Jasprit Bumrah vs Dennis Lillee

[subshakerz]

by the end Yes, and last two matches he batted very well, first four not quite so much

Lol Lillee also took Vivs wickets in those last two tests. Come on man...

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes exactly, Lillee vs WI is very good. It is not a weakness by any means.

Not a weakness but not a huge strength either. Given the English batting was weakish and NZ basically minnows, and he toured only those two countries; Lillee's record has plenty issues however you pretend.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The Xebec to Gavaskar's Garp

More like Roger and WB

 

[Johan]

Lol Lillee also took Vivs wickets in those last two tests. Come on man...

ok but dismissing him after he makes 98 and 100 isn't much, like, come on, you know 1975 Viv isn't peak

 

[Johan]

More like Roger and WB

Viv is 1000% a heel/villainous character and Xebec fits more, strongest and all

 

[subshakerz]

ok but dismissing him after he makes 98 and 100 isn't much, like, come on, you know 1975 Viv isn't peak

I don't see the point is just saying dismissing Viv earlier in the same series doesn't count. Anyways he dismissed him at the same rate in the following series.

 

[Coronis]

The Xebec to Gavaskar's Garp

Don’t try and butter me up with references

 

[subshakerz]

Not a weakness but not a huge strength either. Given the English batting was weakish and NZ basically minnows, and he toured only those two countries; Lillee's record has plenty issues however you pretend.

Lillees record does have issues primarily less series away from home, but his record at home vs WI to me is a highlight and frankly it was one of the things his reputation was built on.

 

[Johan]

Don’t try and butter me up with references

You're already buttered up

 

[Coronis]

You're already buttered up

Its margarine actually.

 

[kyear2]

28, But WSC was made for fast bowling as Packer was a huge fan of pace bowling and destructive batting, if they were slower and flatter like their natural wickets, it would not be the same.

Also, McGrath did very well against India who were at least SA level as a unit/batting unit.

So two things.

WSC, especially in Australia, was a bowlers competition. The pitches were designed for wickets, and were ridiculously spiced up to accommodate them. That's why I give more credit to the batsmen that actually succeeded in that series.

Secondly, and it think it was @Prince EWS who said it first, it wasn't so much about where Lillee didn't play, it was his numbers considering where he did.

His primary claim to fame was his ability to bowl long spells, go all day.
And his peer rating during the 70's and into the early 80's. But even that soon faded as younger and better pacers emerged in the decades since, starting with the one who replaced him at the top.

 

[kyear2]

I would like to see those pitch reports for the WI series since three of the five tests were drawn.


You are sidestepping the point. You were loathe to accept that McGrath had that blemish in his record against SA yet are trying to portray an objectively better record as weak. Double standards.

Yeah, for some reason, the pitches in the Caribbean weren't quite as bowler friendly as the Australia ones.

I could be wrong, but don't think they used the test grounds and had to make do with what were available.

 

[kyear2]

He got Viv's wicket 9 times in 11 tests, a better rate than McGrath against Lara and Tendulkar.

It's pretty ridiculous the extent some here want to minimize Lillee.

You do know that if we changed the opponent from Ambrose to Imran, you will start to as well.

Actually, since you're arguing so passionately for Lillee, how is Imran ahead.

Lillee still has a massive peer rating advantage over him.

Can't say SC success as really it was only India than Imran played against that weren't minnows and he wasn't great there either

So what's the advantage?

 

[subshakerz]

You do know that if we changed the opponent from Ambrose to Imran, you will start to as well.

Actually, since you're arguing so passionately for Lillee, how is Imran ahead.

Lillee still has a massive peer rating advantage over him.

Can't say SC success as really it was only India than Imran played against that weren't minnows and he wasn't great there either

So what's the advantage?

Obviously SC since Imran has an entire home record in Pak so he is more proven across conditions. Even India in 87 for Imran it's similar to Lillee in 79, pitches prepared as no result featherbeds so I tend to ignore those.

And he was even more successful against the WI than Lillee (albeit with a more aged side, yes, but still).

 

[subshakerz]

And his peer rating during the 70's and into the early 80's. But even that soon faded as younger and better pacers emerged in the decades since, starting with the one who replaced him at the top.

It didn't fade

 

[_00_deathscar]

Quality is worthless without the quantity

Bumrah is going to hit 250 soon, it’s not like he has just 50-100 wickets. And his quality is so far superior that it adjusts for any supposed differences in longevity here.
No one is saying he’s had a better career yet - just that he’s a better bowler, which he is.

 

[Johan]

Bumrah is going to hit 250 soon, it’s not like he has just 50-100 wickets. And his quality is so far superior that it adjusts for any supposed differences in longevity here.
No one is saying he’s had a better career yet - just that he’s a better bowler, which he is.

"Better" is relative, he is at a point where he can play 3 games a series in major away tours, if an elite pacer can play 5 of 5 then he naturally has an advantage because he is outputting for 2 more games and would naturally be more impactful in the series, the gap between the quality of elite pacers is so miniscule that such a factor becomes a big thing, play Lillee and Bumrah together and Bumrah would average 1 or 2 point lower sure but one would play substantially more. Cricketing Careers aren't race, but more a marathon.

 

[_00_deathscar]

One of his biggest selling points you highlight is his peer reputation, which many here don't take seriously.

And for good reason, otherwise we’d then have to elevate Jimmy Anderson too

 

[capt_Luffy]

"Better" is relative, he is at a point where he can play 3 games a series in major away tours, if an elite pacer can play 5 of 5 then he naturally has an advantage because he is outputting for 2 more games and would naturally be more impactful in the series, the gap between the quality of elite pacers is so miniscule that such a factor becomes a big thing, play Lillee and Bumrah together and Bumrah would average 1 or 2 point lower sure but one would play substantially more. Cricketing Careers aren't race, but more a marathon.

I think it's the first major series he has decided to sit out for more than a game, and even then it's very much the management being over cautious following the backlash post BGT. Bumrah generally don't sit out for more than a match in a 5 match Series. Since coming back he has played 15 and missed 3 games. And we often forget that Steyn as well never played more than 3 matches in a Test Series, and yes SA played around 8 of them, 4 being 5 matches, in his career.

 

[Johan]

I think it's the first major series he has decided to sit out for more than a game, and even then it's very much the management being over cautious following the backlash post BGT. Bumrah generally don't sit out for more than a match in a 5 match Series. Since coming back he has played 15 and missed 3 games. And we often forget that Steyn as well never played more than 3 matches in a Test Series, and yes SA played around 8 of them, 4 being 5 matches, in his career.

@subshakerz Ambrose is better than Steyn.