Originally Posted by Cricketismylife
Ye I mentioned the Hadlee Lillee thing sometime before on this forum. It seems hard to rate Hadlee over Lillee, Hadlee has the better stats and a better rounded career (plus he can bat) However it's 2 main things which have Lillee over Hadlee and neither have anything to do with who was the better bowler
1) Hadlee played for a small country like NZ who play series that most consider irrelevant, while Lillee played in the Ashes and Australia were always a big team. Hence it's a lot easier for people to remember Lillee's performances and for Lillee to become a "big match player". It's much easier to become a big match player in a 5 test Ashes series than in a minor New Zealand series which hardly anyone is properly following. This concept applies to Warne and Murali also.
2) Lillee was the more aggressive personality and showman than Hadlee which made him more entertaining to watch, and as humans we are naturally more biased to rate the more entertaining player as being the better player even when it's not the case.
There is so so much wrong with the arguments in that po. I need more time than I have to fully respond.