that series @ 20.08 average.

Better was to come in the 1972 tour of England where he served notice with a 2nd Innings 6/66 in the 1st Test. In the 5 Tests, he peeled off 31 wickets @ 17.68 including 3 bags of 5, and a 10 in a match at The Oval. He was as much responsible for the resurgence of Australian cricket in that period as anyone. I remember Ray Illingworth saying that when Massie took 16 wickets at Lord's, the only reason Lillee didn't get a lot more was because they couldn't touch him as balls continue to whistle past the edges of their bats.

I've already spoken of his heroic deeds in the final Test of 1972-73 where he bowled a continuous spell of 23 eight ball overs and his 3 wickets setting up the foundation for Max Walker to run through the tail. Make no mistake, Lillee pre-back injury was an awesome sight to behold, so raw, so quick, and it was thrilling to watch.

To think a man could spend 2 years out of the game, come back with a completely re-modelled run up and action, and be as great as he was just boggles the mind.

 

[western royboy]

South Africa - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career.
Sri Lanka - entered test cricket in 1982. Lillee played one test in Sri Lanka as a result (when he was 33).
Bangladesh - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career
Zimbabwe - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career
India - Australia toured in 69/70 (before Lillee's career started) and then next in 79/80 (which Lillee missed as WSC players were not selected). Lillee therefore could not play a test in India during his career.
Pakistan - played 3 tests there in 79/80 (and performed poorly) and didn't go on 82/83 tour
West Indies - broke down in first test in 73 - didn't play in rest of series (shouldn't have gone in the first place, due to his back); didn't tour in 78 because he was playing WSC; didn't tour in 84 as he had retired
New Zealand - didn't tour in 73/74 (the domestic season he missed during inury), but went there in 76/7 and 81/82 and performed to his career record.

So - this lack of performance overseas is based on the following?
- No test cricket in the respective overseas country at all against South Africa, India, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe
- One test match against Sri Lanka
- One poor test series against Pakistan overseas (using that measure you must rate Garth McKenzie as a crap bowler following his 69/70 SA tour)
- Par performance against New Zealand overseas
- West Indies: one test where he broke down, missed 4 tests due to injury in the same series and then never got the opportunity to play there again.

As I said my friend - research. That's the go. It really helps to know what you are on about.

Re Lillee's three test in Pakistan - they were played on barren dusty roads - specifically to blunt Australia's fast bowling stocks - I recall Rod Marsh bowling and Greg Chappell keeping. The phrase "Faisalabad Day 3" to describe a barren track came from this series.

 

[Van_Dyke]

South Africa - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career.
Sri Lanka - entered test cricket in 1982. Lillee played one test in Sri Lanka as a result (when he was 33).
Bangladesh - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career
Zimbabwe - did not play test cricket during Lillee's career
India - Australia toured in 69/70 (before Lillee's career started) and then next in 79/80 (which Lillee missed as WSC players were not selected). Lillee therefore could not play a test in India during his career.
Pakistan - played 3 tests there in 79/80 (and performed poorly) and didn't go on 82/83 tour
West Indies - broke down in first test in 73 - didn't play in rest of series (shouldn't have gone in the first place, due to his back); didn't tour in 78 because he was playing WSC; didn't tour in 84 as he had retired
New Zealand - didn't tour in 73/74 (the domestic season he missed during inury), but went there in 76/7 and 81/82 and performed to his career record.

So - this lack of performance overseas is based on the following?
- No test cricket in the respective overseas country at all against South Africa, India, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe
- One test match against Sri Lanka
- One poor test series against Pakistan overseas (using that measure you must rate Garth McKenzie as a crap bowler following his 69/70 SA tour)
- Par performance against New Zealand overseas
- West Indies: one test where he broke down, missed 4 tests due to injury in the same series and then never got the opportunity to play there again.

As I said my friend - research. That's the go. It really helps to know what you are on about.

And the Pakistani wickets were absolute roads, to nullify Lillee. Rod Marsh bowled 10 overs there FFS,

 

[sherb]

Before he injured his back, Lillee was an amazing sight to see. Didn't have the smooth run up, he was all arms and legs and 100% effort, and he bowled very quickly indeed. I saw his debut at Adelaide Oval against the Poms where, on an unresponsive pitch, he galloped in and ended up taking 5 wickets. I think we all suspected we were seeing the debut of a future great fast bowler.

Then came the World XI, replacing banned South Africa in 1971-72. Lillee's 8/29 at Perth made the hair stand up on the back of the neck. 2/29 became 8/29 as he ran through the likes of Gavaskar, Engineer, Clive Lloyd, Greig, Sobers, Hutton, Intikhab and Cunis and rocked a powerful World XI out for 59. Then in the next match at the MCG, he blasted out Ackerman, Gavaskar and Graeme Pollock to have 3/2, then topped off a return of 5/48 with the wickets of Sobers and Engineer. How are those names for good measure? I laugh at a suggestion that there weren't too many great batsmen back in Lillee's day. He took 24 wickets in 4 matches that series @ 20.08 average.

Better was to come in the 1972 tour of England where he served notice with a 2nd Innings 6/66 in the 1st Test. In the 5 Tests, he peeled off 31 wickets @ 17.68 including 3 bags of 5, and a 10 in a match at The Oval. He was as much responsible for the resurgence of Australian cricket in that period as anyone. I remember Ray Illingworth saying that when Massie took 16 wickets at Lord's, the only reason Lillee didn't get a lot more was because they couldn't touch him as balls continue to whistle past the edges of their bats.

I've already spoken of his heroic deeds in the final Test of 1972-73 where he bowled a continuous spell of 23 eight ball overs and his 3 wickets setting up the foundation for Max Walker to run through the tail. Make no mistake, Lillee pre-back injury was an awesome sight to behold, so raw, so quick, and it was thrilling to watch.

To think a man could spend 2 years out of the game, come back with a completely re-modelled run up and action, and be as great as he was just boggles the mind.

Against a not too shabby Pakistan batting lineup, with a bad back.

Excellent write up AH. Thank you.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Against a not too shabby Pakistan batting lineup, with a bad back.

Excellent write up AH. Thank you.

Yes, there was some real talent in that Pakistan team: Sadiq Mohammad, Nasim-ul-Ghani, Zaheer Abbas, Majid Khan, Mushtaq Mohammad, Asif Iqbal, Intikhab Alam, Wasim Bari, Salim Altaf, Sarfraz Nawaz,Asif Masood.

 

[Andrew Mc]

As I said my friend - research. That's the go. It really helps to know what you are on about.

I thought I made it pretty clear that it wasn't particularly Lillee's fault he didn't play much away. Except maybe for the 2nd Pakistan tour - some say he didn't go because of his previous poor performance there, but I don't subscribe to that view (because he played with injury on roads - actually, roads is generous). It's just when splitting such superstars of the game (both a locks for me in an all time Aus Test XI), I'm going to go with someone who has performed everywhere over someone who hasn't, whether it's in their control or not. I'm not sure how hard that is to understand.