Dennis Lillee vs Ravichandran Ashwin

[Johan]

He lost atleast 6 years to War really. I won't be surprised if he got to there. Not to mention, unlike someone like Bedser, he was absolutely fantastic in the 40s as well.

do we atleast know how good he was when he was 19-23?

 

[h_hurricane]

This is an argument I've seen with regards to Ashwin and even Kapil of late. Lillee was the better bowler, by some distance I would imagine, I have him 10th all time. Not even sure where Ash drops in.
Gave a scenario the other day of Simpson vs Dev and even though Simpson was a better batsman than Dev, was still argued Dev was better.

Yet this argument never translates to guys like Kallis and Hammond being better than Sachin.

There's no consistency there.

The extent to which Lillee was better can very much be debated. The extent to which Simpson was a better batsman than Kapil as a bowler can also be debated.

I know you don't rate the secondary skill of bowling all rounders much, which is fine. There are many who think batting at no.7 or 8 is invaluable.

India would not have won the Adelaide 2018 test without Ashwin's batting and his partnership with Pujara. Neither would the 2020-21 series win have happened if not for his heroic blockathon in Sydney. He also saved us from an embarrassing defeat against BD in 2022 with the bat. Those are 3 series on top of my head. Was Lillee capable of anything like that with the bat ? I already rate him a better bowler than Ashwin, just not by gargantuan proportions to make this a non contest.

I am pretty consistent on where I stand on primary vs secondary skills. I do give around 80% weightage to primary and rest to secondary.

Don't remember ever debating with anyone rating Kallis or Hammond better than Sachin. I do consider there is a decent gap in their primary skill though, hence think Sachin is a tad better overall. It stays as my own option anyways.

 

[capt_Luffy]

do we atleast know how good he was when he was 19-23?

He came to the scene bustling as a school boy. Bowled Fingleton 3 times in 12 balls in the nets in his teens and was the hot topic all around. I think he would had done just fine.

 

[peterhrt]

do we atleast know how good he was when he was 19-23?

FC debut age 20.

Age 20-24, 45 FC wickets in 12 matches, average 25.97.

 

[kyear2]

Kapil's bowling is arguably better than Simpson's batting. And Kapil's batting was better than Simpson's bowling. So, Kapil clearly the better Cricketer.

I rank Sachin at 2 and Kallis at 18 as Batsmen, pretty big gap to overcome with the bowling. And although it's closer between Sachin and Hammond as batters(2 vs 9), Hammond's bowling wasn't enough (his WPM was below 1).

So yeah, Sachin>Kallis>Hammond as cricketers.

I don't see the argument for Dev's bowling being better than Simpson's batting, even being on par tbh. Simpson is a legit great test batsman.

Yes Dev's secondary is just ahead but neither is world class, and not not nearly good enough to make up for the primary gap and then there's Simpson's catching.

I have LIllee as the 9th best bowler ever and a legit ATG, I would propose that Ash is somewhere between 25 and 30 at best and below that threshold. But he's better than Lillee becuse he averaged 25 with the bat? According to your argument that's not even all rounder territory.

But in relation to Sachin, yes I have him 2nd or 3rd, Kallis 14th and Hammond 11th. But they are legit ATGs as well, Hammond in his era second best only to Bradman and Kallis played in the same era of Tendulkar and basically averaged the same.
Then Kallis is a legit 4th bowler, enough to be the 3rd best all rounder ever and an ATG slip. Hammond is closer to Sachin as a bat, with a per war average over 60, as a bowler was a hair below a wicket per match (again due to post war shenanigans), while averaging 37 and being arguably the greatest slip fielder if all time. He has such a better argument for being above Sachin than Ash for being over Lillee, or Kapil being over Simpson. They both do, at least using your and others combined ratings system. It's actually not close.

But the only all secondary skill that's rated by most on this forum is tail end runs, and well...
And yes there is a hypocrisy, or at best inconsistency. If Ash is above Lillee, Hammond and Kallis are well above Sachin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Simple, Kapil is a legit Greater Test bowler Simpson is a bat.

 

[kyear2]

I think it's quite silly to say Simpson's bowling and Kapil's batting were similar and totally lacks any sense really. Even ignoring Kapil was better in primary and had longevity as a pacer over him.

How was Kapil better in primary?

 

[capt_Luffy]

How was Kapil better in primary?

By being better???

Simpson practically had a 9 year career. That's way too short for a batsman really, though I respect him for coming back in after 8 years during WSC. Kapil had one of 16, for which he dragged his team mostly alone. Judging him purely on averages is like saying Weekes was better than Tendulkar for average. He had a Great home record including a few legit Great series, a Great record in West Indies and Australia. Have written previously on why his Pakistan and England numbers are bogus, but in short; had some real roads in those places. Debut series in Pakistan averaged 61 while Chandrasekhar did 48, Bedi 74 and Prasanna 125. Next series 2nd highest wicket taker and around that in averages after Imran in his 40 wickets series, MoTM in the 1st match of the next 3 match series and then last averaged 30 odd in roads again. Had a single bad game in 84 in between them. In England, was pretty good in 3 series, alright in 1 and horrible in his last. Though NZ is clearly worse here, 1 decent series and 1 horrible, with a decent single match to finish. Kapil also has 2 in the top 10 calendar years for most wickets.

 

[kyear2]

The extent to which Lillee was better can very much be debated. The extent to which Simpson was a better batsman than Kapil as a bowler can also be debated.

I know you don't rate the secondary skill of bowling all rounders much, which is fine. There are many who think batting at no.7 or 8 is invaluable.

India would not have won the Adelaide 2018 test without Ashwin's batting and his partnership with Pujara. Neither would the 2020-21 series win have happened if not for his heroic blockathon in Sydney. He also saved us from an embarrassing defeat against BD in 2022 with the bat. Those are 3 series on top of my head. Was Lillee capable of anything like that with the bat ? I already rate him a better bowler than Ashwin, just not by gargantuan proportions to make this a non contest.

I am pretty consistent on where I stand on primary vs secondary skills. I do give around 80% weightage to primary and rest to secondary.

Don't remember ever debating with anyone rating Kallis or Hammond better than Sachin. I do consider there is a decent gap in their primary skill though, hence think Sachin is a tad better overall. It stays as my own option anyways.

Yes, the extent that Lillee was better than Ash can be debated, I have LIllee as a top 10 bowler and an ATG, while Ash is possibly somewhere between 25 and 30 (never went that far down) and a great bowler. You may have it closer.

We can also argue how far ahead Simpson the batsman is over Kapil the bowler. But I have Simpson as a great batsman, not sure I rate Kapil the bowler as such. I think that because Kapil was the first for India and as such important to the team that for many it translates to being a great bowler, I just don't think it works that way. Same with Roberts for the WI for example.

Re batting as a secondary skill, that's not true. I do rate it, I just rate it roughly equally as 5th bowling and cordon. In order the complete cordon, no. 8, 5th bowler.

And yes, again good on Ashwin, those are 3 good examples, a Smith drop likely prevented Australia from having a go at India to win the 3rd test and a drop by Khawaja lost the 1st. That doesn't include the two half chances that Kohli didn't get close to this match that real specialists would have caught.

But Lillee for me is so far ahead of Ashwin as a bowler, that I don't see why he must be able to contribute with the bat to keep up.

I also rate primarily on primary skills, and as with you 75 - 80%, but there's no way that the ratings or ranking gap between Lillee and Ashwin is smaller than that between Sachin and Hammond.

For the record I do have Sachin higher than the other two, and handily, Sachin > Hammond > Kallis, but I also don't have Ash within the same area code as Lillee.

So yeah, don't think one can have it both ways. Just my opinion.

 

[kyear2]

By being better???

Simpson practically had a 9 year career. That's way too short for a batsman really, though I respect him for coming back in after 8 years during WSC. Kapil had one of 16, for which he dragged his team mostly alone. Judging him purely on averages is like saying Weekes was better than Tendulkar for average. He had a Great home record including a few legit Great series, a Great record in West Indies and Australia. Have written previously on why his Pakistan and England numbers are bogus, but in short; had some real roads in those places. Debut series in Pakistan averaged 61 while Chandrasekhar did 48, Bedi 74 and Prasanna 125. Next series 2nd highest wicket taker and around that in averages after Imran in his 40 wickets series, MoTM in the 1st match of the next 3 match series and then last averaged 30 odd in roads again. Had a single bad game in 84 in between them. In England, was pretty good in 3 series, alright in 1 and horrible in his last. Though NZ is clearly worse here, 1 decent series and 1 horrible, with a decent single match to finish. Kapil also has 2 in the top 10 calendar years for most wickets.

Sorry, don't go along with the longevity argument. But that logic, everyone is trailing Courtney and Jimmy.

The reason no one rates Weekes above Sachin is because of the home away split and the pitches he primarily scored on and the ones he failed on.

Kapil played in what was undoubtedly a bowling era. No, not every pitch was lively, Australia, England, the Caribbean all had batting pitches and they're the same pitches that Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Willis, Snow, Holding, Roberts, and Marshall all bowled on.

For such an era he was decidedly below par, he wasn't an ATG bowler and I struggle to call him a great one. Imran, Sobers both also had long careers, longer ones actually, with slow starts and rocky ends, their numbers don't nearly resemble his. His bowling numbers are closer to Sobers than they are to Marshall's. And can't use the Indian flat pitches reason for his average, becuse again, his average at home was better.

You say Simpson basically had a 9 (would say 10) year career that was too short, Barrington was basically the same and you rate him highly, sooooo....
Simpson was the rarest of test cricketers, a 50 averaging opening batsman and overall averaged high 40's. He opened throughout the 60's, averaging again, over 50 for the decade. Home and Away. He too when he entered the test team wasn't ready, having come into the team for his slip fielding and taking a few years to get his feet under him.

He too I wouldn't call an ATG batsman, not close, he was arguably a great one though, at worst, world class. Only 5 batsmen averaged over 50 for the decade while scoring more than 2000 runs, of them he was 4th, none of the others were openers.

In contrast in the 80's alone, an era where bowlers ruled, he still averaged 29, at under 3.5 wpm and a strike rate in the 60's. Those were Chatfield's numbers. Again, just because he was the first for India and a great for them, doesn't make him one overall.

 

[Bolo.]

Why do you guys try to fix a percentage for the value of secondary skills when the value changes from player? Do you think Jadeja's batting (and fielding) should count for the same proportion of his quality as Ash?

 

[kyear2]

Why do you guys try to fix a percentage for the value of secondary skills when the value changes from player? Do you think Jadeja's batting (and fielding) should count for the same proportion of his quality as Ash?

Obviously it's more for the batting and bowling all rounders, the "true" all rounders are a different proposition all together.

But that's how I rate players.

 

[Bolo.]

Obviously it's more for the batting and bowling all rounders, the "true" all rounders are a different proposition all together.

But that's how I rate players.

It's all a gradient though. You aren't rating someone like Shakib for only 20% in whatever you consider his secondary to be. Where do you draw a line?