Lillie VS Hadlee

[SJS]

That is a very narrow minded view. If Hadlee outperformed Lillee against 4 of the 5 teams they both played against, and you just analysed their performances against the team Lillee did well against, your narrow minded investigation would conclude Lillee is superior.

It should read "If a player performs better against nearly all teams and in nearly all circumstances, then he is a better player. End of story !!"

You do me grave injustics MB

I am not trying to prove any player better. All I am trying to show, by being sarcastic (and not serious) is that to put any such criteria to judge two great players is fallacious. Any such criteria you fix, I promise you, I will find a whole lot of stats that will make it look wrong.

Thats all the point is. Stats are an indicator but to put all one's faith in stats and to make conclusions based on differences when there are undreds of other mitigating factors shows a total lack of understanding of the game.

I have said beofre and repeat once again. Its fine to debate the merits of Lillee and Hadlee, its perfectly in order to hold an opinion that one may think one is better than the other but to say that there are statistics which conclusively 'prove' one's opinion is to give greater importance to statistics than they deserve. There isnt a fool proof statistical criteria to compare two greats playing for different sides. I insist on both being greats because if one is a great and the other is very ordinary, perhaps stats will show it up more obviously.

There was an English bowler, I forget who, who at the end of the days play, having taken 7-8 wickets for 60-70 runs was patted on the back by his skipper with a "Well Bowled".

The bowler turned rounds and said words to the effect, " I know I bowled well. I dont need you to say it to me now. I wish though, that on days when I have bowled my heart out the whole day and not been able to get a wicket, you will come up to me and say" Welll Bowled" because even on that day I would have bowled equally well but would need to know that you noticed it too"


It is a factual and very poignant story. To judge a bowler on just wickets or the average alone is to do grave injustice to him.

Thats all the point I am trying to make. Not trying to prove that one or the other of them was the better bowler.

To me both were great. Any opinion I may have is mine, limited to my knowledge, exposure of the game and the privilege or lack of it of having seen them in action. Nothing more nothing less. I would be an idiot to say that my opinion is the right one and that one or the other of these great bowlers is under rated.

There are those on this forum who say the same of other greats like Tendulkar, Murali, Warne and even Sobers and Bradman !! Well they dont prove anything except exposing the hollowness of their understanding of the game.

 

[marc71178]

Because in 30 overs the bowler has had time to turn things around after the batsman have taken to him, and 30 overs at 3.3 an over for few wickets is a genuine off day. Atherton says Warne is better because he has less off days and can turn things around when they are going against him. Those figures prove him to be wrong.

No, they prove him wrong based on what you deem to be a bad day.

 

[a massive zebra]

No, they prove him wrong based on what you deem to be a bad day.

So would you say any of these are not bad days, where the bowler has turned things around after the batsmen have taken to him? Some of them lasted a couple of days in all probability.

Under any conditions, anyone who leaks that many runs for such an extended period and takes hardly any wickets has had a bad day....or two... surely.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

 

[Swervy]

You do me grave injustics MB

I am not trying to prove any player better. All I am trying to show, by being sarcastic (and not serious) is that to put any such criteria to judge two great players is fallacious. Any such criteria you fix, I promise you, I will find a whole lot of stats that will make it look wrong.

Thats all the point is. Stats are an indicator but to put all one's faith in stats and to make conclusions based on differences when there are undreds of other mitigating factors shows a total lack of understanding of the game.

I have said beofre and repeat once again. Its fine to debate the merits of Lillee and Hadlee, its perfectly in order to hold an opinion that one may think one is better than the other but to say that there are statistics which conclusively 'prove' one's opinion is to give greater importance to statistics than they deserve. There isnt a fool proof statistical criteria to compare two greats playing for different sides. I insist on both being greats because if one is a great and the other is very ordinary, perhaps stats will show it up more obviously.

There was an English bowler, I forget who, who at the end of the days play, having taken 7-8 wickets for 60-70 runs was patted on the back by his skipper with a "Well Bowled".

The bowler turned rounds and said words to the effect, " I know I bowled well. I dont need you to say it to me now. I wish though, that on days when I have bowled my heart out the whole day and not been able to get a wicket, you will come up to me and say" Welll Bowled" because even on that day I would have bowled equally well but would need to know that you noticed it too"


It is a factual and very poignant story. To judge a bowler on just wickets or the average alone is to do grave injustice to him.

Thats all the point I am trying to make. Not trying to prove that one or the other of them was the better bowler.

To me both were great. Any opinion I may have is mine, limited to my knowledge, exposure of the game and the privilege or lack of it of having seen them in action. Nothing more nothing less. I would be an idiot to say that my opinion is the right one and that one or the other of these great bowlers is under rated.

There are those on this forum who say the same of other greats like Tendulkar, Murali, Warne and even Sobers and Bradman !! Well they dont prove anything except exposing the hollowness of their understanding of the game.

splendid stuff...

Stats should be only used as a guide...nothing will ever PROVE who who out of the all time greats is the best...even with Bradman,many people said that Jack Hobbs was a better player on dicey, stodgy wickets...to some people that might be a truer indication of skill than Bradman averaging near a hundred whilst playing a hell of a lot of cricket on flat pitches (I am not personally saying that is the case however, but I can respect someones opinion on that,IF they had seen both play..obviously we need to mainly rely on archive accounts and reports for that these days)

SO deciding on who is the best bowler out of Marshall or Hadlee or Lillee...who can really say. Each played vital roles within their own teams, teams that played with differing tactics, differing conditions etc. In my opinion, its too close to call, I thought all 3 were master fast bowlers, the difference between them is a) negligible b) not important....but in order for me to come to that conclusion I had to watch them play...and understand the context of the game and era they played in.

Averages etc are a crutch for those who really havent seen that much of the relevent players to rely on.

I enjoy the statistical side of the game, but the more I watch (ie get older...I have been watching this game for over 25 years now, and I still learn from playing and watching), the more I realise statistics really do mean not so much.

I just dont like this attitude of 'Player X is great'...why? 'coz he averages 20 with the ball' (maybe no-one has actually said that here..its just a feeling I get from some people..I may be wrong)

Gives us reasons why he averages 20 with the ball!!!!!..and even then if you come up with 10 reasons why he averages 20, someone will disagree with some of them and may come up with other reason..again its purely down to opinion....and as long as its an educated opinion, I dont see a problem with that opinion.

 

[Top_Cat]

The entire debate with T_C was if one particular criteria has an impact or not.

If you believe that's what I've been saying all along, read the entire thread top-to-bottom again and when you're done, repeat.

SJS:

 

[marc71178]

Under any conditions, anyone who leaks that many runs for such an extended period and takes hardly any wickets has had a bad day....or two... surely.

Personally I'd say the eco you specify is too low and the number of overs too high.

Incidentally I note that the higher runs per over don't come from Warne.

 

[a massive zebra]

Personally I'd say the eco you specify is too low and the number of overs too high.

With less overs you don't have time to turn things around when they are going against you... which is part of Athertons reasoning.

Incidentally I note that the higher runs per over don't come from Warne.

The higher runs per over are pretty even.

Warne 34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
Murali 54 3 224 2 4.15 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
Murali 33 6 136 0 4.12 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin
Warne 30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai

Both have been hit for 4 an over twice, with Warne vs India at Kolkata being the worst of a bad bunch, and Warne has more off days as I have shown.

 

[C_C]

I am not sure you guys even know how to interpret stats.

The bottomline in cricket is to take wickets and score runs. How its done is irrelevant. I would take a very clumsy looking Allan Border and Geoff Boycott over the smooth flowing and majestic batting of Lawrence Rowe and Majid Khan any day of the week.

If someone says that Hobbs is better than Bradman on a sticky wicket, then one needs to check the stats on the sticky wicket. If Hobbs averaged over Bradman, then its true. Else its false.

Imran Khan said that Inzamam is a better player of fast bowling than Tendulkar. yet FACTS assetained from statistics prove him wrong. Which one are you gonna go on ? reputation or facts ?

Cricket has statistics that are easily quantifiable and measured. As such to say that they are useless is to show up your lack of analytical skills and ability to form a decisive opinion.


As usual the anti-stats posse harp on one stat and say that we stats-oriented people( by the way, i have probably seen more cricket than MOST of you so dont try to patronise me) take one stat and conclude on one stat.
Well its the AGGREGATE that matters. If 8 outta 9 stats balance each other out but the 9th one is in favour of Hadlee, then Hadlee wins.
Its the aggregate that matters and i have not said that Hadlee is great but Lillee isnt. Thats an absolute barefaced LIE. All i said is that both are great but hadlee is greater based on statistics.

And like i said before on this thread, you all can keep believing the marketing and go on reputation. I will keep on using my brains and checking the facts.
TYVM!

As per hollowness of understanding the game, i will match my understanding of cricket against anyone on this planet and hold my own.

 

[Top_Cat]

No-one is saying that stats don't matter (certainly not me). What I'm saying is that your evidence for the assertion that Hadlee just pips Lillee just isn't good enough. Just because on one criteria Hadlee wins, doesn't mean he wins overall at all. Why? Because like any other statistician, I want to know whether the difference is due to factors other than random chance. The bare numbers don't explain anything and your misuse of the data shows up YOUR lack of understanding of how to use statistics in analysing a situation other than that which is easily predictable.

For example, if you were to apply your logic of 'If 8 outta 9 stats balance each other out but the 9th one is in favour of Hadlee, then Hadlee wins' to, say, comparing speeds of CPU's or network performance, then you'd be right. Applying the same logic to human systems is fraught with danger. Your conclusions are premature. My general theme hasn't been "You are proveable wrong" about Hadlee and Lillee because that's not the case. What I'm saying is that you have not proven yourself right and if you read back, you'll see I'm not questioning the logic but the VERACITY of the conclusion.

I don't think there is enough evidence to support the conclusions you've made and that more analysis needs to be done to determine whether the difference in numbers is actually statistically significant. You saying they are and saying things like 'small difference mean something with great players' isn't good enough for me. Not by a long shot. And saying that all the stats you presented are statistically significant raises doubts in mind about your understanding of 'significance' in an analytical sense. Why? You have to do the significance tests BEFORE you can determine whether the difference between population means IS significant. You can't just look at them and say 'they are significant', simple as that. This has been the crux of what I've been saying.

I'm not sayign you're wrong and I'm right on Hadlee vs Lillee (I believe you're wrong but I haven't proven it at all yet). All I'm saying is more work needs to be done to prove who IS right/wrong and your conclusions lack the requisite evidence and REAL analysis to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Scallywag]

As per hollowness of understanding the game, i will match my understanding of cricket against anyone on this planet and hold my own.

Wow C_C you are just so great.

We should call you FIGJAM.

F*ck I'm Good Just Ask Me.

 

[C_C]

No-one is saying that stats don't matter (certainly not me). What I'm saying is that your evidence for the assertion that Hadlee just pips Lillee just isn't good enough. Just because on one criteria Hadlee wins, doesn't mean he wins overall at all. Why? Because like any other statistician, I want to know whether the difference is due to factors other than random chance. The bare numbers don't explain anything and your misuse of the data shows up YOUR lack of understanding of how to use statistics in analysing a situation other than that which is easily predictable.

First, its not just ONE criteria. For the umpteenth time.
I have compared his performance against the best batting lineup of his time- same faced by Hadlee.
SJS made an attempt to downgrade the WI of the 80s but he forgot that while Viv was a lesser force in the 80s and Lloyd + Kalli were gone, Greenidge was at his peak, Gomes was there and Richardson was at his very best, making up for Lloyd's departure with the bat...ie, the difference was small.

Like any statistician, you are getting bent outta shape regarding the degree not the verdict.
Even one criteria is enough to pronounce superiority( assuming all others balance each other out) and nomatter how miniscule, the superiority is there.
Therefore, its not a question of if X is superior to Y but by how much.
And you can have a varience in every statistical analysis and varience is there for practicality purposes in attesting to a product or practicality between time management and risk(this i am sure you are very aware of, given the kind of statistical data you deal with).
But that does NOT negate the fact that there is a statistical superiority between products A and B, nomatter how insnignificant.

Applying the same logic to human systems is fraught with danger. Your conclusions are premature. My general theme hasn't been "You are proveable wrong" about Hadlee and Lillee because that's not the case. What I'm saying is that you have not proven yourself right and if you read back, you'll see I'm not questioning the logic but the VERACITY of the conclusion.

this isnt a quintissential human system like propensity of a rape case or the propensity of a user to buy a certain product. At worst, its a low level computer simulation, since there are several parameters ( ie figures) that are easily quantifiable and not arbitarily tied to anything.

As such, based on the evidence presented so far and accessable, the conclusion is that Lillee is inferior to Hadlee.
Ofcourse, the degree is in question.
But unless you can quantify accurately( and not arbitarily) the differential factor in pitches at WACA and Auckland or the mood of a batsman, that data cannot be considered.
It is a given that anything involving human beings is not 100% accurate system but you still use it, dont ya ? Your modelling of the propensity of a rape happening at a given location is not 100% accurate but it is considered.
That aspect needs to be kept in mind.

Why? You have to do the significance tests BEFORE you can determine whether the difference between population means IS significant. You can't just look at them and say 'they are significant', simple as that. This has been the crux of what I've been saying.

that is valid in either of the two scenarios:

1. You are comparing the varience with experimental error
2. You have an arbitary number assigned to 'significance' based on the requirement of the job (say your boss deciedes that if there is less than 5% chance of a rape happening in this nighbourhood, there wont be a patrol car there or that the company you work for specifies that your bolts can only vary by .01 mm at maximum-thus the 0.01 is the significance factor).

Since i am not experimenting but merely crunching numbers, there is no experimental error.
And since there is no arbitary significance condition assigned to cricket, any difference is significant.

Ie what i am saying is there is clear indication that the overall dataset affects Lillee more negetively than Hadlee. You are arguing the significance of those datasets, ie if the impact is significant enough.
Well, how DO YOU deciede significance in this case ?

Say you do a statistical analysis on Lillee and Hadlee.... and then proceeded to give them an aggregate score that takes into account all pluses and minusses.
you come up with something like this:

Hadlee : 81.224
Lillee: 81.112

That is a 0.112 difference
Now how is it determined if that 0.112 difference is significant enough or not, since you do not have an arbitary governing number.

 

[social]

In the 2003/4 series vs England, Lara's batting return read 500 runs at 83.33.

Statistically brilliant but, in reality, a failure as 400 of those runs came from a self-indulgent innings played when the series was lost. When the chips were down, he had 6 completed innings for 100 runs.

Statistics are useful, but not definitive.

 

[Top_Cat]

First, its not just ONE criteria. For the umpteenth time.

I know that. But you said IF there was that'd be enough which I believe to be wrong.

Like any statistician, you are getting bent outta shape regarding the degree not the verdict.

That's because every verdict has a degree of error (not experimental error) surrounding it and those degrees of error instruct as to how credible the verdict is. A verdict in isolation is never enough for anyone. You need to qualify that verdict with an understanding as to its significance. Again, this is what I've been saying all along.

Even one criteria is enough to pronounce superiority( assuming all others balance each other out) and nomatter how miniscule, the superiority is there.

Simply untrue. Ask any statistician.

But that does NOT negate the fact that there is a statistical superiority between products A and B, nomatter how insnignificant.

I never said it did. But whether that statistical superiority is significant (i.e. due to random chance or an indication of a genuine superiority) is the question one always needs to ask. Saying Hadlee is statistically superior to Lillee and then, by extension, saying Hadlee was a superior bowler are two vastly different things and is a HUGE leap to make without real analysis which you or I haven't done as yet.

this isnt a quintissential human system like propensity of a rape case or the propensity of a user to buy a certain product. At worst, its a low level computer simulation, since there are several parameters ( ie figures) that are easily quantifiable and not arbitarily tied to anything.

You can quantify anything within ***ual assault scenarios or any crime type for that matter in the same way as measuring stats for cricket. You just need to identify the criteria you want to measure, analyse whether they accurately represent what you're trying to say and then use them accordingly. It's all been done before by Kim Rossmo and Jerry Ratcliffe. The concept of geographic profiling was invented by Rossmo too and is in fact a service offered by departments like this;

http://www.rcmp.ca/techops/geog_prof_e.htm

Doing what I do is equally as quantifiable as any analysis of cricket stats.

As such, based on the evidence presented so far and accessable, the conclusion is that Lillee is inferior to Hadlee.

And that it's eminantly questionable whether you can credibly draw such a conclusion from the evidence provided. I say you can't and could probably prove it.

But unless you can quantify accurately( and not arbitarily) the differential factor in pitches at WACA and Auckland or the mood of a batsman, that data cannot be considered.

Yet again, this is a routine problem for a base statistics graduate. One must just be able to justify the criteria is all.

For example, I was asked to be able to quantify a score as far as matching the Modus Operandi (how the offence is done) of any ***ual offence to an offender's known MO. However, which MO factors should rate as higher priority than others? What's the relative importance, as far as tying an offender to an offence(s), of the car they drove vs knowing the hair colour of the offender? How is each factor scored? A perfectly justifiable way of doing it was to survey several profesional detectives as to what THEY thought were the important factors were and how much. You then analyse that data like you would any survey. Suddenly you can rank different MO factors and come up with a useful score, matching an offender to an offence based on MO. Again, this is perfectly justifiable and is not out of the ordinary in any way.

Why can't one rank or assign value to aspects of pitches or batsman mood in the same way once criteria is agreed upon? Short answer, of course you can! It's an every-day occurrance in fact.

1. You are comparing the varience with experimental error

Not talking experimental error here but variability about the mean.

2. You have an arbitary number assigned to 'significance' based on the requirement of the job (say your boss deciedes that if there is less than 5% chance of a rape happening in this nighbourhood, there wont be a patrol car there or that the company you work for specifies that your bolts can only vary by .01 mm at maximum-thus the 0.01 is the significance factor).

Of course. You can't test the difference between two populations without having some degree of significance. All tested stats have an end result along with a 'within a 95%/90%/66% degree of confidence'. Again, routine.

Since i am not experimenting but merely crunching numbers, there is no experimental error.And since there is no arbitary significance condition assigned to cricket, any difference is significant.

If you want to do analysis of the numbers, you have to assign significance and associated confidence intervals to the values. Otherwise you're not doing real analysis which impacts on the validity of any conclusions. It's unavoidable in real analysis. If you want to understand differences between any populations, you have to have to make decisions as to the significance of any numbers you deal with (are the numbers the levels they are due to random chance or another factor?). Again, this is unavoidable in analysis. The numbers in isolation tell you nothing.

Ie what i am saying is there is clear indication that the overall dataset affects Lillee more negetively than Hadlee. You are arguing the significance of those datasets, ie if the impact is significant enough.
Well, how DO YOU deciede significance in this case ?

Easy. Read back and see the null hypothesis I put forward. Run a one-way ANOVA (best to use a non-parametric test) to determine whether the difference in Lillee's and Hadlee's averages (or any other factor) show significance or are down to random chance.

Say you do a statistical analysis on Lillee and Hadlee.... and then proceeded to give them an aggregate score that takes into account all pluses and minusses.
you come up with something like this:

Hadlee : 81.224
Lillee: 81.112

That is a 0.112 difference
Now how is it determined if that 0.112 difference is significant enough or not, since you do not have an arbitary governing number.

Why would you need an arbitrary governing number? We're not testing the significance of Lillee and Hadlee's stats against some other number but against each other. Again, easily done.

If you want to determine who is 'great' and the 'greatness index' was 81.210, for example then what you're saying makes sense but that's a totally different question and isn't within the context we're discussing. Comparing one population against another doesn't need that arbitrary governing number. I think I'm seeing where the misunderstanding is coming from now.

 

[Top_Cat]

Statistics are useful, but not definitive

Exactly. Stats are a tool to be used in an explanation, not an explanation in of themselves. That's why the results of any analysis has to be qualified with an analysis of the veracity of the numbers.

 

[SJS]

Lillee and Hadlee : Some tributes to two great bowlers.
....from those who know better than us mortals I presume

If Dennis Lillee isnt the greatest fast bowler then he must come very close to being so.

​

David Gower in Heroes and Contemporaries​

When ever or wherever fast bowling is discussed, the name Dennis Lillee is bound to be mentioned, for he unquestionably is one of the all-time great quick bowlers in the game. As far as i am concerned, he is the last of what I would describe as the classic fast bowlers.

Fred Trueman in Larwood to Lillee ​

Dennis has been blessed with all the attributes required to reach the peak of his particular art form. He is a fast bowling perfection.

Fred Trueman in Larwood to Lillee​

Which brings me to Richard Hadlee whom I believe to be the finest and fastest of the New Zealand bowlers I have seen. There is no doubt that he is among the most respected and feared quick bowlers in the world.

Trevor Bailey in Larwood to Lillee​

There have been many outstanding fast bowlers.....but none has quite matched Lillee who I consider to be the greatest of them all.

Clive Lloyd in Living For Cricket discussing the fast bowlers he has seen.​

Dennis Lillee the Australian legend and our best ever fast bowler.

Mark Waugh in The Entertainers while explaining his choices for the dream team of the 20th century​

I rate Dennis Lillee as the king of fast bowlers.

Doug Walters in The Entertainers.while explaining his choices for the dream team of the 20th century​

Note : Mark Waugh's team includes Lillee and Miller as the fast bowling choices while Walters includes Lillee, Marshall and Akram.​

Hadlee was very handy with the bat in his day. He carried the New Zealand attack single handedly and was an excellent performer on all types of wickets.
Walters in The Entertainers

He](Dennis Lillee) fights all the time, never shirks the responsibility. He came to Pakistan in 1980 and took just three wickets in the three tests but he bowled his heart out, trying every tactic and keeping up his aggression. Thats the sign of fast bowling greatness.

Unlike Andy Roberts, Holding and John Snow, great bowlers who needed to be cajoled. Dennis Lillee never gave up but made things happen by sheer will
power.

From the first day I saw him in 1972, he's been the best bowler of my era.

Imran Khan in his biography Imran talking about Lilleee​

PS. I am sorry the tributes to Lillee are more in number than those to Hadlee but thats what I could find.

 

[Zinzan]

Lillee and Hadlee : Some tributes to two great bowlers.
....from those who know better than us mortals I presume

If Dennis Lillee isnt the greatest fast bowler then he must come very close to being so.

​

David Gower in Heroes and Contemporaries​

When ever or wherever fast bowling is discussed, the name Dennis Lillee is bound to be mentioned, for he unquestionably is one of the all-time great quick bowlers in the game. As far as i am concerned, he is the last of what I would describe as the classic fast bowlers.

Fred Trueman in Larwood to Lillee ​

Dennis has been blessed with all the attributes required to reach the peak of his particular art form. He is a fast bowling perfection.

Fred Trueman in Larwood to Lillee​

Which brings me to Richard Hadlee whom I believe to be the finest and fastest of the New Zealand bowlers I have seen. There is no doubt that he is among the most respected and feared quick bowlers in the world.

Trevor Bailey in Larwood to Lillee​

There have been many outstanding fast bowlers.....but none has quite matched Lillee who I consider to be the greatest of them all.

Clive Lloyd in Living For Cricket discussing the fast bowlers he has seen.​

Dennis Lillee the Australian legend and our best ever fast bowler.

Mark Waugh in The Entertainers while explaining his choices for the dream team of the 20th century​

I rate Dennis Lillee as the king of fast bowlers.

Doug Walters in The Entertainers.while explaining his choices for the dream team of the 20th century​

Note : Mark Waugh's team includes Lillee and Miller as the fast bowling choices while Walters includes Lillee, Marshall and Akram.​

Hadlee was very handy with the bat in his day. He carried the New Zealand attack single handedly and was an excellent performer on all types of wickets.
Walters in The Entertainers

He](Dennis Lillee) fights all the time, never shirks the responsibility. He came to Pakistan in 1980 and took just three wickets in the three tests but he bowled his heart out, trying every tactic and keeping up his aggression. Thats the sign of fast bowling greatness.

Unlike Andy Roberts, Holding and John Snow, great bowlers who needed to be cajoled. Dennis Lillee never gave up but made things happen by sheer will
power.

From the first day I saw him in 1972, he's been the best bowler of my era.

Imran Khan in his biography Imran talking about Lilleee​

PS. I am sorry the tributes to Lillee are more in number than those to Hadlee but thats what I could find.

I'm sure their would be hundreds more....You'd need to go through 1000's of cricket biographies/autobios as well as other literature like mags etc etc.

Its simply comes down to one mans opinion vs the other.

Also it was unclear whether the starter of this thread was comparing them simply as "bowlers" or as "cricketers" as Hadlee was obviously classed as an all-rounder. If he mean't the latter, then its not so easy to compare.

 

[SJS]

I'm sure their would be hundreds more....You'd need to go through 1000's of cricket biographies/autobios as well as other literature like mags etc etc.

Its simply comes down to one mans opinion vs the other.

Also it was unclear whether the starter of this thread was comparing them simply as "bowlers" or as "cricketers" as Hadlee was obviously classed as an all-rounder. If he mean't the latter, then its not so easy to compare.

Yes. Sure there are hundreds. But I would really be surprised if there are many calling Hadlee the best or the greates of his time while there are umpteen calling Lillee the best of his time and since their times overlapped a fair amount, that would say something.

 

[Zinzan]

In the 2003/4 series vs England, Lara's batting return read 500 runs at 83.33.

Statistically brilliant but, in reality, a failure as 400 of those runs came from a self-indulgent innings played when the series was lost. When the chips were down, he had 6 completed innings for 100 runs.

Statistics are useful, but not definitive.

Nicely put. His value to the "team" was minimal in that series.

 

[SJS]

Statistics are useful, but not definitive.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Zinzan]

Yes. Sure there are hundreds. But I would really be surprised if there are many calling Hadlee the best or the greates of his time while there are umpteen calling Lillee the best of his time and since their times overlapped a fair amount, that would say something.

I'm not arguing for either player in this one. IMO its too close to call.

I know Hadlee himself rated Lillee as the best and most complete fast bowler when he was playing. So he'd no doubt vote Lillee.

IMO Hadlee emulated Lillee superbly and statistically overtook him.

Still its too close to call IMO