Who's Done the Most Damage?

[Johan]

Lillee is not even better than Trueman, Donald or Lindwall.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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

Still both averaged 27. Better than Thomson and Walker with Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

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

That's not what we are arguing when we say a bowler has more competition. We are talking about the quality of the bowlers in the lineup, not a post fact breakdown of who took wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

Still both averaged 27. Better than Thomson and Walker with Lillee.

Not Bishop was fading series by series when he returned in 95 and by the time Rose came he was quite out of it.

 

[Johan]

@subshakerz explain how Donald isn't better than Ambrose with this exact line of thinking

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee is not even better than Trueman, Donald or Lindwall.

You are the guy who says you found it hard to separate Lillee and Trueman and they should be bunched together.

 

[Johan]

You are the guy who says you found it hard to separate Lillee and Trueman and they should be bunched together.

Yeah

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz explain how Donald isn't better than Ambrose with this exact line of thinking

Under par against the best side faced. A criteria you also consider most important.

 

[Johan]

Under par against the best side faced. A criteria you also consider most important.

exactly why Ambrose beats Lillee!

 

[subshakerz]

exactly why Ambrose beats Lillee!

Lillee wasnt under par against WI by any stretch.
However I respect those who consider Ambrose against Aus their main reason. That's fine.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That's not what we are arguing when we say a bowler has more competition. We are talking about the quality of the bowlers in the lineup, not a post fact breakdown of who took wickets.

Quality of bowlers as they bowled in those matches, yes. Doesn't matter if you have Marshall there and Marshall legit sucked. If you have Sami and he takes a 10 fer, that's a higher tougher competition.

Not Bishop was fading series by series when he returned in 95 and by the time Rose came he was quite out of it.

Yet Bishop averaged 27 in those games, as did Rose. They both legit did quite good.

 

[subshakerz]

Quality of bowlers as they bowled in those matches, yes. Doesn't matter if you have Marshall there and Marshall legit sucked. If you have Sami and he takes a 10 fer, that's a higher tougher competition.

Yet Bishop averaged 27 in those games, as did Rose. They both legit did quite good.

If Sami is there for 20 tests and taking a big share of the wickets, that's more the failing of Ambrose rather than Sami being considered quality competition.

Rose started playing in 97 and Bishop was almost faded out by then. He declined steadily after coming back in 95.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If Sami is there for 20 tests and taking a big share of the wickets, that's more the failing of Ambrose rather than Sami being considered quality competition.

Rose started playing in 97 and Bishop was almost faded out by then. He declined steadily after coming back in 95.

If Sami is averaging 18 taking those wickets, that's definitely a testament of his quality rather than Ambrose's shortcomings.

Yet over that period they average 27. Stop beating a dead horse.

 

[subshakerz]

If Sami is averaging 18 taking those wickets, that's definitely a testament of his quality rather than Ambrose's shortcomings.

Yet over that period they average 27. Stop beating a dead horse.

Nobody is averaging 18.

Bishop averages 28 that period.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nobody is averaging 18.

Bishop averages 28 that period.

You got the point. If Sami bowled ****, he would average 45, not 25.

So 0.8 runs off.

 

[subshakerz]

You got the point. If Sami bowled ****, he would average 45, not 25.

So 0.8 runs off.

I don't think debating this further serves any point. We see things fundamentally differently. I am not convinced there was that quality bowling support for Ambrose in that period, both having watched and looming at the overall number for bowlers aside from Walsh for that period.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think debating this further serves any point. We see things fundamentally differently. I am not convinced there was that quality bowling support for Ambrose in that period, both having watched and looming at the overall number for bowlers aside from Walsh for that period.

And I provided you numbers, which show there's no basis to this claim especially given how strong a presence Walsh is, in comparison to Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

And I provided you numbers, which show there's no basis to this claim especially given how strong a presence Walsh is, in comparison to Lillee.

Till another time then

 

[Randomfan]

Ambrose second half has Walsh in 96% games and Bishop in 44% games.

Lillee just shared his wickets overall with poorer bowlers so got so many, Murali of pace

@Johan @capt_Luffy @subshakerz

WI had a very good bowling entire part of Ambrose career and had a good competition for wickets. There is no too way about it.

From 95-00 : WI bowling unit in match involving Ambrose Averaged 27.xx
Lillee career: Aus bowling unit in matches involving Lillee averaged 29.xx

There is nothing to suggest that Ambrose had less competition than Lillee anytime. Just looking at bowlers name confirms it and looking at data tells the same thing.

 

[subshakerz]

From 95-00 : WI bowling unit in match involving Ambrose Averaged 27.xx
Lillee career: Aus bowling unit in matches involving Lillee averaged 29.xx

There is nothing to suggest that Ambrose had less competition than Lillee anytime. Just looking at bowlers name confirms it and looking at data tells the same thing.

What about in that period regardless of if Ambrose and Lillee were there or not and the averages not including Ambrose and Lillee in the lineup?