Is Imran one of the 10 best bowlers ever?

[C_C]

That's really not true at all. The pitches in the Australian home series against India in 2003/04 were less seam-friendly than those in India in the return series... indeed Nagpur was comfortably the best seam bowling pitch of the lot, while the wickets in Australia were universally roads. It might be true more or less that the worst pitches appear in the subcontinent, but that doesn't mean that wickets like the Adelaide Oval, The Oval in England, Antigua in the West Indies and so on aren't just as dead for seamers as wickets in the subcontinent generally are.

Your argument that the only place in the world that Lillee could have come across unresponsive pitches is the subcontinent is totally bogus, and if nothing else, the Malcolm Marshall quotes that Francis provided show that.

Umm. We are talking the 70s and 80s here.
Almost every single wicket in OZ or England- to this day- has decent support for pacers - there is consistent bounce and carry at the very least.
In the subcontinent back in the 70s and 80s the ball often didnt rise above hip-height and the pitches were typical 'Kotla pitches' - low,slow and devoid of any lateral movement.

The kind of pitches Lillee bowled on most of the time are dreams of pacers today - the 70s and 80s era saw some of the fastest wickets in the world - Perth was much faster, Lords was more hostile, Brisbane was a positive green-top, etc.
As such, the best pitches for pace in the subcontinent were akin to bottom 20% of pace-friendly wickets in Eng-Aus-Nz.

I am sorry but 'unhelpful' was not the word i would choose to depict Eng-Aus-NZ wickets in the 70s.

 

[Swervy]

lets face it, CC's arguement is based on opinion of a player he never saw play live and I suspect has only seen clips of. He has a preconceived idea of Lillee based on the stats of that one Pakistan series, and because the stats say he bowled crap, then it must mean he was a crap bowler on flat wickets, despite what Imran Khan actually said about him on that tour ....

As someone who saw him play in the late 70's early 80's I can categorically say that Lillee as an opening bowler he was about as good as you would get. His control was only rivalled by Hadlee and marshall (at his best), a bowler of great competitiveness and intelligence.

His 7 wicket haul vs WI in 1981 was about as good as you will ever see against a very strong batting line up, and that first 3 wickets he took in that innings was electrifying...the ONLY time I have ever seen Richards completely baffled and shaken up by fast bowling.

 

[Swervy]

Umm. We are talking the 70s and 80s here.
Almost every single wicket in OZ or England- to this day- has decent support for pacers - there is consistent bounce and carry at the very least.
In the subcontinent back in the 70s and 80s the ball often didnt rise above hip-height and the pitches were typical 'Kotla pitches' - low,slow and devoid of any lateral movement.

The kind of pitches Lillee bowled on most of the time are dreams of pacers today - the 70s and 80s era saw some of the fastest wickets in the world - Perth was much faster, Lords was more hostile, Brisbane was a positive green-top, etc.
As such, the best pitches for pace in the subcontinent were akin to bottom 20% of pace-friendly wickets in Eng-Aus-Nz.

I am sorry but 'unhelpful' was not the word i would choose to depict Eng-Aus-NZ wickets in the 70s.

I wouldnt say Brisbane was a 'positive green top', it offered good bowlers something, but it has always given a batsman a chance as well, something a green top never does

 

[C_C]

I wouldnt say Brisbane was a 'positive green top', it offered good bowlers something, but it has always given a batsman a chance as well, something a green top never does

My whole point is, a wicket that gives 'good pace bowlers something and batsmen a chance as well' is a positive greentop in comparison to most wickets today and the wickets in the subcontinent 20-30 years ago.

His control was only rivalled by Hadlee and marshall (at his best), a bowler of great competitiveness and intelligence.

Is that why Lillee got carted around so often ? There are quite a few performances by Lillee where he was tonked outta the attack.

. He has a preconceived idea of Lillee based on the stats of that one Pakistan series, and because the stats say he bowled crap, then it must mean he was a crap bowler on flat wickets, despite what Imran Khan actually said about him on that tour ....

He is unproven on flat wickets and his record is composed almost entirely of playing on the prime pace wickets around the world - just as Kumble's awesome home record is compiled on prime spin wickets around the world ( and as Lillee, it doesnt mean Kumble hasnt come across the occasional spin-unfriendly tracks in the subcontinent either).

Lillee played to his strengths by sticking to wickets where pace bowling was easiest.
Thats the fact you can glean from the scoresheets.
Opinions are like the opening down under - everyone has one.

Factual interpretation is what i've said above - that Lillee's performance came at the height of pacy wickets and total unproven/****ty record on unfriendly wickets.
Lillee was also never tested in the backyard of the strongest batting lineup of his time - the West Indies.
If Kumble or murali didnt play OZ in OZ ( strongest batting lineup in our times) their records would be a damn sight better too.

And before you accuse me of bias, consider this - i consider McGrath to be amongst the top 5 pacers alltime ( who for me is too close a call between Marshall, hadlee, Imran, McGrath and Ambrose), Warne as the second-best spinner of alltime and Greg Chappell as one of the top 10 batsmen of alltime.

I see facts and facts show Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, McGrath, Ambrose, etc. significantly more accomplished than Lillee.

PS: I've seen highlights of that spell by Lillee - and i've seen Richards facing a rampant Akram- if there was a pacer who gave Richards trouble consistently, it was Akram. Not Lillee - Lillee had the ability to turn in some of the best performances in pace bowling but he lacked the consistency ( which i rate far higher than the occasional 8-30 figure followed by 2-80 off 20) the abovementioned bowlers did.

 

[Swervy]

My whole point is, a wicket that gives 'good bowlers something and batsmen a chance as well' is a positive greentop by most wickets today and the wickets in the subcontinent 20-30 years ago.

well I think there are plenty of wickets around the world that give something to good bowling these days.

Is that why Lillee got carted around so often ? There are quite a few performances by Lillee where he was tonked outta the attack.

OK..care to name a bowler who hasnt been gotten hold of at sometime...you tell me about any of those that you know for a fact that he was ripped apart by the batting team simply because he was bowling crap
Lillee in fact rarely bowled without success

He is unproven on flat wickets and his record is composed almost entirely of playing on the prime pace wickets around the world - just as Kumble's awesome home record is compiled on prime spin wickets around the world ( and as Lillee, it doesnt mean Kumble hasnt come across the occasional spin-unfriendly tracks in the subcontinent either).

You are just generalising and assuming that the only flat wickets Lillee play on were in the sub continent...Bradman proved himself in India, so what????...Viv Richards scored one hundred in 9 tests on the batting paradises of Pakistan..what does it prove, was King Viv unproven on those types of wickets...Tendulkar never really did well in Zimbabwe, does that straight away mean that he shouldnt be classed as an all time great?

Lillee played to his strengths by sticking to wickets where pace bowling was easiest.
Thats the fact you can glean from the scoresheets.
Opinions are like the opening down under - everyone has one.

You make it sound as though Lillee decided to pad out his figures by not touring the subcontinent...it really wasnt like that though, there were work/business commitments etc that many players had to cope with, Lillee himself had back problems, and later on, knee problems, a sub continent tour isnt the best thing to do with those types of conditions etc etc.

No you cant glean the ALL THE FACTS from a scorecard...a scorecard in fact doesnt tell you how well a bowler has bowled, it doesnt tell you the condition of the pitch at various time of a game etc....you are judging the career of a player who played for his country for over a decade on the fact that he didnt get good figures on a tour where it was like bowling on concrete, and where the premier bowler of the oppostion actually stated he bowled with class on that tour

Factual interpretation is what i've said above - that Lillee's performance came at the height of pacy wickets and total unproven/****ty record on unfriendly wickets.
Lillee was also never tested in the backyard of the strongest batting lineup of his time - the West Indies.
If Kumble or murali didnt play OZ in OZ ( strongest batting lineup in our times) their records would be a damn sight better too.

And before you accuse me of bias, consider this - i consider McGrath to be amongst the top 5 pacers alltime ( who for me is too close a call between Marshall, hadlee, Imran, McGrath and Ambrose), Warne as the second-best spinner of alltime and Greg Chappell as one of the top 10 batsmen of alltime.

I see facts and facts show Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, McGrath, Ambrose, etc. significantly more accomplished than Lillee.

yeah well its how YOU interpret the facts...without actually seeing how most of those players actually played. Just becuase you interpret those fact in a certain way, doesnt actually mean you have interpreted them correctly

 

[Swervy]

PS: I've seen highlights of that spell by Lillee - and i've seen Richards facing a rampant Akram- if there was a pacer who gave Richards trouble consistently, it was Akram. Not Lillee - Lillee had the ability to turn in some of the best performances in pace bowling but he lacked the consistency ( which i rate far higher than the occasional 8-30 figure followed by 2-80 off 20) the abovementioned bowlers did.

Highlight do not give a good idea...with a spell of good bowling it is often the ball where nothing happens (and so arent on any highlights package) that are the indicators of what is great bowling.

By the way, when Richards played against Akram, Richards was way passed his best...and anyway, Richards hardly faced much bowling against Akram...I would hardly say that Akram CONSISTANTLY troubled Richards, based on the FACT (gleaned from the score cards by the way..see we can all do that) Akram played against Richard 4 times I think, and in a couple of those he hardly bowled anyway (or Richards was out without facing Akram)

How anyone can imply Lillee wasnt consistant anyway is beyond me

 

[C_C]

How anyone can imply Lillee wasnt consistant anyway is beyond me

Go through the scorecards - he did brilliantly a few times and got absolutely annihilated a few times - much more often than the likes of Marshall,Imran,McGrath,Ambrose,etc.

well I think there are plenty of wickets around the world that give something to good bowling these days.

For the first session or two, then everything is pear shaped. That is true for atleast 50-60% of wickets in England/OZ today. That was true for maybe 10-15% wickets 20-30 years ago.
It is widely acknowledged that the pitches were the fastest in England/Oz/WI/NZ around the 70s and 80s.

OK..care to name a bowler who hasnt been gotten hold of at sometime...you tell me about any of those that you know for a fact that he was ripped apart by the batting team simply because he was bowling crap
Lillee in fact rarely bowled without success

Fact is, lillee got ripped apart quite more often than Imran/Marshall/Hadlee/Ambrose/McGrath etc.

You are just generalising and assuming that the only flat wickets Lillee play on were in the sub continent...Bradman proved himself in India, so what????...Viv Richards scored one hundred in 9 tests on the batting paradises of Pakistan..what does it prove, was King Viv unproven on those types of wickets...Tendulkar never really did well in Zimbabwe, does that straight away mean that he shouldnt be classed as an all time great?

Now that is reaching.
Bradman's performance in England and OZ are so far ahead of the rest that his lack of being tested in other venues can be forgotten....Lillee's figures in England and OZ were excellent but not a quantum leap ahead of any other pacer around.
As such, just as the averages of a bowler rises when they play on unresponsive pitches or against the best teams in their backyard, so too would most likely have been Lillee's fate.
He didnt play in the backyard of the WI. He didnt play in the subcontinent.
Played pretty much his entire career on wickets tailormade for him. And others such as Imran,Hadlee, Marshall, etc. who faced allcommers and absolute dead wickets have better performance than Lillee.
That in itself rules Lillee out for the 'best of the best'.

You make it sound as though Lillee decided to pad out his figures by not touring the subcontinent...it really wasnt like that though, there were work/business commitments etc that many players had to cope with, Lillee himself had back problems, and later on, knee problems, a sub continent tour isnt the best thing to do with those types of conditions etc etc.

Right. So everytime in a 13-14 year career it came to playing in the subcontinent or in the caribbean, Lillee's back went kaput.....

yeah well its how YOU interpret the facts...without actually seeing how most of those players actually played. Just becuase you interpret those fact in a certain way, doesnt actually mean you have interpreted them correctly

And you have ? Based on some opinion of so-n-so, where opinions are dime-a-dozen and asking 10 batsmen about who the greatest fast bowler they faced fetches 10 different responsees ?
Please- stats dont tell the whole story but they tell the bottomline.
And bottomline is, Lillee has a zero for performance against the best in their backyard, a zero for performance on absolute unresponsive wickets, etc.
Thats too many 'zeros' in places where others have high marks. Lillee does not add up on performance.
Throw in the machismo and the 'idol' factor for Lillee in many a fast bowler and its quite evident how his worth gets bloated outta proportions.

There are others who've achieved significantly more than Lillee has and as such, must be considered ahead of Lillee.

I dont care how good a spell was or wasnt- if a mediocre spell fetches a wicket and a brilliant spell fails to take a wicket, the mediocre spell was more sucessful. Simple as that.
Objective of the game = take 20 wickets for less runs than opposition concedes.

Inorder to be in contention for 'greatest', you need to have atleast peerless performance. Lillee's resume has too many holes compared to the ones who are in contention for 'greatest'.

He IMO is an alltime great but he is also a rung below the 'top 10 or so'- alongside Roberts, Donald, Pollock,etc.
or at the very least, outside the top 5.

For regardless of opinion, bowlers such as Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath,Hadlee and Imran have achieved more than Lillee has.

 

[Swervy]

Go through the scorecards - he did brilliantly a few times and got absolutely annihilated a few times - much more often than the likes of Marshall,Imran,McGrath,Ambrose,etc.

when exactly did Lillee get anihilated????? tell me of these times


Hadlee had probably just as many times where his figures werent too hot...and just to tell you of one time when Hadlee actually had reasonable figures and yet I can tell you he was absolutely smacked out of the attack was here....thanks to Botham and Randall

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1983/NZ_IN_ENG/NZ_ENG_T4_25-29AUG1983.html

and beleive it or not, there were also times Marshall took a bit of hammer, and Ambrose and Imran (Imran especially before 1982, which actually takes up 11 years of his career)

 

[Swervy]

Right. So everytime in a 13-14 year career it came to playing in the subcontinent or in the caribbean, Lillee's back went kaput.....

How many times did Australia tour the subcontinent whilst Lillee played????

Well in case you didnt know, the answer is 4

1979 in India= Think the Australians were still in the WSC stage, and so Lillee couldnt play
1980 in Pakistan= The series you seem to be judging Lillees career on
1982 in Pakistan= Lillee didnt tour because he was injured
1983 in Sri lanka = in the only test, Lillee didnt do too bad, considering he was still suffering with his knee

so in fact, he never really got the opportunity did he

 

[C_C]

so in fact, he never really got the opportunity did he

Irrelevant. Lack of opportunities dont grant you a waiver. The fact remains that the greatest bowler would have to have achived the most - Lillee's achievements are not of the highest echelon.
As per getting hammered, check out who has the higher % of innings with over 3/4 rpo in tests.

 

[Swervy]

Irrelevant. Lack of opportunities dont grant you a waiver. The fact remains that the greatest bowler would have to have achived the most - Lillee's achievements are not of the highest echelon.
As per getting hammered, check out who has the higher % of innings with over 3/4 rpo in tests.

do your rpo figures take into account that Australia had 8 ball overs for quite a lot of his career!!!

not that that really means much any way

 

[C_C]

do your rpo figures take into account that Australia had 8 ball overs for quite a lot of his career!!!

not that that really means much any way

Yes it does.

 

[Swervy]

Yes it does.

tell me how????

Do they show how different players in different teams play different roles in different situations...do they show the distribution of where in an innings the runs at the higher rate were scored...I dont think that statistic really means anything to be honest

 

[C_C]

tell me how????

Do they show how different players in different teams play different roles in different situations...do they show the distribution of where in an innings the runs at the higher rate were scored...I dont think that statistic really means anything to be honest

If you have 20-0-120-1 and i have 15-5-33-1, plain and simple fact is, you were clobbered and i wasnt. What you say above is irrelevant really.
rpo. in an innings shows how much did you get tonked around.

I am willing to take statistics over opinions any day of the week. For afterall, it is 'opinion' that nominates a bowler who doesnt have a stellar record against the top opposition of his time, didnt play in the top opposition's backyard, didnt play/ performed poorly in limited appearances on lifeless wickets, etc. as 'the greatest' over players who do not have any such holes in their resume.... and unlike bradman ( who is brought in here by a few), Lillee doesnt have the sheer weight of numbers to render these considerations invalid. If Lillee had bradmansque bowling figures ( what they are i really dont know - for eg, 7 wicket/match @ 10-15 average) then i might be willing to overlook such holes in his resume.
However, if anything, his performance is still below the ones who i've mentioned.

PS: My 'yes it does' comment was in response to whether i've taken 8-ball overs into consideration or not.

 

[marc71178]

Irrelevant. Lack of opportunities dont grant you a waiver.

So my point about Bradman is valid then.

 

[social]

Kindly, name 5 innings where Lillee was "ripped apart" during his entire career.

 

[C_C]

You seriously think that Lillee never got decimated ? Almost every bowler has been shredded a few times.


Does 21-4-91-0 ( 6 ball overs) sound 'shredded' enough for you ?

 

[archie mac]

This amazes me, Lillee hardly played any cricket in the sub-con.

Name just one contemproary of Lillee who did not think him the greatest of all fast bowlers?

and that includes both Hadlee and Marshall who rated him the greatest fast bowler they ever watched.

Ian Chappell also tells the story of how Lillee always bowled for wickets, and would be come quite upset with Chappell if he tried to set a defensive field.

When you have a look at his ODI career you will see just how tight a bowler he could be.

I have watched all of the great fast bowlers from the 70s until today and still think him the complete fast bowler, his only weakness was a lack of a yorker. I also would think he would have one of the best strike rates for dismissing top order batsman

 

[SJS]

Someone wanted to know the proportion of top order in a bowlers figures. Here they are in percentage of career wickets.

Bowler....Top and middle order
Marshall......73.6
Lillee...........72.7
Holding........72.3
Imran...........71.3
Waqar.........70.8
Hadlee........70.1
Croft............69.4
Roberts.......67.9
Garner.........66.4
Wasim.........65.0

Bowler....Top order
Hadlee........36.7
Lillee...........36.1
Imran..........35.4
Waqar.........35.4
Croft............34.7
Holding........33.3
Marshall.......33.2
Roberts........33.2
Garner.........32.8
Wasim.........31.9

 

[archie mac]

Someone wanted to know the proportion of top order in a bowlers figures. Here they are in percentage of career wickets.

Bowler....Top and middle order
Marshall......73.6
Lillee...........72.7
Holding........72.3
Imran...........71.3
Waqar.........70.8
Hadlee........70.1
Croft............69.4
Roberts.......67.9
Garner.........66.4
Wasim.........65.0

Bowler....Top order
Hadlee........36.7
Lillee...........36.1
Imran..........35.4
Waqar.........35.4
Croft............34.7
Holding........33.3
Marshall.......33.2
Roberts........33.2
Garner.........32.8
Wasim.........31.9

Thanks for that SJS a great list of fast bowlers there. No McGrath?