Who's Done the Most Damage?

[subshakerz]

Lillee overall Ambrose post 94, both min 20 wickets

I mean it does show Lillee with more quality bowlers around.

 

[sayon basak]

Why are you including foreign bowlers?

Just look at the WI bowlers and AUS bowlers respectively, if you've got the eyes to see.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I mean it does show Lillee with more quality bowlers around.

15 years vs 5, so no **** Sherlock.

With minimum 20 wickets, they have bloody close calibre bowling. Excluding Walsh i.e. Bishop still was the 2nd highest wickettaker, Rose dominated and Dillon hardly played. McLean and K Benjamin were the only blemishes there.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Zimbabwe were but anyways we don't have to debate finer points. Include them and the WI support is poorer and frankly having watched them it was clear they weren't that good.

Rose had some nice spells but was very inconsistent. Dillon steady but not penetrative enough. Bishop just faded away.

I just showed you stats. What makes you think Aussie were as good as their no.s?? Not to mention Zimbabwe with Flowers and co in the late 90s were a comparable batting with Lillee's NZ, a better one than pre Crowe.

Rose in those matches did very good. That's what matters. Dillon hardly played. And again, by numbers, Bishop was still the 3rd best and most relevant pacer there. He played in around 45% of those matches and did very well.

 

[subshakerz]

I just showed you stats. What makes you think Aussie were as good as their no.s?? Not to mention Zimbabwe with Flowers and co in the late 90s were a comparable batting with Lillee's NZ, a better one than pre Crowe.

Rose in those matches did very good. That's what matters. Dillon hardly played. And again, by numbers, Bishop was still the 3rd best and most relevant pacer there. He played in around 45% of those matches and did very well.

Why aren't you considering the overall careers in that period? Thats a better reflection of actual bowling quality.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why aren't you considering the overall careers in that period? Thats a better reflection of actual bowling quality.

?? Why should I? It's on how they performed alongside Ambrose and Lillee. And Curtly missed I believe a single Series anyways.

 

[subshakerz]

15 years vs 5, so no **** Sherlock.

With minimum 20 wickets, they have bloody close calibre bowling. Excluding Walsh i.e. Bishop still was the 2nd highest wickettaker, Rose dominated and Dillon hardly played. McLean and K Benjamin were the only blemishes there.

I mean if there are more good bowlers for Lillee even with a longer period to account for a couple of those available at any time generally that kind of proves my point.

 

[subshakerz]

?? Why should I? It's on how they performed alongside Ambrose and Lillee. And Curtly missed I believe a single Series anyways.

No because the question is how good a bowler they are generally when we call them quality competition.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I mean if there are more good bowlers for Lillee even with a longer period to account for a couple of those available at any time generally that kind of proves my point.

It proves Jackshit. How can you be so obtuse about it?? Ambrose had Walsh in practically all those games. Nothing Lillee had even approaches that quality. And Lillee and Ambrose had a similar percentage of other bowlers. Lillee's one were just mid. You really think McLean and K Benjamin taking 20 wickets each upsets Walsh?????

 

[capt_Luffy]

No because the question is how good a bowler they are generally when we call them quality competition.

How they performed in the given matches is a much superior comparison in that regard. Ambrose missed hardly many matches anyways.

 

[subshakerz]

How they performed in the given matches is a much superior comparison in that regard. Ambrose missed hardly many matches anyways.

No. For example if Andy Roberts averaged 30 when in a pace quarter that doesnt mean when he played in those games he was 30 averaging overall quality bowler in those games. We are caring about actual quality of the bowlers.

 

[Johan]

No. For example if Andy Roberts averaged 30 when in a pace quarter that doesnt mean when he played in those games he was 30 averaging overall quality bowler in those games. We are caring about actual quality of the bowlers.

.. that's exactly what it means, bowlers can and do underperform

 

[capt_Luffy]

No. For example if Andy Roberts averaged 30 when in a pace quarter that doesnt mean when he played in those games he was 30 averaging overall quality bowler in those games. We are caring about actual quality of the bowlers.

That means Roberts in those games underperformed, yes. That's what counts. Unless you want to make a Fantasy XI, the performance on those games is exactly what counts, not their ceiling or what they did in other games.

 

[subshakerz]

It proves Jackshit. How can you be so obtuse about it?? Ambrose had Walsh in practically all those games. Nothing Lillee had even approaches that quality. And Lillee and Ambrose had a similar percentage of other bowlers. Lillee's one were just mid. You really think McLean and K Benjamin taking 20 wickets each upsets Walsh?????

More bowlers does prove my point.

Two to three quality bowlers is more competition than one great and serviceable bowlers after.

It's back to our fundamental disagreement, you rate those 3rd and 4th bowlers a lot higher and think it doesn't matter if they even were that poor as long as Walsh is there.

 

[subshakerz]

.. that's exactly what it means, bowlers can and do underperform

The question is the threat level to potentially take wickets from Ambrose and to measure that we need to know their overall career.

 

[Johan]

Get Lillee past Trueman first then dream of Ambrose.

 

[capt_Luffy]

More bowlers does prove my point.

Two to three quality bowlers is more competition than one great and serviceable bowlers after.

It's back to our fundamental disagreement, you rate those 3rd and 4th bowlers a lot higher and think it doesn't matter if they even were that poor as long as Walsh is there.

More bowlers over a significantly larger timeframe. Ambrose had two poor bowlers ffs.

Lemme get this straight, you think Thomson, Hogg and Gilmore is better than Walsh, Bishop and Rose??

 

[capt_Luffy]

The question is the threat level to potentially take wickets from Ambrose and to measure that we need to know their overall career.

*Threat level in those matches. Hence performance in them is 100x superior.

 

[subshakerz]

More bowlers does prove my point.

Two to three quality bowlers is more competition than one great and serviceable bowlers after.

It's back to our fundamental disagreement, you rate those 3rd and 4th bowlers a lot higher and think it doesn't matter if they even were that poor as long as Walsh is there.

If the other bowlers are taking more wickets in those games, it can be either Ambrose underperforming or those bowlers performing generally well to prevent him from taking wickets. To know that better we need to know how well the bowlers generally performed.

 

[subshakerz]

More bowlers over a significantly larger timeframe. Ambrose had two poor bowlers ffs.

Lemme get this straight, you think Thomson, Hogg and Gilmore is better than Walsh, Bishop and Rose??

Yes because when Bishop played with Rose he was a shadow of himself as a bowler.