Who's better, Lillee or Hadlee?

[Prince EWS]

You've ceased to qualify as pure Aussie in cricket terms IMO.

I don't qualify as pure English in said terms either, BTW.

Dire.

 

[Richard]

I know. But all I was saying is that you could easily read into your post that national bias is the only reason for voting that way even though you didn't say it.

I think it'd take a fair crack of a fair few whips to read that. Beyond question, nationalistic bias will play a part for some. What I said was

I have to say, though, I foresee a pretty depressing case of almost all Aussies voting Lillee and almost all Kiwis voting Hadlee. It'll be more interesting to see who gets the votes from "neutrals".

however, and all this means is that Aussies will be inclined to think Lillee better, and Kiwis will be inclined to think Hadlee such.

Some might choose to interpret it as "you said all Aussies and Kiwis are biased" of course, if they wanted an excuse to make a fuss or an accusation. Frankly, though, I don't give a damn. I meant what I meant, and I said what I said. If someone were to interpret it as the aforementioned, they have read more into it than they should.

 

[Richard]

Dire.

Why? There's nothing wrong with having split allegiances, IMO. As I've said, several times, I do wonder from time to time whether I don't care more about South Africa's national team than England's.

You yourself have even said (or hinted at worst) as much as that you have more support for certain other teams than most.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think it'd take a fair crack of a fair few whips to read that. Beyond question, nationalistic bias will play a part for some. What I said was however, and all this means is that Aussies will be inclined to think Lillee better, and Kiwis will be inclined to think Hadlee such.

Some might choose to interpret it as "you said all Aussies and Kiwis are biased" of course, if they wanted an excuse to make a fuss or an accusation. Frankly, though, I don't give a damn. I meant what I meant, and I said what I said. If someone were to interpret it as the aforementioned, they have read more into it than they should.

Exactly, and the same is true of the fuss SS made over my post.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why? There's nothing wrong with having split allegiances, IMO. As I've said, several times, I do wonder from time to time whether I don't care more about South Africa's national team than England's.

You yourself have even said (or hinted at worst) as much as that you have more support for certain other teams than most.

I have no problem with you recognising my "split allegiances" as you called it - I just think it's dire that I don't count as anything. If I'd voted for Lillee instead, you wouldn't have counted me as a Kiwi either. It really doesn't matter though, I wasn't entirely serious when I said "Dire."

 

[Richard]

You count as Aussie-Zimbo-Kiwi for my money TBH. Not yet noticed supportive tendencies from you towards any other teams. Though time is young - and so, relatively, are you.

Similarly, I'd be very disappointed if anyone on CW who's read a large number of my posts thought me anything other than English-SAfrican. Though as I say - throughout my 7 years on cricket forums, I've been accused of both supporting and hating all teams, except Kenya in the "hating" camp, Zimbabwe in both respects and Bangladesh in the "supporting" camp.

 

[Engle]

Here's what Imran, who should know more about fast bowling than most, says about Lillee, first para on chapter " Best of the Rest " .

" As far as I am concerned, the sign of an outstanding player is his ability to perform well consistently under pressure. He must also be a complete team man.
The bowler who really stands out is Dennis Lillee.... "

And on Hadlee :
" The one-criticism I've heard of Hadlee is that he sometimes becomes defensive when a batsman attacks him. Instead of taking up the challenge, he tends to go into his shell and bowl defensively..... "

Lillee commanded fear and respect amongst all. He was able to perform well under the highest intensity cricket and was a complete team man. He never shied away from a challenge. He was aggresive and had leadership qualities.

Hadlee ? ....well, hardly.

 

[Richard]

I once heard almost the exact same be applied when comparing Lillee to Donald. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that anyone uses that to split bowlers, however true it may be, while ignoring other factors which I myself consider far more important. Similarly the fact that people say in the McGrath-Lillee comparison "I wonder how good McGrath would've been against a really good leaver like Geoff Boycott?" Sure, he might have been less effective, but there are other things I consider of more importance when looking to split bowlers.

And in any case, "going defensive" when a batsman attacks you - if you can pull it off, which not everyone can - is hardly a bad move.

 

[Richard]

Lillee commanded fear and respect amongst all. He was able to perform well under the highest intensity cricket and was a complete team man. He never shied away from a challenge. He was aggresive and had leadership qualities.

Hadlee ? ....well, hardly.

And there... honestly. To suggest Hadlee was unable to perform well under the highest intensity cricket and was anything other than a complete team man, or shied from a challenge... well, it's ridiculous TBH.

 

[Ikki]

And in any case, "going defensive" when a batsman attacks you - if you can pull it off, which not everyone can - is hardly a bad move.

But if you can stay aggressive and get said batsman out then that is an ever better move.

 

[Richard]

And if you stay aggressive and don't get them out, it's a considerably worse one.

 

[Ikki]

And if you stay aggressive and don't get them out, it's a considerably worse one.

Well, that's the point. He did, more often that not, get them out. Where I am sure, Hadlee may have been successful at times getting defensive and other times still hit around.

 

[Engle]

Hadlee got bucketloads of wkts when the ' big boyz ' were going at it hammer and tongs at WSC cricket plus the lack of competitors from his own camp.

Hadlee never made the kind of impact that Lillee did, amongst his peers or followers. Lillee was to fast bowling what Richards was to batting. People perked up and took notice. And talked and wrote. Trust me. I was there.

Hadlee was less of a team-man (He kept a prize car, against team policy). Also, he was a record-chaser. Something, the truly greats find beneath their aspirations.

 

[Richard]

Well, that's the point. He did, more often that not, get them out. Where I am sure, Hadlee may have been successful at times getting defensive and other times still hit around.

I'm sure Hadlee will have been successful going defensive, and also not so. I'm also sure Lillee will have been successful continuing to think attack, and also not so.

Unless you can find some data cataloguing the exact number of times batsmen went for each bowler (remembering this can never be exact) and what happened I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss it as fair conjecture and rely on more reliable factors when assessing them.

 

[Richard]

Hadlee got bucketloads of wkts when the ' big boyz ' were going at it hammer and tongs at WSC cricket plus the lack of competitors from his own camp.

Hadlee never made the kind of impact that Lillee did, amongst his peers or followers. Lillee was to fast bowling what Richards was to batting. People perked up and took notice. And talked and wrote. Trust me. I was there.

I'm well aware they did - that much is and always has been obvious. However, charisma and public-appeal quality is not really important in assessing who did the job of bowling best. It is hugely important when assessing who did most for the game of cricket, but that's not the question at hand.

Hadlee was less of a team-man (He kept a prize car, against team policy). Also, he was a record-chaser. Something, the truly greats find beneath their aspirations.

No, they don't. There's nothing wrong with being a record-chaser, as long as you don't put that before the team (and opportunities to do such a thing are exceptionally rare - in almost all circumstances, more so than ever as a bowler, the needs of the team and individual go hand-in-hand).

I'm not really sure why keeping a car would be against team policy, however.

 

[silentstriker]

What completely irrelevant pretentious mumbo jumbo. Not to mention a misrepresentation.

If anything was a misrepresentation - and far more insulting to the voters - it was the original suggestion that almost all Aussies will vote for Lillee and almost all Kiwis will vote for Hadlee.

That's fine, but that's not what I was replying about. I replied to your statement that "ill-informed statsguru generation's argument will be that because Lillee never bowled in India, so he can't possibly be superior to bowlers who did." You could argue against the suggestion that people tend to be biased towards players from their own country, without resorting to misrepresenting arguments of others.

In any case, I didn't mean to create a fuss - I was just pointing out that you were wrong as to your reasons of why people think Lillee might be lower.

 

[Ikki]

I'm sure Hadlee will have been successful going defensive, and also not so. I'm also sure Lillee will have been successful continuing to think attack, and also not so.

Unless you can find some data cataloguing the exact number of times batsmen went for each bowler (remembering this can never be exact) and what happened I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss it as fair conjecture and rely on more reliable factors when assessing them.

LOL, so merely observing them over years accounts to nothing more than conjecture. And what makes you think anyone cares whether you agree or disagree?

 

[Richard]

LOL, so merely observing them over years accounts to nothing more than conjecture.

Yes, it does. Especially in something that can never be assessed accurately like that.

And what makes you think anyone cares whether you agree or disagree?

I know beyond doubt that some people care. You don't, of course, but you're not everyone.

 

[Prince EWS]

And what makes you think anyone cares whether you agree or disagree?

And what makes you think anyone cares whether anyone cares whether he agrees or disagrees?

This is a forum - people are going to give their opinion. Feel free to argue it and present your own case because that's what it's for, but the "no-one cares what you think" line could be applied to 90% of the posts here - be they yours, Richard's or mine - so it's quite a silly thing to bring up.

 

[Ikki]

And what makes you think anyone cares whether anyone cares whether he agrees or disagrees?

This is a forum - people are going to give their opinion. Feel free to argue it and present your own case because that's what it's for, but the "no-one cares what you think" line could be applied to 90% of the posts here - be they yours, Richard's or mine - so it's quite a silly thing to bring up.

Mr. Ethics, thanks for showing up.

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with people having an opinion. It's the opposite with some. They're trying to shove their 'opinion' down every body else's throat. E.g. I don't CARE about first-chance averages, so I don't want to have the obligatory rebuttal by Richard that they should count and because he thinks they should he will post and post and post as if he is stating a fact. To which I say...no one really cares that much if you agree or disagree. Say your piece, if someone questions you on it by all means engage and argue. But don't instigate something by replying to them "But I don't agree with that and so I won't regard that" everytime a point comes up, as if the forum is for Richard's pleasure only and needs his approval.