Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 127

Thread: Is Imran one of the 10 best bowlers ever?

  1. #106
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    PS: I've seen highlights of that spell by Lillee - and i've seen Richards facing a rampant Akram- if there was a pacer who gave Richards trouble consistently, it was Akram. Not Lillee - Lillee had the ability to turn in some of the best performances in pace bowling but he lacked the consistency ( which i rate far higher than the occasional 8-30 figure followed by 2-80 off 20) the abovementioned bowlers did.
    Highlight do not give a good idea...with a spell of good bowling it is often the ball where nothing happens (and so arent on any highlights package) that are the indicators of what is great bowling.

    By the way, when Richards played against Akram, Richards was way passed his best...and anyway, Richards hardly faced much bowling against Akram...I would hardly say that Akram CONSISTANTLY troubled Richards, based on the FACT (gleaned from the score cards by the way..see we can all do that) Akram played against Richard 4 times I think, and in a couple of those he hardly bowled anyway (or Richards was out without facing Akram)

    How anyone can imply Lillee wasnt consistant anyway is beyond me
    rave down, hit the ground


    MSN: djjacksono@hotmail.com

  2. #107
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    How anyone can imply Lillee wasnt consistant anyway is beyond me
    Go through the scorecards - he did brilliantly a few times and got absolutely annihilated a few times - much more often than the likes of Marshall,Imran,McGrath,Ambrose,etc.

    well I think there are plenty of wickets around the world that give something to good bowling these days.
    For the first session or two, then everything is pear shaped. That is true for atleast 50-60% of wickets in England/OZ today. That was true for maybe 10-15% wickets 20-30 years ago.
    It is widely acknowledged that the pitches were the fastest in England/Oz/WI/NZ around the 70s and 80s.


    OK..care to name a bowler who hasnt been gotten hold of at sometime...you tell me about any of those that you know for a fact that he was ripped apart by the batting team simply because he was bowling crap
    Lillee in fact rarely bowled without success
    Fact is, lillee got ripped apart quite more often than Imran/Marshall/Hadlee/Ambrose/McGrath etc.

    You are just generalising and assuming that the only flat wickets Lillee play on were in the sub continent...Bradman proved himself in India, so what????...Viv Richards scored one hundred in 9 tests on the batting paradises of Pakistan..what does it prove, was King Viv unproven on those types of wickets...Tendulkar never really did well in Zimbabwe, does that straight away mean that he shouldnt be classed as an all time great?
    Now that is reaching.
    Bradman's performance in England and OZ are so far ahead of the rest that his lack of being tested in other venues can be forgotten....Lillee's figures in England and OZ were excellent but not a quantum leap ahead of any other pacer around.
    As such, just as the averages of a bowler rises when they play on unresponsive pitches or against the best teams in their backyard, so too would most likely have been Lillee's fate.
    He didnt play in the backyard of the WI. He didnt play in the subcontinent.
    Played pretty much his entire career on wickets tailormade for him. And others such as Imran,Hadlee, Marshall, etc. who faced allcommers and absolute dead wickets have better performance than Lillee.
    That in itself rules Lillee out for the 'best of the best'.

    You make it sound as though Lillee decided to pad out his figures by not touring the subcontinent...it really wasnt like that though, there were work/business commitments etc that many players had to cope with, Lillee himself had back problems, and later on, knee problems, a sub continent tour isnt the best thing to do with those types of conditions etc etc.
    Right. So everytime in a 13-14 year career it came to playing in the subcontinent or in the caribbean, Lillee's back went kaput.....


    yeah well its how YOU interpret the facts...without actually seeing how most of those players actually played. Just becuase you interpret those fact in a certain way, doesnt actually mean you have interpreted them correctly
    And you have ? Based on some opinion of so-n-so, where opinions are dime-a-dozen and asking 10 batsmen about who the greatest fast bowler they faced fetches 10 different responsees ?
    Please- stats dont tell the whole story but they tell the bottomline.
    And bottomline is, Lillee has a zero for performance against the best in their backyard, a zero for performance on absolute unresponsive wickets, etc.
    Thats too many 'zeros' in places where others have high marks. Lillee does not add up on performance.
    Throw in the machismo and the 'idol' factor for Lillee in many a fast bowler and its quite evident how his worth gets bloated outta proportions.

    There are others who've achieved significantly more than Lillee has and as such, must be considered ahead of Lillee.

    I dont care how good a spell was or wasnt- if a mediocre spell fetches a wicket and a brilliant spell fails to take a wicket, the mediocre spell was more sucessful. Simple as that.
    Objective of the game = take 20 wickets for less runs than opposition concedes.

    Inorder to be in contention for 'greatest', you need to have atleast peerless performance. Lillee's resume has too many holes compared to the ones who are in contention for 'greatest'.

    He IMO is an alltime great but he is also a rung below the 'top 10 or so'- alongside Roberts, Donald, Pollock,etc.
    or at the very least, outside the top 5.

    For regardless of opinion, bowlers such as Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath,Hadlee and Imran have achieved more than Lillee has.

  3. #108
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Go through the scorecards - he did brilliantly a few times and got absolutely annihilated a few times - much more often than the likes of Marshall,Imran,McGrath,Ambrose,etc.


    when exactly did Lillee get anihilated????? tell me of these times


    Hadlee had probably just as many times where his figures werent too hot...and just to tell you of one time when Hadlee actually had reasonable figures and yet I can tell you he was absolutely smacked out of the attack was here....thanks to Botham and Randall

    http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/19...29AUG1983.html

    and beleive it or not, there were also times Marshall took a bit of hammer, and Ambrose and Imran (Imran especially before 1982, which actually takes up 11 years of his career)

  4. #109
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C


    Right. So everytime in a 13-14 year career it came to playing in the subcontinent or in the caribbean, Lillee's back went kaput.....



    How many times did Australia tour the subcontinent whilst Lillee played????

    Well in case you didnt know, the answer is 4

    1979 in India= Think the Australians were still in the WSC stage, and so Lillee couldnt play
    1980 in Pakistan= The series you seem to be judging Lillees career on
    1982 in Pakistan= Lillee didnt tour because he was injured
    1983 in Sri lanka = in the only test, Lillee didnt do too bad, considering he was still suffering with his knee

    so in fact, he never really got the opportunity did he


  5. #110
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    so in fact, he never really got the opportunity did he
    Irrelevant. Lack of opportunities dont grant you a waiver. The fact remains that the greatest bowler would have to have achived the most - Lillee's achievements are not of the highest echelon.
    As per getting hammered, check out who has the higher % of innings with over 3/4 rpo in tests.

  6. #111
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Irrelevant. Lack of opportunities dont grant you a waiver. The fact remains that the greatest bowler would have to have achived the most - Lillee's achievements are not of the highest echelon.
    As per getting hammered, check out who has the higher % of innings with over 3/4 rpo in tests.
    do your rpo figures take into account that Australia had 8 ball overs for quite a lot of his career!!!

    not that that really means much any way

  7. #112
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    do your rpo figures take into account that Australia had 8 ball overs for quite a lot of his career!!!

    not that that really means much any way
    Yes it does.

  8. #113
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Yes it does.

    tell me how????

    Do they show how different players in different teams play different roles in different situations...do they show the distribution of where in an innings the runs at the higher rate were scored...I dont think that statistic really means anything to be honest

  9. #114
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy
    tell me how????

    Do they show how different players in different teams play different roles in different situations...do they show the distribution of where in an innings the runs at the higher rate were scored...I dont think that statistic really means anything to be honest
    If you have 20-0-120-1 and i have 15-5-33-1, plain and simple fact is, you were clobbered and i wasnt. What you say above is irrelevant really.
    rpo. in an innings shows how much did you get tonked around.

    I am willing to take statistics over opinions any day of the week. For afterall, it is 'opinion' that nominates a bowler who doesnt have a stellar record against the top opposition of his time, didnt play in the top opposition's backyard, didnt play/ performed poorly in limited appearances on lifeless wickets, etc. as 'the greatest' over players who do not have any such holes in their resume.... and unlike bradman ( who is brought in here by a few), Lillee doesnt have the sheer weight of numbers to render these considerations invalid. If Lillee had bradmansque bowling figures ( what they are i really dont know - for eg, 7 wicket/match @ 10-15 average) then i might be willing to overlook such holes in his resume.
    However, if anything, his performance is still below the ones who i've mentioned.

    PS: My 'yes it does' comment was in response to whether i've taken 8-ball overs into consideration or not.

  10. #115
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,734
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Irrelevant. Lack of opportunities dont grant you a waiver.
    So my point about Bradman is valid then.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  11. #116
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,470
    Kindly, name 5 innings where Lillee was "ripped apart" during his entire career.

  12. #117
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    You seriously think that Lillee never got decimated ? Almost every bowler has been shredded a few times.


    Does 21-4-91-0 ( 6 ball overs) sound 'shredded' enough for you ?

  13. #118
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    This amazes me, Lillee hardly played any cricket in the sub-con.

    Name just one contemproary of Lillee who did not think him the greatest of all fast bowlers?

    and that includes both Hadlee and Marshall who rated him the greatest fast bowler they ever watched.

    Ian Chappell also tells the story of how Lillee always bowled for wickets, and would be come quite upset with Chappell if he tried to set a defensive field.

    When you have a look at his ODI career you will see just how tight a bowler he could be.

    I have watched all of the great fast bowlers from the 70s until today and still think him the complete fast bowler, his only weakness was a lack of a yorker. I also would think he would have one of the best strike rates for dismissing top order batsman
    You know it makes sense.

  14. #119
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,264
    Someone wanted to know the proportion of top order in a bowlers figures. Here they are in percentage of career wickets.

    Bowler....Top and middle order
    Marshall......73.6
    Lillee...........72.7
    Holding........72.3
    Imran...........71.3
    Waqar.........70.8
    Hadlee........70.1
    Croft............69.4
    Roberts.......67.9
    Garner.........66.4
    Wasim.........65.0

    Bowler....Top order
    Hadlee........36.7
    Lillee...........36.1
    Imran..........35.4
    Waqar.........35.4
    Croft............34.7
    Holding........33.3
    Marshall.......33.2
    Roberts........33.2
    Garner.........32.8
    Wasim.........31.9

  15. #120
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    Someone wanted to know the proportion of top order in a bowlers figures. Here they are in percentage of career wickets.

    Bowler....Top and middle order
    Marshall......73.6
    Lillee...........72.7
    Holding........72.3
    Imran...........71.3
    Waqar.........70.8
    Hadlee........70.1
    Croft............69.4
    Roberts.......67.9
    Garner.........66.4
    Wasim.........65.0

    Bowler....Top order
    Hadlee........36.7
    Lillee...........36.1
    Imran..........35.4
    Waqar.........35.4
    Croft............34.7
    Holding........33.3
    Marshall.......33.2
    Roberts........33.2
    Garner.........32.8
    Wasim.........31.9
    Thanks for that SJS a great list of fast bowlers there. No McGrath?

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Sim a match
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: 31-12-2006, 03:03 PM
  2. Why subcontinental bowlers get picked for chucking
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 16-05-2005, 01:27 PM
  3. Harbhajan's Chucking row - more BS
    By JustTool in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 08-12-2004, 12:40 PM
  4. best bowlers
    By Hit4Six in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 26-08-2004, 09:35 PM
  5. Young new ball bowlers
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-04-2004, 08:57 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
  •