The Walsh-Martin batting partnership would be something to behold.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.
-
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.
Lillee vs Holding
- Thread starter Migara
- Start date
One interesting thing in Lillee's stats is the amount he bowled per Test. If my sums are correct he averaged 44 overs per match. A quick look at other great quicks shows they generally bowled 10-20% less per test. Even McGrath, who used to put in phenomenal shifts, is around 40.
I know many things can affect this and I'm struggling to see how it can be used to compare great bowlers. But it's quite an effort for a big lad with injury problems.
I know many things can affect this and I'm struggling to see how it can be used to compare great bowlers. But it's quite an effort for a big lad with injury problems.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
As of now? AWTA.
42. Right up there but still behind.
Good thing he didn't play much in Asia, he'd have been completely ****ed.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
+1
Have to go with Lille on this one. But Holding was an extremly under rated bowler of the highest class. He produced amazing results at home and away and in all conditions. In India in '83 on flat decks vs quality batsmen he matched if not out bowled Marshall.
But he was injury prone, and dropped his head when things didn't go his way, and while Lillee was undoubtably the leader of the pack, Holding never was. So Lille for me, but not by much.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Same number of wickets, but Vaas in a batsman friendly era, and of course, far better in the subcontinent. And that's all that really matters.
smash84
The Tiger King
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
TBH, depending on the team I'd change my vote for either of the two. As I referred to earlier; the importance of what is being sought (performances over a career, extended peak, performances all over, etc) can't be underestimated. The weighting people give to these factors can provide legitimate differences. I'll admit I underrated Waqar myself somewhat as merely an incredible peak but as you point out his whole career wasn't black and white in terms of great and bad. I think he can be up there when you consider the best bowlers.
What is interesting is how, IMO, in the same team Wasim tended to be rated higher than Waqar. So, I am not sure if that is because of the general rating Wasim tended to get or because of their utility to the side over an extended period as Jono argues.
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Akram was more of a handful here, for one thing.
Not that that counts, mind you. It's not like it's a hard place to tour or we had a good team in that era or anything, so it means nothing. But I think Wasim was better here.
smash84
The Tiger King
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What you have to do is traduce one player's legacy because he didn't perform in your part of the world in 3 or 4 tests, but make excuses for another's inability to do so in a different part of the world in three or four tours.
talk about a bitter old bear
It's an art form, but one well practiced on this forum
are u referring to ponting?What you have to do is traduce one player's legacy because he didn't perform in your part of the world in 3 or 4 tests, but make excuses for another's inability to do so in a different part of the world in three or four tours.
It's an art form, but one well practiced on this forum
Furball
Evil Scotsman
He's correct though.
talk about a bitter old bear
Poor performances in India seem to be far more of a black mark against bowlers than poor performances in Australia for some reason.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No I'm referring to Lillee in the all important subcontinent as opposed to Waqar here.
smash84
The Tiger King
I think its the other side of the mirror as to when players are labeled flat track bullies if they do well in the SC and are not that good away from it.
smash84
The Tiger King
What you have to do is traduce one player's legacy because he didn't perform in your part of the world in 3 or 4 tests, but make excuses for another's inability to do so in a different part of the world in three or four tours.
It's an art form, but one well practiced on this forum
how does Waqar feature here?
intcricket
U19 12th Man
Michael Holding. He had a life beyond England and hardly played at home, unlike Lillee. That is a big thing, given the time he played in.
Last edited:
Teja.
Global Moderator
Ftr, On a personal level,
1. I think Waqar played a significant enough sample size to judge his performances in/against Australia. He definitely suffered there. No Excuses.
2. Lillee's record on the sub-continent suffers from a ridiculous sample size and therefore isn't worth taking into consideration. Any claims that it's due to his inability to bowl on flat pitches is a joke.
3. I'd have Lillee in the very top echelon of pacers in the post 1970 era, I would not have Waqar.
4. On a general level, Especially in the 00s, I'd say performing in Australia is harder than performing in India due to the phenomenal batting line-up and the flat pitches. One of the biggest reasons I consider Macca the best bowler of the last two decades.
Just thought I'd clear that up.
karan316
State Vice-Captain
The reason why I opened the Lillee and Imran thread was this, the batsmen who have a good record in SC(most of them being from India, Pak and SL) and not so good outside SC are underrated and they are labeled as Flat Track Bullies,
in that thread(Lillee and Imran thread), all of a sudden, people started posting that the subcontinent pitches are not that bad for fast bowling which was really shocking, if the pitches are not that bad for fast bowling, then why are players who have a better record in SC are labeled as FTBs.
SC pitches favour spinners most of the time and are not flat, there are some flat wickets, but then there are such wickets outside the SC aswell, subcontinent batsmen grow up playing on turning wickets, so they can play the spinners well even on dusty wickets, teams outside SC play on pitches with good bounce and swing, so they can play the best of the fast bowlers, I don't think batting is easy anywhere in the world, there are challenges everywhere, underrating someone because he doesn't have a good record in 1 or 2 countries is not right, and if it is right, than how is Lillee one of the greatest fast bowler?.
If Sehwag is labeled as a flat track bully than Lillee is a green top bully, its that simple.