Joel Garner vs Dennis Lillee

[Johan]

I notice you're shifting goalposts. First it was better batting units and and now it's just Australia.

And yeah, taking 5WPM against the best team WI with an awesome SR is a great achievement. You are just disregarding it because it's inconvenient for your argument.

Nobody is trying to take away from Ambrose vs Australia. But my point is that you can't ignore Ambrose outside Australia and he takes less than 4WPM outside them.

Lillee was taking wickets against almost all opposition at a very healthy wicket rate. He was taking wickets at a healthy rate at almost all stages of his career.

Ambrose did and was not.

So having no work away in the hearts of the strongest batting units of your era, generally non ATG numbers against them too and having nothing on slower wickets is not a problem for you?

 

[subshakerz]

So having no work away in the hearts of the strongest batting units of your era, generally non ATG numbers against them too and having nothing on slower wickets is not a problem for you?

He had great away series in England against Boycott, Gooch, Gower and peak Botham. He had a good WSC in WI.

And sorry if you get outside your myopic view of numbers you will see his test numbers against WI are objectively great.

And Ambrose btw outside of Aus and Eng has 36 wickets in 12 tests in Pak, SA, NZ and SL. Is that a problem? Or the fact that his home record is quite ordinary and he doesn't even take 4WPM there too?

 

[Johan]

He had great away series in England against Boycott, Gooch, Gower and peak Botham. He had a good WSC in WI.

And sorry if you get outside your myopic view of numbers you will see his test numbers against WI are objectively great.

And Ambrose btw outside of Aus and Eng has 36 wickets in 12 tests in Pak, SA, NZ and SL. Is that a problem? Or the fact that his home record is quite ordinary and he doesn't even take 4WPM there too?

28 is not great for ATG

His England series where he was so good in numbers was one where he was generally back to his 25-26 root until the final test where both Gower and Gooch were missing.

Ambrose's home record is very good, he averages in the teens when you remove the one series where he was a debitant and one where he was ill/sick, same way you remove Lillee's test in West Indies. Let's take it a step further, Ambrose's 97-98 England series at home is better than any of Lillee's home ashes.

 

[subshakerz]

28 is not great for ATG

His England series where he was so good in numbers was one where he was generally back to his 25-26 root until the final test where both Gower and Gooch were missing.

Ambrose's home record is very good, he averages in the teens when you remove the one series where he was a debitant and one where he was ill/sick, same way you remove Lillee's test in West Indies. Let's take it a step further, Ambrose's 97-98 England series at home is better than any of Lillee's home ashes.

23 wickets in 5 tests against a strong lineup is good, I didn't call it great. You were the one who said he had nothing of note away from home, that's just wrong.

Before that final test he had take 28 wickets in 5 tests.

The fact that you are asking to remove his debut series is a sign that he wasn't as penetrative at home. And it's not just those two series he has quite a few at home where he just didn't show up at all.

And Lillee at home vs 79/80s England is better than Ambrose 97/98.

Your main issue is you don't see low wickettaking as a problem as long as a average is low, but a team benefits more from wickets.

 

[Johan]

23 wickets in 5 tests against a strong lineup is good, I didn't call it great. You were the one who said he had nothing of note away from, that's just wrong.

Before that final test he had take 28 wickets in 5 tests.

The fact that you are asking to remove his debut series is a sign that he wasn't as penetrative at home. And it's not just those two series he has quite a few at home where he just didn't show up at all.

And Lillee at home vs 79/80s England is better than Ambrose 97/98.

Your main issue is you don't see low wickettaking as a problem as long as a average is low, but a team benefits more from wickets.

also 1981 Gooch really? care to tell us what his numbers during the Trent Bridge fifer were?

It's an okay series, still, he has nothing away from home against a truly strong unit, 1993 Australia clears him. Again, I find it funny how you take such an offense with Root's record in Australia but are completely fine with Lillee having literally nothing in any difficult setting away from home, wonder how that works.

The fact you've to judge him based on statistical impact of his debut series is more telling, Ambrose from 1990 forward took 2.4 WPI at home, good enough, struck at 19 a piece and so forth, but true use a series where he wasn't at 100% and his debut series to underrate him.

that series is the equivalent of Ambrose home series against England in 1990, actually, let's do an excercise!

Lillee at home vs England: 75 wickets @ 21.50, 2.84 WPI
Lillee at home vs West Indies: 50 wickets @ 25, 2.61 WPI

Ambrose at home vs England: 76 wickets @ 16.50, 2.92 WPI
Ambrose at home vs Australia: 50 wickets @ 23.48, 2.17 WPI

Yeah such a big home gap.

 

[subshakerz]

also 1981 Gooch really? care to tell us what his numbers during the Trent Bridge fifer were?

It's an okay series, still, he has nothing away from home against a truly strong unit, 1993 Australia clears him. Again, I find it funny how you take such an offense with Root's record in Australia but are completely fine with Lillee having literally nothing in any difficult setting away from home, wonder how that works.

It's better than an okay, series that was a damn good batting lineup. Combined with his strong Ashes record in England (remember you rating McGrath so high for that despite some okay lineups) I would never say he did nothing away. Thats nonsense.

The fact you've to judge him based on statistical impact of his debut series is more telling, Ambrose from 1990 forward took 2.4 WPI at home, good enough, struck at 19 a piece and so forth, but true use a series where he wasn't at 100% and his debut series to underrate him.

Asking to remove a debut series is special pleading. I am fine if you want to remove when he was sick but I think my point still stands. He still has an unusually high SR and went entirely missing in series. At the very least, if you don't agree there, you can agree that Lillee outperformed him at home by a distance.

that series is the equivalent of Ambrose home series against England in 1990, actually, let's do an excercise!

Lillee at home vs England: 75 wickets @ 21.50, 2.84 WPI
Lillee at home vs West Indies: 50 wickets @ 25, 2.61 WPI

Ambrose at home vs England: 76 wickets @ 16.50, 2.92 WPI
Ambrose at home vs Australia: 50 wickets @ 23.48, 2.17 WPI

Yeah such a big home gap.

Wait what happened to the 97/98 Eng series challenge? Can you admit you were wrong about that?

 

[Johan]

It's better than an okay, series that was a damn good batting lineup. Combined with his strong Ashes record in England (remember you rating McGrath so high for that despite some okay lineups) I would never say he did nothing away. Thats nonsense.

He did nothing of value away from home, take Holding in India in 1982-83 on dead wickets and against a truly, truly strong unit, that's something that makes one rate someone highly. Bullying a weak England on wickets that can only be described as bowler paradises? not all that impressive I'm afraid. It's like saying Ashwin was great away from home if he played in India and Sri Lanka and never played in SENA.

Asking to remove a debut series is special pleading. I am fine if you want to remove when he was sick but I think my point still stands. He still has an unusually high SR and went entirely missing in series. At the very least, if you don't agree there, you can agree that Lillee outperformed him at home by a distance.

No I don't, debut series being removed isn't special pleading considering about nobody considers that a negative for even the Don, though not like you'd need to, Ambrose had one bad series at home when he was debuting and one bad when he was ill, and you judge his entire home record based on the prior. Maybe Lillee is marginally better at home.

Wait what happened to the 97/98 Eng series challenge? Can you admit you were wrong about that?

That's better too but that's a long series, I took a shorter one for better direct comparison.

 

[kyear2]

Better peer rep. No real SC advantage for Ambrose. Far better wickettaker overall. More effective than Ambrose when their pace declined mid career. Simply more skilled.

Lillee has a better peer rep than almost everyone including Hadlee and Imran, and that's still the case today.

He basically bowled more than Ambrose, they had basically the same s/r and Lillee the worse average.

Ambrose's statistical decline is a bit overrated, he just didn't bowl as much.

 

[subshakerz]

He did nothing of value away from home, take Holding in India in 1982-83 on dead wickets and against a truly, truly strong unit, that's something that makes one rate someone highly. Bullying a weak England on wickets that can only be described as bowler paradises? not all that impressive I'm afraid. It's like saying Ashwin was great away from home if he played in India and Sri Lanka and never played in SENA.

Except you give that credit for other bowlers like McGrath because you said you rate Ashes contests. And 81 batting was strong. Overall at the very least I take his record in England over Ambrose.

And your double standards of Lillee vs Trueman away from home and what you choose to hype are pretty obvious.

And again you ignore Ambrose entirely in SA, Na, Pak, SL, collectively 36 wickets in 12 tests and you won't even call that a blemish.

No I don't, debut series being removed isn't special pleading considering about nobody considers that a negative for even the Don, though not like you'd need to, Ambrose had one bad series at home when he was debuting and one bad when he was ill, and you judge his entire home record based on the prior. Maybe Lillee is marginally better at home.

Again we disagree, if someone is taking an entire 1WPM more at a faster rate, it isn't close for me.

That's better too but that's a long series, I took a shorter one for better direct comparison.

No Lillee is 79/80 was better figures and a better lineup.

You don't seem to rate actual wickettaking.

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee has a better peer rep than almost everyone including Hadlee and Imran, and that's still the case today.

He basically bowled more than Ambrose, they had basically the same s/r and Lillee the worse average.

Ambrose's statistical decline is a bit overrated, he just didn't bowl as much.

Lillee had a better SR to account for higher WPM.

But isn't bowling more also a reason to rate Lillee higher? He was known for marathon spells when others would tire until he could pry a wicket.

Ambrose pretty much did his business but he wasn't the type to chase the captain to bowl.

You didn't address my other points.

 

[kyear2]

Not true. Even when Cricinfo did their ATG XI Lillee was the unanimous pacer. And Peterhrt just shared the book of a 100 ATG XIs where Lillee was rated higher.

He wasn't unanimous, Marshall made more teams than he did and he beat out the other two my a few points. What they were were well ahead of anyone else as was made clear in the article.

Most of the teams referenced were from the 70's and in other threads quite a few were cited as examples. Bradman made less than Viv and Sobers, does that mean he too had a lower rep? Sachin made less than all of them.

The ride had ling tired with regards to who's the greatest. At most it's a 4 man conversation with regards to pacers.

Marshall, McGrath, Bumrah and Barnes and two of those come with asterix.

 

[Johan]

Except you give that credit for other bowlers like McGrath because you said you rate Ashes contests. And 81 batting was strong. Overall at the very least I take his record in England over Ambrose.

90s England was likely flatter but sure Lillee is better in England, but that's all he has, Ambrose has Australia that blows away Lillee's work away from home. He did better against the strongest batting units too and better in their home too, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're Lillee.

And your double standards of Lillee vs Trueman away from home and what you choose to hype are pretty obvious.

It's you with a double standard lmfao, I've never claimed Trueman was close to Ambrose let alone better, you spam that Lillee was better than Ambrose. Though Trueman has more against the best batting units of his time that's for sure, both home and away, and his away work just happens to come in actually challenging serieses for pacers. Nice, you gave me another point to bring up in that debate.

And again you ignore Ambrose entirely in SA, Na, Pak, SL, collectively 36 wickets in 12 tests and you won't even call that a blemish.

averages 23 in SA and iirc bowled very well in first two games and broke down in fourth, his SA record isn't an issue at all. Sri Lanka really? completed one innings and second was rain ruined after he bowled 6 overs. Pakistan is an issue of those, and that's about it.

Again we disagree, if someone is taking an entire 1WPM more at a faster rate, it isn't close for me.

after the India tour, Ambrose averaged 19 at home and his WPM was 2.40, Extremely good home record.

No Lillee is 79/80 was better figures and a better lineup.

You don't seem to rate actual wickettaking.

23 in 6 vs 20 in 6 isn't relevant for me, if Ambrose was taking less than 3 an innings I'd care. Such a big gap in support and who you share wickets with too, Lillee was sharing with Dymock and Pascoe, Ambrose had Walsh and Bishop.

for example, in the 97 series, he took 22 in 6 from game 2 to 4 so not like Lillee was doing something exceptional.

 

[subshakerz]

90s England was likely flatter but sure Lillee is better in England, but that's all he has, Ambrose has Australia that blows away Lillee's work away from home. He did better against the strongest batting units too and better in their home too, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're Lillee.

Australia isn't a trumpcard for Ambrose if outside that he isn't taking wickets at a worldclass level and Lillee himself did well against WI.

It's you with a double standard lmfao, I've never claimed Trueman was close to Ambrose let alone better, you spam that Lillee was better than Ambrose. Though Trueman has more against the best batting units of his time that's for sure, both home and away, and his away work just happens to come in actually challenging serieses for pacers. Nice, you gave me another point to bring up in that debate.

You give Trueman high points for high averaging away performances as long as he is taking wickets and also cite SR advantages and arent as charitable to Lillee.

averages 23 in SA and iirc bowled very well in first two games and broke down in fourth, his SA record isn't an issue at all. Sri Lanka really? completed one innings and second was rain ruined after he bowled 6 overs. Pakistan is an issue of those, and that's about it.

It's a bigger point than one country. It has more to do with Ambrose losing a step post 94 which affected him away IMO.

after the India tour, Ambrose averaged 19 at home and his WPM was 2.40, Extremely good home record.

Nice should I cut out Lillee last couple of ordinary series at tailend of his career to make his record better? I'm sure there are some there when he wasn't fully fit. Notice how we don't do this for large samples for other bowlers. Anyways we have made our points.

for example, in the 97 series, he took 22 in 6 from game 2 to 4 so not like Lillee was doing something exceptional.

Right so 97 was slightly worse worse in other words.

 

[Coronis]

The players from the 70's and the Aussie press at the time did rate Lillee higher. The players since and the general punditry have since switched to Marshall, who's now pretty widely regarded as the GOAT.

Its almost like people’s views change with time. Even peers and the media..

 

[subshakerz]

He wasn't unanimous, Marshall made more teams than he did and he beat out the other two my a few points. What they were were well ahead of anyone else as was made clear in the article.

No in the Cricinfo XI, Lillee led in the selections over Marshall and Wasim.

And in the breakdown of ATG XIs given by Peterhrt, Lillee led Marshall 54 to 35 in sides he was selected in

Marshall does not lead Lillee as far as rep goes.

 

[Coronis]

No in the Cricinfo XI, Lillee led in the selections over Marshall and Wasim.

And in the breakdown of ATG XIs given by Peterhrt, Lillee led Marshall 54 to 35 in sides he was selected in

Marshall does not lead Lillee as far as rep goes.

Yet more evidence pointing towards the extreme validity of reputation.

 

[Johan]

Australia isn't a trumpcard for Ambrose if outside that he isn't taking wickets at a worldclass level and Lillee himself did well against WI..

Ambrose did better against Australia than Lillee against West Indies, and he did it in the heart of their dominion, not at home. Even Viv said Lillee did almost everything in his own backyard.

You give Trueman high points for high averaging away performances as long as he is taking wickets and also cite SR advantages and arent as charitable to Lillee.

I rate both very highly for different reasons, though I have Ambrose beating both, you don't. I rate Trueman's 60s away tours because they came on absolute roads against the two strongest batting units in the world. Lillee bowled once against the strongest batting unit in the world (Windies) and injuries plagued him, and he bowled once in Pakistan and we know how that went. Two completely different things, if you point out how Lillee singlehandedly led an attack, his performance pre injury against world XI etc I'd agree, but you just have to put Ambrose down to put Lillee high.

Lowkey brother, Ambrose beats the dogshit out of either Lillee or Trueman, no argument for the latter two.

It's a bigger point than one country. It has more to do with Ambrose losing a step post 94 which affected him away IMO.

Ok so point one, why did you mention SL then considering that's one test match pre 1994?

Second point, I explained to you why I don't think his SA tour is bad, he had 2 good games, one bad and then broke down in last, 13 @ 23 in 7 innings is not great but it's not bad. SA of 90s was pacer paradise, you and me both know in the long run Ambrose won't struggle there.

It's literally just Pakistan and New Zealand, and even NZ is just two games like Viv and he only bowled 3 overs at Christchurch.

It's literally just Pakistan brother.

Right so 97 was slightly worse worse in other words.

90 and 97 are on par with Lillee's 1979-80 Ashes.

 

[DrWolverine]

I used to read a lot of Indian cricket magazines, and even in the early 2000s, Dennis Lillee was the clear favourite among most writers. He was seen as the benchmark for fast bowling but over time his name started to fade and nowadays he doesn’t even make the Top 10 list.

 

[Johan]

I used to read a lot of Indian cricket magazines, and even in the early 2000s, Dennis Lillee was the clear favourite among most writers. He was seen as the benchmark for fast bowling but over time his name started to fade and nowadays he doesn’t even make the Top 10 list.

He and Trueman have cult followings now rather than being widely rated highly, though to be fair lots of opinions have changed too. Ambrose still beats the dogshit out of either.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ambrose still beats the dogshit out of either.

The majority of Ambrose’s fame at least among my classmates is the tall westindies guy who took 7-1 and you can thank CA for the wonderful video clarity