• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Joel Garner vs. Dennis Lillee (Tests only)

Who was better?


  • Total voters
    101

Teja.

Global Moderator
Both Top, ATG Fast bowlers,

Dennis Lillee
M-70
W-355
Avg-23.9
Econ.-2.75
SR-52
10w-7
BBM-11/123

Joel Garner
M-58
w-259
Avg.-20.9
Econ.-2.47
SR-50.8
10w-0
BBM-9/108
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Voting with my patriotism hat on. DKL deserves to be considered in the top two quicks in Australia's history. Garner is in the top 4 West Indian quicks. Very even contest IMO.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Voting with my patriotism hat on. DKL deserves to be considered in the top two quicks in Australia's history. Garner is in the top 4 West Indian quicks. Very even contest IMO.
West Indian quicks > Australian quicks tbh
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
West Indian quicks > Australian quicks tbh
DWTA. The reason they seem better is that the great WI quicks all came at once - Hall, Roberts, Garner, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose and finally Walsh. All of these came within (mostly) a 30 year timeframe. Australia's quicks have come one at a time for a century - Spofforth, Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Lillee, Reid and McGrath are for the most part just as good as their WI counterparts but have come over a longer period of time.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Garner but had Lilee not lost out on precious peak years due to World Series Cricket, he'd end up with much more wickets which would've tilted it in his favor.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Garner but had Lilee not lost out on precious peak years due to World Series Cricket, he'd end up with much more wickets which would've tilted it in his favor.
It's a travesty that anyone would discount those years in assessing anyone's overall record.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
It's a travesty that anyone would discount those years in assessing anyone's overall record.
I guess travesty is perhaps a strong word, as I believe there are genuine reasons why WSC couldn't be equated to regular test matches. But I don't wish to discuss them here.

Also to be noted is Garner's brilliant consistency and Lilee's ability to scythe through oppositions when on song. Garner doesn't have one ten for, while Lilee has 7 which probably indicates Lilee had to shoulder more burden than Garner through his career.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I guess travesty is perhaps a strong word, as I believe there are genuine reasons why WSC couldn't be equated to regular test matches. But I don't wish to discuss them here.

Also to be noted is Garner's brilliant consistency and Lilee's ability to scythe through oppositions when on song. Garner doesn't have one ten for, while Lilee has 7 which probably indicates Lilee had to shoulder more burden than Garner through his career.
I have yet to hear one argument that has been in any way convincing as to why WSC should be discounted from a player's record.

I am genuinely interested in hearing why people believe it should be discounted.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Also to be noted is Garner's brilliant consistency and Lilee's ability to scythe through oppositions when on song. Garner doesn't have one ten for, while Lilee has 7 which probably indicates Lilee had to shoulder more burden than Garner through his career.
It was a bit difficult to get 10 in a match when you had 3 other top bowlers in the same side every game.

Garner for me.
 

Dissector

International Debutant
Lillee was unquestionably the more complete fast bowler with a bigger bag of tricks. But ultimately it's effectiveness that counts and Garner was at least as effective in a wider range of countries. Their relative performances in Pakistan is the tie-breaker for me. Garner had a pretty good series whereas Lillee had a notoriously terrible one. It's not a huge deal but both were undoubtedly great bowlers but I would give the edge to Garner.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
I have yet to hear one argument that has been in any way convincing as to why WSC should be discounted from a player's record.

I am genuinely interested in hearing why people believe it should be discounted.
There are many. Including arbitrary World XIs.

Never mind as both have good records in World Series, Lilee has better strike rate while Garner better average.

Further, it's also to be noted while Lilee had to shoulder much burden, his place was never really in great danger owing to lack of competition from fellow fast bowlers. That was not the case with Garner, as demonstrated by only 50 odd tests over a decade long career. It's only fair to assume had he been in any other team he'd have had much more tests than that, and probably even 400 test wickets.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
There are many. Including arbitrary World XIs.

Never mind as both have good records in World Series, Lilee has better strike rate while Garner better average.

Further, it's also to be noted while Lilee had to shoulder much burden, his place was never really in great danger owing to lack of competition from fellow fast bowlers. That was not the case with Garner, as demonstrated by only 50 odd tests over a decade long career. It's only fair to assume had he been in any other team he'd have had much more tests than that, and probably even 400 test wickets.
I would argue that WSC supertests were more akin to traditional test matches than the one off test played in 2005 between Australia and the World XI.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Garner has a great average and an excellent strike rate, but an inexplicable lack of five-fors compared to the others on that list. Competing with other great bowlers is part of the reason - but Holding and Roberts have still done better than him in that respect, so it doesn't completely explain it. It makes me question whether he would have been capable of carrying an attack on his own.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Garner's gun, but not really comparable to Lillee IMO. Lillee is one of the best of all time, arguably the best of them all. Is lauded by practically all and sundry as the complete fast bowler.
 

Top