Johan
Hall of Fame Member
...No, I'm correcting the statement about the pitch's nature, not downplaying the performance. I called it a great series in my post.
-
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
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Who made a statement about the pitch?
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
My bad, I didn’t see that post. Mind you, the pitch itself was described as very green during the Australians first innings, and having a bit of bite taken out after day 1. First innings 98 was better imo. Though cracking a boundary for a 100 on the last ball of the match is satisfying af too.
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
I think first innings 98* was better too because Garner was breathing fire, iirc for the 100* he went off field due to some physical issue and Viv/Gomes did most of the bowling.
PlayerComparisons
International Captain
My initial statement was meant to just be about pitches in general across Borders entire career against the WI, not any specific match (that’s why I said average of 40)
I do think the pitch in Borders 100 and 98 helped the bowlers though but it doesn’t really matter. Still one of the greatest performances regardless.
I do think the pitch in Borders 100 and 98 helped the bowlers though but it doesn’t really matter. Still one of the greatest performances regardless.
Last edited:
That's fair as you need a cut off but would it be better to have a cut off based on a minimum number of Test matches played?
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is a decade part of your cut off?
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
DrWolverine
International Captain
10 years or 300 wickets for bowlers?
What about batsmen?
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Around 12 years or so.
This seems to be a bit arbitary both for batters and bowlers.
If you have big enough sample size in different conditions then it does not matter if it's 11 years or exact 300 wickets for me. I will rate high quality output of 275 wickets far higher than 1-2 level below output with 375 wickets. 100 extra wickets will never compensate for lack of quality.
ATG tag is anyway subjective so everyone can have their own criterion. For me,
Highest quality with longevity > HIghest quality with enough longevity > Going down in quality with longevity > so on ..
ATG tag is anyway subjective so everyone can have their own criterion. For me,
Highest quality with longevity > HIghest quality with enough longevity > Going down in quality with longevity > so on ..
True but in terms of bowlers is it 10 years or 300 wickets or both - perhaps in retrospect I should have said unclear rather than arbitary
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
What about less than a decade? 8 years? Surely it's unfair to put that on the same level of ATGs who played much longer.
yes I’d agree with this list in its entirety
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
There is no pace bowler in history who has Lillees level of peer rating. At first, I was willing to dismiss it as such an less competitive era thing but I think it's more than that. I heard Miandad the other day of all people call him the best bowler he faced.
He appeared in Bradmans XI I believe. Then in the list that Peterhrt gave of 100 ATG XIs he featured most highly. And in the Cricinfo exercise he was higher ranked than Wasim and Marshall. In the ESPN ranking he was no.6 well ahead of any pacer.
I think he was the pacer who sought to perfect all the skills. The only thing he was missing was a good yorker but he had complete control of swing and cutters and a lethal bouncer. He doesn't get enough credit for keeping as effective in taking 5WPM when his pace declined compared to Marshall, Ambrose and others and he was a bowling workhouse. He was roughly even in his contest with peak Viv.
I have to downgrade Lillee because he wasnt proven in SC but I think the above is enough to get him over Garner, Holding who were never seen as great as him. I rate him no 6 in my pacer list and I don't think you can have a top ten bowler list without him in it.
He appeared in Bradmans XI I believe. Then in the list that Peterhrt gave of 100 ATG XIs he featured most highly. And in the Cricinfo exercise he was higher ranked than Wasim and Marshall. In the ESPN ranking he was no.6 well ahead of any pacer.
I think he was the pacer who sought to perfect all the skills. The only thing he was missing was a good yorker but he had complete control of swing and cutters and a lethal bouncer. He doesn't get enough credit for keeping as effective in taking 5WPM when his pace declined compared to Marshall, Ambrose and others and he was a bowling workhouse. He was roughly even in his contest with peak Viv.
I have to downgrade Lillee because he wasnt proven in SC but I think the above is enough to get him over Garner, Holding who were never seen as great as him. I rate him no 6 in my pacer list and I don't think you can have a top ten bowler list without him in it.