Lillie VS Hadlee

[JASON]

It wasn't that incident though.

It was the last WI tour when Viv and Beefy were there, and Botham hit his own wicket when swivelling after a pull.

Johnston said something along the lines of "Botham tried hard, but he just couldn't get his leg over"

You are absolutely right Marc. I was confusing the two or three commentary pieces I had heard in the UK. But this one where Johnstone cries from laughing with his voice husky is absolutely hilarious, even if a person who didn'y follow the sport were to hear it !!

 

[social]

PS: The reason i feel Lillee is a bit overrated is because he has zero success in the subcontinent ( admittedly he didnt play much there but still....pretty poor record there which indicates that lillee might not be the force he is thought to be if the pitches arnt conductive to short of a length bowling) and most of his career success was based against England....he didnt do too well either against the top batting lineup he faced - the west indians.[/QUOTE]

When Lillee played on the sub-continent, the wickets were doctored completely to nullify the Australian pace bowlers. Greg Chappell, on scoring 230-odd on that tour declared the wicket to be the worst that he has ever played on.

To gain a true impression of how he fared vs the West Indians, you must take into account World Series Cricket. WI had all their great players at or near their peak and his record was sensational. That is why Viv Richards rates him the best. And Don Bradman. And etc., etc., etc.

 

[Zinzan]

Botham hated Hadlee man

As for your other point Im not sure how that is relevant to the debate? Hadlee held Lillee is high regard, but he finished up a better bowler, let alone cricketer

He actually had Hogg as his idol before Lillie anyway

I just mentioned that it was interesting that Lillee was hadlee's hero. Thats all

 

[C_C]

When Lillee played on the sub-continent, the wickets were doctored completely to nullify the Australian pace bowlers. Greg Chappell, on scoring 230-odd on that tour declared the wicket to be the worst that he has ever played on.

they were also adjusted to nullify the WI four prong but bowlers such as Marshall were not negated- true they wernt rampaging but they wernt almost completely neutered like Lillee.

To gain a true impression of how he fared vs the West Indians, you must take into account World Series Cricket. WI had all their great players at or near their peak and his record was sensational. That is why Viv Richards rates him the best. And Don Bradman. And etc., etc., etc.

Lillee did well at the world series cricket but it was not of the same intensity. infact, Imran Khan mentions in his book that WSC cricket was not as intense as test cricket because it didnt carry the honour(and the pressure associated with it) to play for your country.

As far as World Series cricket goes, Lillee's record against WI was certainly uneven.
This is his record against WI in the supertests:

Matches:4
Wickets:19
Average:23.63
B-B:7-23
5-fer:1
10-fer:0
Strike/Rate:35.52

certainly very good but not that jaw dropping as people claim.
Also, in the packer series, Lillee had most wickets (but he played more matches than most bowlers too) but his average was pretty far down the tree....

 

[Swervy]

they were also adjusted to nullify the WI four prong but bowlers such as Marshall were not negated- true they wernt rampaging but they wernt almost completely neutered like Lillee.



Lillee did well at the world series cricket but it was not of the same intensity. infact, Imran Khan mentions in his book that WSC cricket was not as intense as test cricket because it didnt carry the honour(and the pressure associated with it) to play for your country.

As far as World Series cricket goes, Lillee's record against WI was certainly uneven.
This is his record against WI in the supertests:

Matches:4
Wickets:19
Average:23.63
B-B:7-23
5-fer:1
10-fer:0
Strike/Rate:35.52

certainly very good but not that jaw dropping as people claim.
Also, in the packer series, Lillee had most wickets (but he played more matches than most bowlers too) but his average was pretty far down the tree....

again you are just making judgments based on a few stats.

If you had watched the guy bowl you may have a bit more understanding of why he is considered an all time great.

As for the WSC stuff, well I have read accounts that the play was played at a pretty intense level.Imran may have slackened off,but I think a number of players were trying their hardest to win..I seem to remember that it was only the winners who got any prize money,that was the incentive to win.

 

[C_C]

If you had watched the guy bowl you may have a bit more understanding of why he is considered an all time great.

I have no doubt that Lillee is an alltime great.
What i do dispute is his 'greatest' tag. I would certainly go for Malcolm Marshall, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Glenn McGrath, Curtley Ambrose, etc. before Lillee.

Imran may have slackened off,but I think a number of players were trying their hardest to win..I seem to remember that it was only the winners who got any prize money,that was the incentive to win.

Imran commented on the general intensity of the game. Apparently it was extremely challenging in the first few games and players played with great enthusiasm but it petered off after a while, since you wernt representing your country and that added drive to excel was not there amongst many players.

 

[Top_Cat]

Lillee and Hadlee were both amazing fast bowlers and to decide one is better than the other is somewhat difficult because the were in different teams and were somewhat different bowlers. Hadlee was more of a swing bowler than Lillee was, Hadlee carried an attack, Lillee more explosive than Hadlee, etc. BOTH were outstanding bowlers.

And to those who would quote differences in stats measured in a few runs, it shows just how little you know about statistics and how to use them. You can't just quote a difference and say "See, Player X is better!". What you have to decide (using statistical methods such as ANOVA's and, knowing the data, probably non-parametric tests) is whether the differences are SIGNIFICANT. Until I see proper analysis, I personally will ignore all posters who use these erroneous argumentative techniques and I advise everyone else to do the same.

 

[social]

Imran commented on the general intensity of the game. Apparently it was extremely challenging in the first few games and players played with great enthusiasm but it petered off after a while, since you wernt representing your country and that added drive to excel was not there amongst many players.[/QUOTE]

Imran was also a "second-tier " player at the time, which didnt sit well with him at any point in his career.

Lillee, without doubt, was one of the 5 best fast bowlers of all time.

Hadlee, it could be argued, was on the same level. He was a far better batsman, and neither was a liability in the field.

As to who was better a better cricketer, i.e. more value to their team - toss a coin.

 

[C_C]

Imran was also a "second-tier " player at the time, which didnt sit well with him at any point in his career

he may have been second rate in the mid-late 70s but he was an awesome bowler from late 70s till mid 80s...But it is a stretch to speculate on any ulterior motives of a player ....

As to who was better a better cricketer, i.e. more value to their team - toss a coin.

toss a coin ?
I think when we move away from bowler arguments and talk about who was a better cricketer, its conclusively Hadlee.
Their bowling may be comparable and so too might their fielding.
but Hadlee is head and shoulder above Lillee as a batsman.
So how can it be toss a coin if Hadlee is a comparable bowler, comparable fielder and MUCH superior batsman, if the discussion is on who was the better cricketer ?

 

[social]

he may have been second rate in the mid-late 70s but he was an awesome bowler from late 70s till mid 80s...But it is a stretch to speculate on any ulterior motives of a player ....






toss a coin ?
I think when we move away from bowler arguments and talk about who was a better cricketer, its conclusively Hadlee.
Their bowling may be comparable and so too might their fielding.
but Hadlee is head and shoulder above Lillee as a batsman.
So how can it be toss a coin if Hadlee is a comparable bowler, comparable fielder and MUCH superior batsman, if the discussion is on who was the better cricketer ?

I agree with the all-round cricketer comments - no comparison.

Lillee was a great fast bowler.

The best?

Who are we to say.

But I'll think you'll find that Lillee's team-mates, needing a wicket, would toss the ball to him in preference over all others. His record suggests that he would be as likely as any in history to do the job. That's why he is so highly rated.

 

[Portugal_85]

Better cricketer overall = Hadlee (plus he has a knighthood )

Batting is a no-brainer, Hadlee was quite useful, Lillee not so, even with an aluminium bat...

Two completely different types of bowler though, Lillee had devastating speed and the "fear" factor, Hadlee had excellent accuracy and was a master of swing bowling.

I think the real answer to the question is yes, I would kill to have BOTH in my dream test side

 

[Swervy]

Better cricketer overall = Hadlee (plus he has a knighthood )

Batting is a no-brainer, Hadlee was quite useful, Lillee not so, even with an aluminium bat...
Two completely different types of bowler though, Lillee had devastating speed and the "fear" factor, Hadlee had excellent accuracy and was a master of swing bowling.

I think the real answer to the question is yes, I would kill to have BOTH in my dream test side

actually Lillee was a lot better batsman than alot of people give him credit for

 

[The Maestro]

I just mentioned that it was interesting that Lillee was hadlee's hero. Thats all

sorry my reply WAS a bit harsh

I think in summary we are giving this debate to the mighty paddles by a country mile

Oh....and we have also discovered that Lillie is "over rated"

 

[Stumped342]

Lillie VS Hadlee

Which of these two stacks up as the better player in your opinion?

I dont know ?

PS. Who is Lillie ?

Dennis Lillee.

 

[Stumped342]

Lillee vs Hadlee..

I think they're both equally good.

 

[The Maestro]

well.......theyre not

Hadlee was far better

S.F.O!

 

[The Argonaut]

Lillie VS Hadlee

Which of these two stacks up as the better player in your opinion?

I dont know ?

PS. Who is Lillie ?

Dennis Lillie was a spin bowler who played for Queensland in the 80s and he definitely was a better spin bowler than Hadlee.

 

[Black Thunder]

Hard question that one. Probably biased but I'd sway towards Lillee.

The thing that must be remembered is how much of his career he missed from a back injury, and also world series cricket. Take those two occurances out and he could've taken 450 or 500++ wickets.

Hadlee was great though - a genuinely brilliant swing bowler with a bit of pace, and plied his tried all over the world.

Both are as great as each other in many respects.

When looking at the very top echelon of bowlers (and batters too for that matter) you can't just look at a guy's average and say, well he averages 21.72 and he averages 22.31, so therefore the former is better.

There are so many factors to take into - the strength of the opposition batsmen a bowler would dismiss, the support he had from others, the general aura surrounding a certain bowler, and so on and so forth.

Lillee just. Malcolm Marshall was better than both.

 

[cric_manic]

bull$hit typical aussie biase
hadlee was better than lillee and equal with marshall.......
(and people would regard this as typical nz biase)

 

[SJS]

bull$hit typical aussie biase
hadlee was better than lillee and equal with marshall.......
(and people would regard this as typical nz biase)

Both Lillee and Hadlee were better bowlers than Marshall .

This is without bias (I am from neither country), just an opinion from watching all three.