Dennis Lillee vs Ravichandran Ashwin

[capt_Luffy]

Lindwall? Davidson?

They and Lillee are really around equals.

 

[Johan]

Lindwall? Davidson?

Lindwall is before Trueman, I don't rate Davidson higher than Trueman.

 

[Johan]

They and Lillee are really around equals.

Lindwall isn't equal to Lillee, c'mon now

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lindwall isn't equal to Lillee, c'mon now

Lindwall might be better actually, missed some absolute glorious years to War.

 

[DrWolverine]

Lindwall is before Trueman, I don't rate Davidson higher than Trueman.

Just checked
Lindwall : 1946-1960
Trueman : 1952-1965
Davidson : 1953-1963

 

[capt_Luffy]

Just checked
Lindwall : 1946-1960
Trueman : 1952-1965
Davidson : 1953-1963

Worth mentioning Lindwall debuted at 25 right after War and played till he was 39. He famously got Jack Fingleton, when he was regular in the national team, 3 times in 12 balls as a school boy.

 

[Johan]

Lindwall might be better actually, missed some absolute glorious years to War.

Not at all, Lillee had flatter wickets all around and definitely is a more complete bowler then Lindwall, technically Lillee could've also had 400+ wickets and averaged like 22-23 if WSC wasn't a thing

 

[Johan]

Just checked
Lindwall : 1946-1960
Trueman : 1952-1965
Davidson : 1953-1963

Lindwall functionally retired in 1956, he came back in 1959 and 60 but was largely unimpressive and frankly, mediocre

 

[sayon basak]

Lillee > Trueman

This.

 

[Johan]

man **** Lillee

 

[kyear2]

Lillee in SC and WI - 6 wickets @ 90.33

Ashwin in SENA - 72 wickets @ 39.55

If Lillee in SC and WI was to take as many wickets as Ashwin in SENA, he would have needed to get then at an average of 34.94 to be par. No guarantee on that.

Think Lillee is a better bowler than Ashwin but it is reasonable to rate Ashwin as the better cricketer.

This is an argument I've seen with regards to Ashwin and even Kapil of late. Lillee was the better bowler, by some distance I would imagine, I have him 10th all time. Not even sure where Ash drops in.
Gave a scenario the other day of Simpson vs Dev and even though Simpson was a better batsman than Dev, was still argued Dev was better.

Yet this argument never translates to guys like Kallis and Hammond being better than Sachin.

There's no consistency there.

 

[kyear2]

Lol Lillee has 1 test in WI, 1 test in SL and 1 three test series in Pakistan. That isn't a fair sample to judge him. He is unproven.

Granted, Lillee did middling in WI in WSC but better than Ashwin did anywhere in SENA.

Ashwin on the other hand has 26 tests across multiple tours over a decade plus in SENA, took less than 3 wickets a test overall and was poor everywhere by the standards we would judge Lillee.

Not to mention being omitted from tests with the very worst, not spin friendly pitches all together.

 

[kyear2]

80s NZ batting wasn't impressive.

Reasons aside, they were tough at home.

 

[kyear2]

Lindwall isn't equal to Lillee, c'mon now

He doesn't rate Lillee at all.

 

[sayon basak]

This is an argument I've seen with regards to Ashwin and even Kapil of late. Lillee was the better bowler, by some distance I would imagine, I have him 10th all time. Not even sure where Ash drops in.
Gave a scenario the other day of Simpson vs Dev and even though Simpson was a better batsman than Dev, was still argued Dev was better.

Yet this argument never translates to guys like Kallis and Hammond being better than Sachin.

There's no consistency there.

Kapil's bowling is arguably better than Simpson's batting. And Kapil's batting was better than Simpson's bowling. So, Kapil clearly the better Cricketer.

I rank Sachin at 2 and Kallis at 18 as Batsmen, pretty big gap to overcome with the bowling. And although it's closer between Sachin and Hammond as batters(2 vs 9), Hammond's bowling wasn't enough (his WPM was below 1).

So yeah, Sachin>Kallis>Hammond as cricketers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not at all, Lillee had flatter wickets all around and definitely is a more complete bowler then Lindwall, technically Lillee could've also had 400+ wickets and averaged like 22-23 if WSC wasn't a thing

Not sure he had much flatter wickets really. Lindwall got them well flat in WI. In Australia, both Australia and England did had significantly better bowling lineups compared Lillee. And he did great in the extremely flat 40s as well. Also played till he was significantly older. Without WWII, he easily could had 400+ wickets at 21-22 as well.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Lillee had spicy pitches at home

 

[capt_Luffy]

Kapil's bowling is arguably better than Simpson's batting. And Kapil's batting was better than Simpson's bowling. So, Kapil clearly the better Cricketer.

I rank Sachin at 2 and Kallis at 18 as Batsmen, pretty big gap to overcome with the bowling. And although it's closer between Sachin and Hammond as batters(2 vs 9), Hammond's bowling wasn't enough (his WPM was below 1).

So yeah, Sachin>Kallis>Hammond as cricketers.

I think it's quite silly to say Simpson's bowling and Kapil's batting were similar and totally lacks any sense really. Even ignoring Kapil was better in primary and had longevity as a pacer over him.

 

[Johan]

Not sure he had much flatter wickets really. Lindwall got them well flat in WI. In Australia, both Australia and England did had significantly better bowling lineups compared Lillee. And he did great in the extremely flat 40s as well. Also played till he was significantly older. Without WWII, he easily could had 400+ wickets at 21-22 as well.

majority of his serieses is 50s which was an extremely and exceptionally bowler friendly era. Why would he get to 400 wickets....? he barely reached 230, was mostly finished by the time he was 35, and played from 25 to 35 and then had two bad years in 59 and 60, are you backing him to get 172 wickets in 3-4 years he lost due to the war?

 

[capt_Luffy]

majority of his serieses is 50s which was an extremely and exceptionally bowler friendly era. Why would he get to 400 wickets....? he barely reached 230, was mostly finished by the time he was 35, and played from 25 to 35 and then had two bad years in 59 and 60, are you backing him to get 172 wickets in 3-4 years he lost due to the war?

He lost atleast 6 years to War really. I won't be surprised if he got to there. Not to mention, unlike someone like Bedser, he was absolutely fantastic in the 40s as well.