Lillee vs Holding

[Flem274*]

Where does Walsh rate for you? I find it hard to compare him to someone like Ambrose. Obviously he wasn't quite as good when he was on the field, but if you offered one or the other at the start of their careers knowing how they'd pan out, would the fact that Walsh would play for an extra five years not make him more valuable across his career? The difference in bowling effectiveness in an actual Test isn't as much as we'd like to think when comparing all-time greats.

I guess it'd depend on how confident you were in producing another world class bowler or two ten years down the track.

I would take the money and go for Walsh. I just couldn't turn down 132 tests and sixteen years of service. I'd pick him for the long term to build my attack around and back my system to produce other good bowlers to partner him.

My opinion is heavily coloured by my nationality though. If we had Walsh, we could play six batsmen, a keeper and a batting allrounder and still have a good bowling attack.

 

[Burgey]

Vaas > Lillee.

 

[Teja.]

Because cricket is a team game. Pakistan was clearly hurt by Waqar's decline whereas WI still had a ****ing fantastic fast bowler for most of that decade. You'd honestly take 5 years of ultra awesomeness and then 5 years of good to very good compared to 10 years of awesomeness?

Ambrose isn't just more rounded there, he's just better.

You've taken a 10 year period which has Ambrose ahead on average but Waqar ahead on wpm, and then you've got two 5 year splits, one where Waqar has a marginally better average and reasonably better wpm, and then another where Ambrose just absolutely ****s on him.

Yeah, I certainly appreciate your point.

However, I do think it's worth mentioning that even Ambrose deteriorated as a bowler in the second phase though not as much as Waqar. His average of 21.6 flatters his actual contribution as a bowler in that period as he did not take wickets at the rate that a bowler of that average is expected to and barely managed better than Waqar though at a much better average.

He was an extremely tight bowler capable of a superlative performance on a pacy pitch and very often a massively tight 1/35 of 20 overs. For instance, In the Frank Worrell trophy, 94/95, Ambrose had 13 wickets in 4 games at an insane 19.8. Out of those 13, He took 9 on a fiery low scoring game in Port of Spain where not one innings score exceeded 150. The rest of the series, He managed 4 wickets on the whole. This point was made in a Macca vs Ambrose thread in the past iirc by T_C, though I'm sure he rates Ambrose over Waqar. The point I'm making is while Ambrose was without doubt superior to Waqar between 1995-1999, He was not, IMO, as impact-full a bowler as an average of 22 for the period would indicate.

Vic's point about Ambrose despite being so super-tight that despite not being as prolific due to it, He created wickets for his team-mates is one I wouldn't be able to appreciate as I didn't see Ambrose in action for the overwhelming majority of his games though I concede that it might've been a massive plus for Ambrose as a bowler.

Anwyay, I can certainly see why most people would rate Ambrose higher but I don't think the suggestion that they are equals or that Waqar is negligibly superior to Ambrose is insulting or anything.

Cheers Jono.

EDIT:-Haha, sorry Vic. Just read.

 

[robelinda]

Vaas > Lillee.

Simon Cook > Lillee

*RARE* SIMON COOK 7 wickets on test debut - Australia vs New Zealand 1997 Perth - YouTube

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Vaas > Lillee.

Agreed. Best florest in the Uk. But a bit pricey for weddings.

 

[Teja.]

Where does Walsh rate for you? I find it hard to compare him to someone like Ambrose. Obviously he wasn't quite as good when he was on the field, but if you offered one or the other at the start of their careers knowing how they'd pan out, would the fact that Walsh would play for an extra five years not make him more valuable across his career? The difference in bowling effectiveness in an actual Test isn't as much as we'd like to think when comparing all-time greats.

I guess it'd depend on how confident you were in producing another world class bowler or two ten years down the track.

Haha, This is something I constantly think about too. Walsh certainly added more value through his career but where does one draw the quality cut-off before looking at who added more value or does one need to draw one at all. I just can't get myself to rate Walsh over someone like McGrath tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Agreed. Best florest in the Uk. But a bit pricey for weddings.

You laugh, but Chaminda performed in Sri Lanka.

It's axiomatic.

 

[Migara]

Vaas > Lillee.

Rancid bait.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Rancid bait.

Not very challenging to spot, was it?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I take it from the discussion that Lillee v Holding is such a mismatch that the thread is discussing anything but the respective merits of the two in question.

Thomson v Holding would be more interesting.

 

[robelinda]

Personally i can't believe its a mismatch so epic, Holding to me is a superior bowler to Lillee.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

The poll results have spoken. 80-20 in FOT's favour is what I'd have expected! I hope people don't get the wrong impression here. While a lot of us feel that Lillee was better, the margin certainly is quite slim. Holding was a magnificent athlete (perhaps the most natural of them all) and a great fast bowler.

 

[benchmark00]

There should be more of these 'A vs B' style threads.

Not enough of them floating around imo.

 

[Flem274*]

Personally i can't believe its a mismatch so epic, Holding to me is a superior bowler to Lillee.

I just wanted to be included in the poll but couldn't bring myself to vote for Willey.

FTR I have no idea who was the better bowler but Lillee had the better mo, therefore he was the better bowler.

 

[Teja.]

Interestingly, The poll was incredibly close(32-28 in favour of Lillee) when a Lillee vs Garner poll was created.

 

[Flem274*]

There should be more of these 'A vs B' style threads.

Not enough of them floating around imo.

Reading a Benchy post vs eating vomit should be next.

 

[Burgey]

I take it from the discussion that Lillee v Holding is such a mismatch that the thread is discussing anything but the respective merits of the two in question.

Thomson v Holding would be more interesting.

Really? I don't think it's a mismatch either way tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Rancid bait.

Humorless human.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Really? I don't think it's a mismatch either way tbh.

It's not a mismatch in terms of one being vastly superior to the other. But most people will consider Lillee to be the better bowler by a small margin and the poll will be one-sided.

 

[Burgey]

It's not a mismatch in terms of one being vastly superior to the other. But most people will consider Lillee to be the better bowler by a small margin and the poll will be one-sided.

Ah I see what you mean.