Joel Garner vs Dennis Lillee

[Johan]

The majority of Ambrose’s fame at least among my classmates is the tall westindies guy who took 7-1 and you can thank CA for the wonderful video clarity

Ambrose was probably my first Cricketing love tbh, him or Lara.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose still beats the dogshit out of either.

Not on peer rating.

 

[Johan]

Not on peer rating.

I'm a big Trueman fan and I think Ambrose is incomparably better, He's THAT good.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose did better against Australia than Lillee against West Indies, and he did it in the heart of their dominion, not at home. Even Viv said Lillee did almost everything in his own backyard.

Sure but again that's not a trumpcard for me. The rest of Ambroses career is what I critique.

I rate both very highly for different reasons, though I have Ambrose beating both, you don't. I rate Trueman's 60s away tours because they came on absolute roads against the two strongest batting units in the world. Lillee bowled once against the strongest batting unit in the world (Windies) and injuries plagued him, and he bowled once in Pakistan and we know how that went. Two completely different things, if you point out how Lillee singlehandedly led an attack, his performance pre injury against world XI etc I'd agree, but you just have to put Ambrose down to put Lillee high.

I'm just saying your level of career combing is different for different players. Which I guess it's just a you problem.

Lowkey brother, Ambrose beats the dogshit out of either Lillee or Trueman, no argument for the latter two.

I think higher overall career wickettaking is definitely a factor for Lillee. In fact, it's just odd why that is overlooked.

Ok so point one, why did you mention SL then considering that's one test match pre 1994?

Second point, I explained to you why I don't think his SA tour is bad, he had 2 good games, one bad and then broke down in last, 13 @ 23 in 7 innings is not great but it's not bad. SA of 90s was pacer paradise, you and me both know in the long run Ambrose won't struggle there.

It's literally just Pakistan and New Zealand, and even NZ is just two games like Viv and he only bowled 3 overs at Christchurch.

It's literally just Pakistan brother.

Sorry I should have phrased my post 94 not specific to this point, it's a more wider point since his WPM fell after then.

90 and 97 are on par with Lillee's 1979-80 Ashes.

Lol ok then we'll I guess that's a bit different from your original challenge.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm a big Trueman fan and I think Ambrose is incomparably better, He's THAT good.

He just to me has issues with penetration (sorry I don't know what other word we use).

 

[DrWolverine]

Ambrose may have a few blemishes on paper but his aura is unmatched.

Fans admire him and almost every batsman no matter how great found him a nightmare to face.

 

[Johan]

Sure but again that's not a trumpcard for me. The rest of Ambroses career is what I critique.

You see the rest of his career as an issue, I only see his second (or third?) Pakistan series as a problem, big difference.

I'm just saying your level of career combing is different for different players. Which I guess it's just a you problem.

Nah

I think higher overall career wickettaking is definitely a factor for Lillee. In fact, it's just odd why that is overlooked.

Lillee, like any other cricketer, has his strength and his flaws. His strength is sheer wicket taking, being a lone wolf, workload etc, his weakness is he never truly transcended against the strongest batting units of his time, and never had to play them away in batting conditions.

Sorry I should have phrased my post 94 not specific to this point, it's a more wider point since his WPM fell after then.

Sure, that's an issue, if Ambrose didn't have that I'd put him Hadlee tier.

Lol ok then we'll I guess that's a bit different from your original challenge.

Alright

 

[Johan]

He just to me has issues with penetration (sorry I don't know what other word we use).

those two I reckon are more penetrative off field and on field but if a strong batting lineup is playing and it's away from home, gimme Ambrose everytime.

 

[Randomfan]

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.

Wouldn't make difference to me if they have a large and varied sample size with top quality. If some one plays 8 years in different conditions and does a top tier job, the player goes above lower in quality with even 12 years. I am not in camp to push players above due to longevity if they lack quality. But the player with 8 years needs to have enough sample size in different conditions to be judged. For simialr quality, longevity surely will push players above.

8 or 10 years won't catch everything, Some players can play longer without playing in different conditions, so over all situation matters. Ability to perform in variety of conditions is some time not appreciated that much by some fans. I loved Steyn because he could run through sides in all conditions. I know most of us rate McGrath high, but I find him lacking in running through sides in Asia. I won't rely on McGrath for that.

 

[subshakerz]

Wouldn't make difference to me if they have a large and varied sample size with top quality. If some one plays 8 years in different conditions and does a top tier job, the player goes above lower in quality with even 12 years. I am not in camp to push players above due to longevity if they lack quality. But the player with 8 years needs to have enough sample size in different conditions to be judged. For simialr quality, longevity surely will pish players above.

8 or 10 years won't catch everything, Some players can play longer without playing in different conditions, so over all situation matters. Ability to perform in variety of conditions is some time not appreciated that much by some fans. I loved Steyn because he could run through sides in all conditions. I know most of us rate McGrath high, but I find him lacking in running through sides in Asia. I won't rely on McGrath for that.

Sure that's a fair view

 

[subshakerz]

those two I reckon are more penetrative off field and on field but if a strong batting lineup is playing and it's away from home, gimme Ambrose everytime.

I would agree for first half of his career when Ambrose could tear through anybody, but not 95 onwards.

 

[Johan]

I would agree for first half of his career when Ambrose could tear through anybody, but not 95 onwards.

IIRC Ambrose was the driving force behind two West Indies victories in Australia in 1997

 

[subshakerz]

IIRC Ambrose was the driving force behind two West Indies victories in Australia in 1997

Yes but he underperformed badly in the first two tests which WI lost and folks start questioning him. Then he got Perth and a broken Melbourne pitch towards the end and delivered.

Also in the 95 series against Aus he also underperformed in the first two tests, then got served a greentop in the third where he rocked but ended up underperforming in the last test. It was clear basically Ambrose wasn't the same bowler of old. Much more pitch dependent.

Are you denying Ambrose was a lesser bowler after 94 and his shoulder injury?

 

[Johan]

Yes but he underperformed badly in the first two tests which WI lost and folks start questioning him. Then he got Perth and a broken Melbourne pitch towards the end and delivered.

Also in the 95 series against Aus he also underperformed in the first two tests, then got served a greentop in the third where he rocked but ended up underperforming in the last test. It was clear basically Ambrose wasn't the same bowler of old. Much more pitch dependent.

Are you denying Ambrose was a lesser bowler after 94 and his shoulder injury?

I agree he was a much lesser bowler after peak but still had the ability to tear apart strong batting lineups away from home to a level that I don't think either Lillee or Trueman had, even if it was mostly on spicy wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree he was a much lesser bowler after peak but still had the ability to tear apart strong batting lineups away from home to a level that I don't think either Lillee or Trueman had, even if it was mostly on spicy wickets.

Even if I agree with that, I don't see why sporadically doing that is as important as getting more wickets overall.

I would have peak Ambrose over Lillee but off peak didn't take close to 4WPM and that's half his career.

 

[Johan]

Even if I agree with that, I don't see why sporadically doing that is as important as getting more wickets overall.

I would have peak Ambrose over Lillee but off peak didn't take close to 4WPM and that's half his career.

if taking 4 WPM throughout career is the criteria what makes Trueman inferior to Ambrose then, and how doesn't it makes Lillee inferior.

 

[kyear2]

Its almost like people’s views change with time. Even peers and the media..

Where did I suggest that they didn't?

 

[subshakerz]

if taking 4 WPM throughout career is the criteria what makes Trueman inferior to Ambrose then, and how doesn't it makes Lillee inferior.

Out of the three Trueman is the worst away from home.

 

[Johan]

Out of the three Trueman is the worst away from home.

I thought you cared about penatrativeness

 

[Prince EWS]

I thought you cared about penatrativeness