NIIIICEEE GARRRYY.. Ehh maybe not that nice, did we just watch Lyon's last test?

[Gethelred]

I don't get any of this.

He's had what, 5 LBW's that have not been given this series, coupled with 2-3 dropped catches? He bowled us to victory at a ground that has been our graveyard since 2001. He missed the runout from a poor throw - that, frankly, he should still have been able to gather and knock the stumps down - but was the only bowler who looked like getting Stokes out when the bloke was flying. And, he did get him out, the umpire was too gutless to make the decision. How many of those turned down LBW's in this series have been at Joel Wilson's end?

Why people are insisting that he's not all that and a bag of chips is a bit beyond me. Why people are blaming him for the lost test - when Cummins, Paine, Harris and Wilson should shoulder a portion, Wilson and Cummins most of all - or choking smacks of needing someone to blame instead of looking at the trajectory of the match and how the bare minimum of errors made a historic win imaginable.

He's not Warne. He's not even Herath. He's pretty good, though. Why do people constantly wish players were different than they are?

 

[Marklar_33]

But of bowlers with 350+ wickets he’s definitely at the bottom end

Muralidaran
Warne
Kumble
Anderson
McGrath
Walsh
Broad
Steyn
Kapil Dev
Herath
Hadlee
Pollock
Harbhajan
Wasim
Ambrose
Ntini
Botham
Marshall
Waqar
Imran
Vettori
Ashwin
Lillie
Vaas

Oh no, not the bottom end of that group, dear God no

 

[worbod]

Muralidaran
Warne
Kumble
Anderson
McGrath
Walsh
Broad
Steyn
Kapil Dev
Herath
Hadlee
Pollock
Harbhajan
Wasim
Ambrose
Ntini
Botham
Marshall
Waqar
Imran
Vettori
Ashwin
Lillie
Vaas

Oh no, not the bottom end of that group, dear God no

Could you please explain your intention in quoting this? And how can you spell Harbhajan and Muralidaran correctly but misspell Lillee?

 

[Marklar_33]

Could you please explain your intention in quoting this? And how can you spell Harbhajan and Muralidaran correctly but misspell Lillee?

To be an arse

Because autocorrect gives up with long names but reeks havoc on shorter names

 

[DaRick]

Since this thread was made, he's taken more than 170 wickets at under 29, which would make any off-spinner proud.

 

[frankrizzo]

Still think he can play another five years, offies tend to age well and he basically never misses game due to injury so hopefully it's 400+ in Bangladesh and then 500+ before he calls it a day.

 

[Ducky Tie]

I think 600 is a real possibility. If he manages five years at 40 wickets a year, he should get in the ball park.

 

[philreich]

He's OK, but he's no Mitchell Santner .

 

[Caesar]

Since this thread was made, he's taken more than 170 wickets at under 29, which would make any off-spinner proud.

It’s very good, but I do sometimes wonder how someone like Hauritz would have ended up if he’d received as much support as Lyon has over the years.

We went through a lot of spinners before the selectors committed to supporting one of them long-term.

 

[DaRick]

It’s very good, but I do sometimes wonder how someone like Hauritz would have ended up if he’d received as much support as Lyon has over the years.

We went through a lot of spinners before the selectors committed to supporting one of them long-term.

I've always felt that Hauritz was treated terribly, but at heart he was a holding bowler who only really took wickets when the batsmen went after him.

Even early doors, Lyon obtained more bounce and spin and had more attacking instincts in general while approximating (albeit not quite reaching) Hauritz's accuracy.

The difference is that Lyon varies his angle of attack more than he used to (too often he seemed to use the around-the-wicket angle as a safety blanket, or bowl too straight) and doesn't rely on overspin so much. It's made him a more dangerous bowler all-round.

The only blemish is that typically he's less dangerous against right-handers than left-handers, like most offspinners. He's struggled against PAK and SA because neither lineup has that many left-handers. In fact, against PAK he rarely got to bowl against their left-handers because our paceman usually dismissed them early on.

 

[cricketnut14]

has now played 96 of a possible 100 tests and has been durable.

390 test wickets and just turned 32.

we have 30 tests pencilled in until end of 2022, in which he will have just turned 35.

no reason he can't keep playing for 3 years as no spinner is applying pressure to take his spot.

if he plays most of or all of those tests he will have 500 test wickets.

 

[Pistol Night]

 

[Caesar]

I've always felt that Hauritz was treated terribly, but at heart he was a holding bowler who only really took wickets when the batsmen went after him.

Personally I feel like Lyon was no better a bowler than Hauritz for his first 50-odd tests.

TBH he is pretty lucky that the selectors held such a strong dislike of Steve O'Keefe for most of that time.

 

[Ducky Tie]

I've always considered Swann in a slightly superior bracket to Lyon but I think Lyon has passed him now. Only 1.5 separating them on averages and Lyon's longevity easily balances that out. Swann toured South Africa against their great line up better but had a shocking time of it in Australia which certainly hurts his reputation. Lyon has done pretty well in England which helps him. Swann was superb at home but considering how much spinners struggle in Australia, Lyon's home record is very good.

 

[Pykie]

I can’t think of a more successful spinner without any variations in his deliveries.

He’d statistically be even better if he ever managed to develop a genuine mystery ball or variation.

Just shows how good his seam position is and how much bounce and top spin he puts on the ball in comparison to most offies historically, to be this successful.

Especially based in Australia.

 

[DaRick]

Personally I feel like Lyon was no better a bowler than Hauritz for his first 50-odd tests.

Superficially Lyon was a bit more effective, but it's hard to judge because Hauritz had a limited sample size and took many of his wickets when batsmen went after him. That wasn't always the case for Lyon.

TBH he is pretty lucky that the selectors held such a strong dislike of Steve O'Keefe for most of that time.

That I agree with, although O'Keefe was more a left-arm Hauritz in style (holding bowler, though more accurate) than a Lyon.

I've always considered Swann in a slightly superior bracket to Lyon but I think Lyon has passed him now. Only 1.5 separating them on averages and Lyon's longevity easily balances that out. Swann toured South Africa against their great line up better but had a shocking time of it in Australia which certainly hurts his reputation. Lyon has done pretty well in England which helps him. Swann was superb at home but considering how much spinners struggle in Australia, Lyon's home record is very good.

Swann was terrific on turners (which he received a lot of at home), but merely serviceable otherwise.

 

[Mockcockpit]

Swann was also a downhill skiing flog who bottled it at the earliest possible chance.

 

[Caesar]

Swann was also a downhill skiing flog who bottled it at the earliest possible chance.

That's pretty rough. His elbow problems were huge. He had 15-odd bone fragments removed from his elbow a few months earlier, in addition to the 30-odd that were taken out a couple of years before. Coming back from those kinds of injuries is anything but downhill skiing.

Going out mid-Ashes was a shock, but if you remember that series his bowling was clearly being affected by his physical limitations. Most people were expecting him to be dropped for Boxing Day anyway. Even if he hadn't been, at 3-0 I can understand him not wanting to further damage his body to bowl pies in a couple of dead rubbers.

 

[Mockcockpit]

He of course has to share the flog of the century award with his mate Prior who unconcidentally also badly pulled a heart muscle in that series

 

[eddiesmith]

Never been a big fan, always thought he was a bit lucky playing behind a quality pace attack.

But having met the bloke and him being such an awesome guy, I just might become a fan! He was at a cricket game today and actually wandered over to where people were having a hit in the nets and picked up the ball to bowl a few, so awesome! Plus he probably took a photo with every person in attendance throughout the day!

 

[Pippen94]

Superficially Lyon was a bit more effective, but it's hard to judge because Hauritz had a limited sample size and took many of his wickets when batsmen went after him. That wasn't always the case for Lyon.



That I agree with, although O'Keefe was more a left-arm Hauritz in style (holding bowler, though more accurate) than a Lyon.



Swann was terrific on turners (which he received a lot of at home), but merely serviceable otherwise.

O'Keefe is most accurate spinner I've seen play for Australia. Hauritz bowled with less overspin than Lyon who catches batsmen between playing back & forward

 

[STFU Donnie]

Could you please explain your intention in quoting this? And how can you spell Harbhajan and Muralidaran correctly but misspell Lillee?

Maybe he didn't. Perhaps he was referring to Dennis Lillie?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Lillie

 

[STFU Donnie]

Since this thread was made, he's taken more than 170 wickets at under 29, which would make any off-spinner proud.

This thread has a vibe about it...

 

[revo333]

I've always felt that Hauritz was treated terribly, but at heart he was a holding bowler who only really took wickets when the batsmen went after him.

It made no sense, They gave him enough chances and then when he finally started showing something he was gone.

 

[ROOTA#6]

It made no sense, They gave him enough chances and then when he finally started showing something he was gone.

Didn’t he get injured just as he was getting going and that was it..never got an opportunity