Joel Garner vs Dennis Lillee

[karan_fromthestands]

I think Garner was better both in terms of statistics and the ability to bowl well across conditions. Lillee is always credited for perfecting a wide array of skills for a fast bowler,(which is true), but eventually you judge bowlers purely on their effectiveness across conditions and match situations.

 

[DrWolverine]

My ATG bowlers, chronologically

Sydney Barnes
Bill O'Reilly
Raymond Lindwall
Fred Trueman
Alan Davidson
Dennis Lillee
Michael Holding
Richard Hadlee
Imran Khan
Malcolm Marshall
Joel Garner
Wasim Akram
Curtly Ambrose
Shane Warne
Allan Donald
Glenn McGrath
Muttiah Muralitharan
Dale Steyn
Jasprit Bumrah

Great list

 

[DrWolverine]

@Johan
Make a list of your ATG batsmen as well.

 

[Johan]

@Johan
Make a list of your ATG batsmen as well.

Tests wise

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Bradman
Headley
Hutton
Compton
Weekes
Sobers
Barrington
Pollock
Gavaskar
Chappell
Viv
Border
Waugh
Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting
Dravid
Kallis
Sangakkara
Smith
Root

Names you can argue should be there – Harvey, Boycott, May, Walcott, Trumper. Grace would be there if all red ball Cricket.

 

[Johan]

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.

You sure can, chronologically, one can easily argue these ten are better

Barnes
O'Reilly
Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose
McGrath
Steyn
Warne
Murali

Infact, I'd argue most of these guys being better is common sense.

Lindwall, Trueman, Donald, Akram, now Bumrah, Garner, Holding are all debateable with Lillee too. Lillee is more of a trend setter, so many people learned from him and he was the starter of the pace era in 70s and 80s, but he was not the best, he wasn't the most affective or the most proven. His peer reputation is very similar to Victor Trumper.

 

[subshakerz]

You sure can, chronologically, one can easily argue these ten are better

Barnes
O'Reilly
Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose
McGrath
Steyn
Warne
Murali

Infact, I'd argue most of these guys being better is common sense.

Lindwall, Trueman, Donald, Akram, now Bumrah, Garner, Holding are all debateable with Lillee too.

Ambrose over Lillee is not common sense. Neither O Reilly. Even Barnes is debatable.

 

[Johan]

Ambrose over Lillee is not common sense. Neither O Reilly. Even Barnes is debatable.

Barnes slaps him up, and I said "most of these guys" not "all of these guys" and as I said, there are atleast 5-6 more guys who are debatable with Lillee and one can have them as better, nothing would change.

 

[subshakerz]

Barnes slaps him up, and I said "most of these guys" not "all of these guys" and as I said, there are atleast 5-6 more guys who are debatable with Lillee and one can have them as better, nothing would change.

Ok but that's my position too and I said as much.

 

[kyear2]

Tests wise

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Bradman
Headley
Hutton
Compton
Weekes
Sobers
Barrington
Pollock
Gavaskar
Chappell
Viv
Border
Waugh
Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting
Dravid
Kallis
Sangakkara
Smith
Root

Names you can argue should be there – Harvey, Boycott, May, Walcott, Trumper. Grace would be there if all red ball Cricket.

A couple names there I wouldn't include, but not a bad effort.

 

[kyear2]

Ambrose over Lillee is not common sense. Neither O Reilly. Even Barnes is debatable.

How is Ambrose not common sense.

I'm eagerly listening.

 

[Ju7]

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.

Lillee was superb but a lot of people rate Marshall as the best.

 

[kyear2]

Lillee was superb but a lot of people rate Marshall as the best.

The players from the 70's and the Aussie press at the time did rate Lillee higher. The players since and the general punditry have since switched to Marshall, who's now pretty widely regarded as the GOAT.

 

[subshakerz]

How is Ambrose not common sense.

I'm eagerly listening.

Better peer rep. No real SC advantage for Ambrose. Far better wickettaker overall. More effective than Ambrose when their pace declined mid career. Simply more skilled.

 

[subshakerz]

The players from the 70's and the Aussie press at the time did rate Lillee higher. The players since and the general punditry have since switched to Marshall, who's now pretty widely regarded as the GOAT.

Not true. Even when Cricinfo did their ATG XI Lillee was the unanimous pacer. And Peterhrt just shared the book of a 100 ATG XIs where Lillee was rated higher.

 

[Johan]

Ambrose simply bowled to and dominated a much higher level of competition.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose simply bowled to and dominated a much higher level of competition.

Not at home. Only in Eng and Aus. And Eng wasn't that high.

 

[Johan]

Not at home. Only in Eng and Aus. And Eng wasn't that high.

Lillee just didn't do enough against the two best batting units of his time (Pakistan and West Indies) to be rated higher than Ambrose given what the latter did against Australia.

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee just didn't do enough against the two best batting units of his time (Pakistan and West Indies) to be rated higher than Ambrose given what the latter did against Australia.

Sorry but Lillee was still impressive vs WI and was recognized as such in that era, albeit not Ambrose level. Outside of his injured test, he took 55 wickets in 11 tests @25 with a sub 50 SR. No way that's below par.

The biggest issue is an entire career one, and the same reason I rate Steyn ahead of Ambrose: he simply was not overall as penetrative a wickettaker.

Lillee took 5WPM, Ambrose barely 4WPM, over an entire career that makes a huge difference, and neither is Ambrose impressive enough in varied conditions away to overcome this difference.

Effectiveness at taking wickets matters most. And no I am not reducing everything to WPM across the board but it does apply to bowlers with similar breakdowns, etc.

 

[Johan]

Sorry but Lillee was still impressive vs WI and was recognized as such in that era, albeit not Ambrose level. Outside of his injured test, he took 55 wickets in 11 tests @25 with a sub 50 SR. No way that's below par.

The biggest issue is an entire career one, and the same reason I rate Steyn ahead of Ambrose: he simply was not overall as penetrative a wickettaker.

Lillee took 5WPM, Ambrose barely 4WPM, over an entire career that makes a huge difference, and neither is Ambrose impressive enough in varied conditions away to overcome this difference.

Effectiveness at taking wickets matters most. And no I am not reducing everything to WPM across the board but it does apply to bowlers with similar breakdowns, etc.

so 25-26 against West Indies and 30 against Pakistan, and almost nothing in their actual home conditions.

Ambrose against Australia blows away anything Lillee did against strong batting units, and that's simply it, imagine if England was about as strong with the bat in 70s as it is today and same with New Zealand, Lillee might not even end up averaging 25, Ambrose would do well against any strong batting unit.

Lillee is just not that guy, was never the best pacer of all time.

 

[subshakerz]

so 25-26 against West Indies and 30 against Pakistan, and almost nothing in their actual home conditions.

Ambrose against Australia blows away anything Lillee did against strong batting units, and that's simply it, imagine if England was about as strong with the bat in 70s as it is today and same with New Zealand, Lillee might not even end up averaging 25, Ambrose would do well against any strong batting unit.

I notice you're shifting goalposts. First it was better batting units and and now it's just Australia.

And yeah, taking 5WPM against the best team WI with an awesome SR is a great achievement. You are just disregarding it because it's inconvenient for your argument. And he did well against the stronger England sides he faced with Gooch, Boycott, Gower and peak Botham.

Nobody is trying to take away from Ambrose vs Australia. But my point is that you can't ignore Ambrose outside Australia and he takes less than 4WPM outside them.

Lillee was taking wickets against almost all opposition at a very healthy wicket rate. He was taking wickets at a healthy rate at almost all stages of his career.

Ambrose did and was not.