Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 222

Thread: Lillie VS Hadlee

  1. #151
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Scallywag
    The great WI pace bowlers hardly get a mention which is a bit suprising.
    Well, they do. You find Marshall, Ambrose and Holding.

    What you must remember, though, is that this poll was not to vote for the greatest bowlers but the five greatest cricketers of all time. The fact that so many bowlers and, particularly fast bowlers, were voted as the greatest cricketers of all time is very refreshing in a game supposed to be obsessed with batsmen !

  2. #152
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    PLUS, just because there is this list, doesnt mean every one agrees with it. You dont have to. Thats fine. All of us may differ from it in some respect or the other.

    An interesting point on this list. The only cricketer for whom all 100 voted was Bradman. That we will say is understandable. Now Sobers was next with 95 votes. Clearly 95 % people felt he was one of the five greatest cricketers of all time but its important to note that 5% DID NOT THINK SO !!

    So there is no problem in people disagreeing.

    One other worthy has used my putting up this list to try and score points against me. All I can say is, "Go ahead" I have no problem as my signature says it all.

    When I put up stats, I always do it with a caveat, said or not, that these are just stats and they just make a small point nothing more nothing less.

    I did not put up the list to show anything except the fact that even an assembly of cricketers and writers (calling them biased and ourselves objective by inference is not even worth commenting on) is split on who is greater. Between Hadlee and Lillee it is
    Lillee 19
    Hadlee 13
    AND 68 NEITHER !!


    They are both considered by the fraternity as two of the greatest bowlers/cricketers and thats enough for me even though not for others. Between them who is greater can be debated till the cows come home. My only points are

    1. This debate can not use the difference in bowling averages as the conclusive criteria.
    2. Nor can it use one bowler's performance in a small number of matches in a country.

    I may have voted for Barnes, for example, but so what. Everyone doesnt think so and thats all there is to it. Barnes is still voted one of the greatest cricketers in an assembly of the great batsmen, all rounders AND bowlers of all time.

    It doesnt do any harm to Barnes is reputaion that against his 11 votes, all rounders Hadlee and Imran have 16, bowler Lillee has 19 when you realise that great bowlers like Marshall and Wasim (and they could bat too) have 3 votes each and Ambrose, Holding and Donald 1 each.

    This is not a definitive, decisive, conclusive ranking of the greatest cricketers of all time but it does put their worth in some sort of perspective and we should respect that.

  3. #153
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,731
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Ironic SJS.
    Okay. So lets go by opinions.
    Accoding to Gavaskar and Miandad, Lillee was a whole lotta hot air and was not in the same class as Roberts,Holding,Garner,Marshall and Imran.

    Ok! point taken ! argument done!
    The same Gavaskar that Lillee absolutely dominated?

    The same Miandad that averaged 18.5 vs Lillee?
    Last edited by social; 18-01-2005 at 11:23 PM.

  4. #154
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Quote Originally Posted by social
    The same Gavaskar that Lillee absolutely dominated?

    The same Miandad that averaged 18.5 vs Lillee?
    The very same


  5. #155
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,731
    Quote Originally Posted by a massive zebra
    That is irrelevant. Opinions are pure subjective conjecture. Stats are objective facts.
    Not necessarily so.

    In a team sport such as cricket, stats can distort reality.

    Lillee played one test in the WI and returned figures of 0 - 133. Therefore, he he couldnt bowl in WI conditions. Not so, he had stress fractures in the spine at the time, bowled medium pace and did not play again for 2 years.

    Gilchrist averages more dismissals per match than Alan Knott. Therefore, he is the better wk. Not so.

    Kapil Dev averaged nearly 30 with ball in Test Cricket. Therefore, he was not a great bowler. Not so.

    And so on.

  6. #156
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Zinzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cover point
    Posts
    25,958
    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Not necessarily so.

    In a team sport such as cricket, stats can distort reality.

    Lillee played one test in the WI and returned figures of 0 - 133. Therefore, he he couldnt bowl in WI conditions. Not so, he had stress fractures in the spine at the time, bowled medium pace and did not play again for 2 years.

    Gilchrist averages more dismissals per match than Alan Knott. Therefore, he is the better wk. Not so.

    Kapil Dev averaged nearly 30 with ball in Test Cricket. Therefore, he was not a great bowler. Not so.

    And so on.
    Very True in some cases....However the unfortunately reality for the above cricketers is that history usually judge them on their stats

  7. #157
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    The same Gavaskar that Lillee absolutely dominated?

    The same Miandad that averaged 18.5 vs Lillee?
    Well if Viv Richards who absolutely dominated Lillee can say he is one of the best he's ever faced, then why cant the reverse be true ?

    Besides, Gavaskar had more trouble with Pascoe than Lillee and they squared off in only 3 matches, with lilee claiming him twice in 6 innings and Pascoe thrice.

    As per your statistic of miandad's 'average' against Lillee, i dont think most people understand that particular statistic and misquote it too often.

    All the 'average against bowler' stat means is what is the average score you were dismissed on.
    Ie, if you put up 400*, 300*, 10, 6 and 150*, your average against me is 8.00
    If someone else puts up 35,25,50,10,90,0, 0, his average is 30.00

  8. #158
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    In a team sport such as cricket, stats can distort reality.
    stats can distort reality in sports like Soccer, Baseball,Ice Hockey etc. However, cricket's statistics are very concise and extensive. I think a deep inspection of statistics is FAR more valid than the opinions of so-n-so.

    I dont care if bradman and 20 other alltime greats say you are the greatest player of pace bowling but if you average 25.00 against the WI four prong and some other dude averages 55.00, he is better. End of story.

  9. #159
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,731
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Well if Viv Richards who absolutely dominated Lillee can say he is one of the best he's ever faced, then why cant the reverse be true ?

    Besides, Gavaskar had more trouble with Pascoe than Lillee and they squared off in only 3 matches, with lilee claiming him twice in 6 innings and Pascoe thrice.

    As per your statistic of miandad's 'average' against Lillee, i dont think most people understand that particular statistic and misquote it too often.

    All the 'average against bowler' stat means is what is the average score you were dismissed on.
    Ie, if you put up 400*, 300*, 10, 6 and 150*, your average against me is 8.00
    If someone else puts up 35,25,50,10,90,0, 0, his average is 30.00
    I apologise if I have misinterpreted that particular statistic.

    However, it does not change a thing.

    The fact remains that for Gavaskar and Miandad to be disparaging in their assessment of Lillee contradicts the reality of their performances against him.

    BTW:

    1. Richards did not absolutely dominate Lillee. He finished ahead on points but Lille had his share of victories; and

    2. Whether or not Lille took his wicket, the mental damage was done to Gavaskar by him.

  10. #160
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,731
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    stats can distort reality in sports like Soccer, Baseball,Ice Hockey etc. However, cricket's statistics are very concise and extensive. I think a deep inspection of statistics is FAR more valid than the opinions of so-n-so.

    I dont care if bradman and 20 other alltime greats say you are the greatest player of pace bowling but if you average 25.00 against the WI four prong and some other dude averages 55.00, he is better. End of story.
    And if the reality is that your scores are all made on green-tops out of totals of 100 whilst the other person's are made on "roads" out of average totals of 600, into which garbage can will you consign your stats then

  11. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,912
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Well if Viv Richards who absolutely dominated Lillee can say he is one of the best he's ever faced, then why cant the reverse be true ?

    Richards only averaged 41 against Australia.

  12. #162
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    stats can distort reality in sports like Soccer, Baseball,Ice Hockey etc. However, cricket's statistics are very concise and extensive. I think a deep inspection of statistics is FAR more valid than the opinions of so-n-so.
    Actually, baseball has to be the most stats-intensive sport I've personally ever encountered. Way more so than cricket. The stats in cricket are more meaningful (in my opinion) but there are numbers for just about everything in baseball.

    Stats aren't everything in rating players, people. For example, would anyone honestly rate Mark Waugh as merely an average Test cricketer despite an average of around 'only' 41? I mean, if the numbers are to be believed, Boonie, Mark Taylor, Justin Langer, etc. are superior players. Anyone who's watched Mark Waugh bat would know that's not the case. Yes the others had superior performances but Mark Waugh was a super-naturally gifted underachiever at the end of the day.

    And let's face it, Mustaq Ahmed's career performances rank not in the same universe as Warnie but as far as natural talent goes, who would dare say Mushie wasn't at least AS talented as Warnie? Some would in fact say he was more talented. But his performances in no way match Warne's. I guess it depends on what your priorities as far as measurement of a player goes are.

  13. #163
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by social
    The same Gavaskar that Lillee absolutely dominated?
    How did you get to that conclusion ?
    Millhouse: you know when your dog ate my goldfish bart and you told me i never had a goldfish, then why did i have the bowl bart! why did i have the bowl!!!!
    Karthik_moo@hotmail.com
    Member of the MSC and the AAAS
    Wanna Search ?
    Waughney : We are well taken care of here at the Rehab centre.

  14. #164
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Richards only averaged 41 against Australia.
    Care to post Richard's stats against AUS ? I can garantee you its NOT 41.


    The fact remains that for Gavaskar and Miandad to be disparaging in their assessment of Lillee contradicts the reality of their performances against him.

    Gavaskar's performance against Lillee is definately not great but it was not bad either. As for Miandad,he certainly didnt do too bad against Lillee. Besides, we are talkin opinions here, arnt we ? Well going by opinions, Lillee is a pile of rubbish bowler according to Gavaskar and Miandad...and they are certainly more qualified to talk about it than us, so we shouldnt doubt that( this is employing the ridiculous reasoning employed by the anti-stat brigade here).

    '
    1. Richards did not absolutely dominate Lillee. He finished ahead on points but Lille had his share of victories;
    Well if you include the World series cricket confrontations, Richards definately had the upper hand on Lillee.

    2. Whether or not Lille took his wicket, the mental damage was done to Gavaskar by him.
    a highly speculative statement.
    3 matches in his career vs IND that too when he played near the end of gavaskar's career and dismissed him twice outta six innings(his partner pascoe had more success) makes it a tall claim.
    Especially since Gavaskar handled the four prong without too much trouble...Lillee is one man, four prong were almost four of him.


    And if the reality is that your scores are all made on green-tops out of totals of 100 whilst the other person's are made on "roads" out of average totals of 600, into which garbage can will you consign your stats then
    you clearly twist my example here.
    My point was to illustrate that it is irrelevant to what so-n-so hotshot ex great thinks. Whats relevant is what the FACTS are.

  15. #165
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990

    Stats aren't everything in rating players, people. For example, would anyone honestly rate Mark Waugh as merely an average Test cricketer despite an average of around 'only' 41? I mean, if the numbers are to be believed, Boonie, Mark Taylor, Justin Langer, etc. are superior players. Anyone who's watched Mark Waugh bat would know that's not the case. Yes the others had superior performances but Mark Waugh was a super-naturally gifted underachiever at the end of the day.
    as far as tests go, Mark Waugh was an average test cricketer.
    I agree he was more talented and far attractive to watch than Boonie, Taylor and Langer but end of the day he underachieved and what matters is your achievements. Not what you could've might've should've achieved but what you DID achieve.
    As per your previous post T_C, i will answer it later

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Top 10 prospects in each country
    By chris.hinton in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 10-01-2005, 07:08 AM
  2. left hand XI vs right hand XI
    By tooextracool in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 09-06-2004, 05:03 AM
  3. Style!!
    By iamdavid in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 16-12-2003, 01:31 AM
  4. Fastest To Multiples Of 100 Wickets
    By Bazza in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-08-2003, 05:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •