Akram. Lillee. Trueman.

[subshakerz]

He plays a very highly disproportionate amount of games at home as well. 47/67 (over 70%) is very home biased.

Yes. And the problem with Trueman is he was a home basher.

Four series in Aus and WI and none of them really set the world on fire. Lillee at least has an amazing record in England.

 

[Johan]

Why are you combining averages? There are only two teams. And why not just focus on the single best team? We don't do this for other cricketers.

I will grant that Trueman is better at home against WI. Not away thoigh.

are you really going to gas up Lillee's away record in West Indies?? Trueman in Windies 1960 > Lillee's WSC tour

 

[Johan]

Yes. And the problem with Trueman is he was a home basher.

Four series in Aus and WI and none of them really set the world on fire. Lillee at least has an amazing record in England.

injured in one (1958-59), Did very well in two when the wickets were flat and most games were draws, only struggled in one and even that was in a very controversial series where an axe was dangling over his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Ashes 1962/63 Strike Rates

Trueman: 63.35
Rest of Pacers: 86.40

Wisden Trophy 1960

Trueman: 63.00
Rest of Pacers: 78.88

so No, even away on flat wickets he was a SR outlier.

Dude both Davidson and Wes Hall had comparable SRs in those series. You are clutching at straws here.

Bottomline he wasnt that amazing outside home

 

[Johan]

Dude both Davidson and Wes Hall had comparable SRs in those series. You are clutching at straws here.

Bottomline he wasnt that amazing outside home

Davidson had an ATG series, Hall is fair but Statham was way worse, and let's not even get into the spinners.

and Yeah nobody ever accused Lillee of being a home basher.

 

[subshakerz]

are you really going to gas up Lillee's away record in West Indies?? Trueman in Windies 1960 > Lillee's WSC tour

It ain't. At best IMO it's equal. And this isn't something to really hinge the difference between them on.

You already conceded to me in our debate you consider Lillee overall better away. You just think the margin of Trueman at home exceeds that.

 

[Johan]

It ain't. At best IMO it's equal. And this isn't something to really hinge the difference between them on.

You already conceded to me in our debate you consider Lillee overall better away. You just think the margin of Trueman at home exceeds that.

Yeah, and I think performance against best opposition and transcending qualities over peers is more important than Blank away averages.

which I think are quite worthless but whatever.

 

[subshakerz]

Davidson had an ATG series, Hall is fair but Statham was way worse, and let's not even get into the spinners.

and Yeah nobody ever accused Lillee of being a home basher.

Your point was his SR was exceptional in those series and it wasn't.

Lillee is only a home basher compared to other ATG pacers who toured more, not Trueman.

Who was a bigger home basher? Easily Trueman who played a notably higher percentage of his tests at home and that compensates for him being overall not as impressive away.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, and I think performance against best opposition and transcending qualities over peers is more important than Blank away averages.

which I think are quite worthless but whatever.

Transcending only at home isn't really as impressive. You might as well give Ashwin points for that for taking 6WPM at home.

And again, Lillee was terrific against the WI and to me it's quite a thin margin to separate them on this point.

 

[Johan]

Your point was his SR was exceptional in those series and it wasn't.

Lillee is only a home basher compared to other ATG pacers who toured more, not Truemna.

Who was a bigger home basher? Easily Trueman who played a notably higher percentage of his tests at home and that compensates for him being overall not as impressive away.

It....was? the general SR for pacers except him in those serieses is in the 80s and high 70s, his is in early 60s, he is outlierish compared to the normal trend, just because Davidson had an ATG series doesn't change that.

Lillee and Trueman are not home bashers compared to each other.

Heh, Yeah Trueman is a better home bowler, IE the majority both played, was better in 2/3 of the venues they can tour (Windies and NZ) and worse in Ashes rival home.

 

[Johan]

Transcending only at home isn't really as impressive. You might as well give Ashwin points for that for taking 6WPM at home.

And again, Lillee was terrific against the WI and to me it's quite a thin margin to separate them on this point.

Again, Many people had home wickets, and got only spicy tours, they did not match his WPM or SR, or even came close, there's a reason he's the biggest SR outlier in the history of this great sport.

the whole reason Murali is rated so highly is his WPM at home btw.

Even removing the first series Lillee doesn't come close to Trueman's average against Windies removing his first

 

[subshakerz]

It....was? the general SR for pacers except him in those serieses is in the 80s and high 70s, his is in early 60s, he is outlierish compared to the normal trend, just because Davidson had an ATG series doesn't change that.

Dude what kind of point is that? Your case is Trueman being exceptional and you mention series in which other top pacers of the era reach the same or higher level of penetration. Doesn't make any sense.

Lillee and Trueman are not home bashers compared to each other.

Trueman objectively benefited more by playing relatively more at home and not being able to replicate that level of success outside. Not a problem with Lillee.

Heh, Yeah Trueman is a better home bowler, IE the majority both played, was better in 2/3 of the venues they can tour (Windies and NZ) and worse in Ashes rival home.

Haha NZ was a minnow in Truemans era you know that, why are you even bringing them up?

WIs case is marginal and that too by ignoring his first series.

Trueman has nothing close to Lillee in England (6WPM @19 with awesome SR) in his away record.

Trueman is slightly better at home, that much I can agree too, but notably worse away than you are making him out to be.

 

[Johan]

Dude what kind of point is that? Your case is Trueman being exceptional and you mention series in which other top pacers of the era reach the same same or higher level of penetration. Doesn't make any sense.

Because not everyone is a top pacer? the average pacer is far off Trueman and Davidson, Hall did well but that's about it, it's like saying Steyn isn't an SR outlier anymore because he played (hypothetically) a game with Waqar, Outlier is fundamentally dependent on the average, not the extreme cases

Trueman objectively benefited more by playing relatively more at home and not being able to replicate that level of success outside. Not a problem with Lillee.

63%-70%, and Lillee never had to tour Windies for 5 games, and when he toured somewhere close to the same level of flatness, he was a total flop.

Haha NZ was a minnow in Truemans era you know that, why are you even bringing them up?

So were they at the start of Lillee's

WIs case is marginal and that too by ignoring his first series.

Dude, we are counting either both's or neither's, make a choice, I don't like this flip flopping nonsense, and no 26 is clearly better than 28.

Trueman has nothing close to Lillee in England (6WPM @19 with awesome SR) in his away record..

20* and Yeah that's why he's better away from home.

Trueman is slightly better at home, that much I can agree too, but notably worse away than you are making him out to be.

He's clearly better at home, perhaps not by the same margin as Lillee in England - Trueman in Australia but Trueman is clearly the bigger factor at home.

+ Better against top batting sides.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, Many people had home wickets, and got only spicy tours, they did not match his WPM or SR, or even came close, there's a reason he's the biggest SR outlier in the history of this great sport.

Sorry but arguing that Trueman was exceptional in one country only in his era is not really that impressive.

the whole reason Murali is rated so highly is his WPM at home btw.

No it's not. Ashwin is around the same at home but nobody cares, including you, because unlike Murali he wasn't a force away.

Even removing the first series Lillee doesn't come close to Trueman's average against Windies removing his first

Let's concede for the sake of argument he was slightly better than Lillee against WI. Is that really a deal breaker if Lillee was also terrific again last WI? Not to me.

 

[Johan]

Sorry but arguing that Trueman was exceptional in one country only in his era is not really that impressive.

He was great on flat pitches too, as the 1960s tours show.

No it's not. Ashwin is around the same at home but nobody cares, including you, because unlike Murali he wasn't a force away.

I...kind of do? also not compareable anyway, Trueman did better in 1960s Tours than Murali would've done in his place.

Let's concede for the sake of argument he was slightly better than Lillee against WI. Is that really a deal breaker if Lillee was also terrific again last WI? Not to me.

My argument is literally performance against top opposition > away performance unless it's on flat/dead wickets, Lillee without his first series averages 25-26 against Windies, Trueman 20, I value performance against top teams very much, you know this.

 

[Johan]

@subshakerz I think we have been here before.

 

[subshakerz]

Because not everyone is a top pacer? the average pacer is far off Trueman and Davidson, Hall did well but that's about it, it's like saying Steyn isn't an SR outlier anymore because he played (hypothetically) a game with Waqar, Outlier is fundamentally dependent on the average, not the extreme cases

You brought up those series and neither show him to exceed what the other top pacers of the era could accomplish, which is the entire point of you making him into an exceptional SR champ. Otherwise if Hall could be as good in England it negates Truemans entire premise.

63%-70%, and Lillee never had to tour Windies for 5 games, and when he toured somewhere close to the same level of flatness, he was a total flop.

Once again you are flipflopping because you brought that WI series as an example of Lillee doing well and it was 5 games, was it not? And when you add that it's quite a notable advantage for Trueman in home game (58 to 70 percent for Trueman). If you are talking about Pakistan, that's a whole other issue but that was historic levels of flatness in which Imran was also neutralized.

So were they at the start of Lillee's

I didn't bring up NZ you did.

Dude, we are counting either both's or neither's, make a choice, I don't like this flip flopping nonsense, and no 26 is clearly better than 28.

We don't include series or matches of injury is my rule.

And no 26 is not better than 28 if you take three more wickets in the latter in the same tests

20* and Yeah that's why he's better away from home.

Great

He's clearly better at home, perhaps not by the same margin as Lillee in England - Trueman in Australia but Trueman is clearly the bigger factor at home.

+ Better against top batting sides.

You are overlooking the fact that Trueman doesn't have a standout series away from home and is a really sore point.

 

[subshakerz]

He was great on flat pitches too, as the 1960s tours show.


I...kind of do? also not compareable anyway, Trueman did better in 1960s Tours than Murali would've done in his place.


My argument is literally performance against top opposition > away performance unless it's on flat/dead wickets, Lillee without his first series averages 25-26 against Windies, Trueman 20, I value performance against top teams very much, you know this.

He was good on flat pitches, not great. And he needed more top showings away from home to get more confidence in him overall as a bowler.

You argued fairly different on Ashwin before.

Ok so you can keep your top team argument. I personally don't find it strong because it's not like Lillee failed or was just average against WI, logically you should look at overall away record then. Both teams doing well against a strong side, one better, doesn't automatically make a better bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz I think we have been here before.

We have. We can stop if you wish. I have been defending Lillee recently since I feel he is being underrated and you are doing your English cricketer thing.

 

[Johan]

You brought up those series and neither show him to exceed what the other top pacers of the era could accomplish, which is the entire point of you making him into an exceptional SR champ. Otherwise if Hall could be as good in England it negates Truemands entire premise.

Because he was, even the ones from the era with exceptional home conditions (Australia of 50s and South Africa) do not come close to the SR of Trueman, and even his WPI (2.27) in the 60s tours was above the away WPI of his peers in Lindwall (2.0), Davo (2.04), Hall (1.90 only counted Windies and Aus), Statham (1.76) and so forth, just denying the obvious reality here.

Once again you are flipflopping because you brought that WI series as an example of Lillee doing well and when you add that it's quite a notable advantage for Trueman in home game (58 to 70 percent for Trueman). If you are talking about Pakistan, that's a whole other issue but that was historic levels of flatness in which Imran was also neutralized.

as if the 1962-63 Ashes wasn't extremely flat as well, but alright.

I didn't bring up NZ you did.

one of the few venues both toured.

We don't include series or matches of injury is my rule.

so Lillee doesn't have a first tour to Windies? fine, we just compare the second, and as I said, the axe was on Freddie's career in 1954 tour of Windies

And no 26 is not better than 28 if you take three more wickets in the latter in the same tests

Lillee got TWO more, and this also comes down to the level of competition for wickets.

You are overlooking the fact that Trueman doesn't have a standout series away from home and is a really sore point.

That's why I don't rate him above, But below Lillee (or Wasim) he isn't, He can't do anything if he only gets wicket specifically designed for draws against strong batting lineups. If he did have an ATG away series in the West Indies or Australia I'd probably rate him in the GOAT chat.

He was good on flat pitches, not great. And he needed more top showings away from home to get more confidence in him overall as a bowler.

Winning 2 out of the 3 resulting games from 10 games all in flatter serieses in an achievement at the every level, now you're doing blind average reading rather than reading into the context of the series.

You argued fairly different on Ashwin before.

I rate Ashwin the bowler on level with people like Kohli, that alone tells you I value home performance.

Ok so you can keep your top team argument. I personally don't find it strong because it's not like Lillee failed or was just average against WI, logically you should look at overall away record then. Both teams doing well against a strong side, one better, doesn't automatically make a better bowler.

there's a significant gap between their performance against the top two collectively, and it's not like the level of defecit in their WI records increase or decrease on removing their first serieses.