Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Apparently Replacing Inzy with Ponting in the field wouldn't make any difference.. Why bother about fielding skills?

 

[trundler]

CW gets itself into awful tangles to disregard Wasim having literal cheats for fielders as opposed to world class fielding support but regardless, McGrath had attributes that made him more effective and valuable (somewhat subjectively). Acting as if Wasim (or indeed LIllee) isn't in the conversation is just ridiculous CW contrarianism for nerds to feel smug about. Let's all pretend playing 2 decades as fast bowler or taking 5 wickets per match is unexceptional because reasons.

 

[Kirkut]

McGrath had way more variety than people are generally willing to admit for some reason. Had a low key nasty bouncer, quality yorker which he used sparingly, even reversed it when needed in the subcontinent.

It's just that his boring line and length simply worked in the vast majority of test match situations so he didn't need to resort to much else.

That's not even scratching the surface of McGrath. The number of peopel who think "yeah he's just nothing special but accurate" is mind-boggling. **** moved it as much as anyone, nipped it both ways on nearly any pitch with ease and all while hitting the perfect line and length 99/100 times

That boring line and length itself is the hardest skill to master in pace bowling.

 

[Slifer]

Lillee played majority of his tests in England, Australia and NZ. He was more effective than Mcgrath in these countries. Rest unknown.

Akram played 18 years, Mcgrath 15
If you compare first 15 years of their career, not much difference there.. From what i remember Akram's ER was better and had more 5 wickets / Match and 10 wickets / match. Also McGrath played more pace friendly conditions, had massive support from better and consistent batsmen, fielders and WK. Actually Pak fielders costed Akram more runs per match than the diffrence in the averages. ( and there were dropped catches too)
Catches contributed more than 2/3 of McGrath's Wicket tally.. Akram took majority of his wickets by clean bowled or LBW.

When talking about Mark Waugh or Ponting, people always blah blah about their fielding and explains how that helped the team immensely.. But the same people wont factor this when comparing with other team bowlers. I dont understand this.
Either Mark Waugh did nothing special in the field or He helped the bowlers to achieve better numbers.He was not Schrödinger's fielder to be both useless and useful at a time.

Wrong. Lilled had higher wpm but then he didn't have to compete with a certain leggie or any bowler in Gillespie's class. Then McGrath has a better average and their SR are similar 51 vs 50 (lillee ). Lillee played 65 of 70 tests in said countries fwiw.

And to the point about Akram/Lillee being better than McGrath. It's not thay far fetched to rate them in the same ball park but in order for people to do so, they come up with all sorts of hypotheticals and nit picks. Akram played for 20 years. And? McGrath played wayy more tests.

It's funny because I always see people take points away from Ambrose etc because he supposedly played in a more bowler friendly era. Then why on earth would those same people even consider Lillee over Mcgrath.....

 

[Kirkut]

Lillee played majority of his tests in England, Australia and NZ. He was more effective than Mcgrath in these countries. Rest unknown.

Akram played 18 years, Mcgrath 15
If you compare first 15 years of their career, not much difference there.. From what i remember Akram's ER was better and had more 5 wickets / Match and 10 wickets / match. Also McGrath played more pace friendly conditions, had massive support from better and consistent batsmen, fielders and WK. Actually Pak fielders costed Akram more runs per match than the diffrence in the averages. ( and there were dropped catches too)
Catches contributed more than 2/3 of McGrath's Wicket tally.. Akram took majority of his wickets by clean bowled or LBW.

When talking about Mark Waugh or Ponting, people always blah blah about their fielding and explains how that helped the team immensely.. But the same people wont factor this when comparing with other team bowlers. I dont understand this.
Either Mark Waugh did nothing special in the field or He helped the bowlers to achieve better numbers.He was not Schrödinger's fielder to be both useless and useful at a time.

I don't buy the argument that Akram would have been more successful had he played more games overseas. His bowling style was perfect for subcontinent conditions where pitches are slow and abrasive aiding reverse swing.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Wrong. Lilled had higher wpm but then he didn't have to compete with a certain leggie or any bowler in Gillespie's class. Then McGrath has a better average and their SR are similar 51 vs 50 (lillee ). Lillee played 65 of 70 tests in said countries fwiw.

And to the point about Akram/Lillee being better than McGrath. It's not thay far fetched to rate them in the same ball park but in order for people to do so, they come up with all sorts of hypotheticals and nit picks. Akram played for 20 years. And? McGrath played wayy more tests.

It's funny because I always see people take points away from Ambrose etc because he supposedly played in a more bowler

Lillee had 2-3 support bowelers with 4 wpm. Especially Jeff Thomson.. Thomson was Gillespie quality. Overall bowling quality was lesser compared to 00s, which might be the reason for Lillee's higher avg. And a SR of 50 is more special in 70s than it is now.. I think.

Playing more tests in your prime, actually gives you better stats.

 

[trundler]

Akram played for 20 years. And?

Lol get a load of this.

 

[Slifer]

I don't buy the argument that Akram would have been more successful had he played more games overseas. His bowling style was perfect for subcontinent conditions where pitches are slow and abrasive aiding reverse swing.

Right and it's not as if he didn't play extensively on more pace friendly wickets in : WI, Australia, South Africa, England and NZ. 41 tests with 181 wickets at 24.65. Great by any measure but not as good as Sir Glenn.

 

[Slifer]

Lol get a load of this.

My bad 18 years. Still don't see your point....

 

[trundler]

Yeah, playing 18 years between the ages of 19 and 37 as a front-line genuinely quick bowler is obviously unexceptional. But then again we've heard that having one mode of dismissal eliminated has no effect on one's average...

Point is CW's heartthrobes Marshall and McGrath played in the world's best teams and disregarding career length is completely stupid. Nobody're a thinks these things are tangentially related what-ifs until they pop up in arguments against their favourite players. Lillee in Asia is a meme point and should be regarded as such so wont even address that.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, playing 18 years between the ages of 19 and 37 as a front-line genuinely quick bowler is obviously unexceptional. But then again we've heard that having one mode of dismissal eliminated has no effect on one's average...

Point is CW's heartthrobes Marshall and McGrath played in the world's best teams and disregarding career length is completely stupid. Nobody're a thinks these things are tangentially related what-ifs until they pop up in arguments against their favourite players. Lillee in Asia is a meme point and should be regarded as such so wont even address that.

Who the hell said anything about Lillee in Asia?? And Marshall and McGrath and Hadlee are "heart throbs" imo the best of the best because they were great world wide. Hadlee certainly was not on the worlds best team. Akram was great as well but not as much as the above 3 "overall" ie not picking out phases of their careers to make them look better.

It's like Sachin in batting. My favorite batsmen are Lara and Sir Viv but Sachin had a level of worldwide consistency/excellence that's simply hard to ignore. He was better vs more opponents and in more places than Lara. Unlike you, I can look past personal bias and look at facts.

 

[trundler]

Unlike you, I can look past personal bias and look at facts.

Lol cute. Accusing me of either anti-McGrath bias or pro-Lillee bias takes smooth brain comment of the year.

Unfortunately, the facts say Akram had an incredibly long career filled with moments of magic others couldn't replicate and Dennis Lillee retired on the world record for most test wickets. Discrediting him for playing with a literally back-breaking injury is moronic, as is marking down Akram for playing longer and having worse fielders. The only bias I have is against CW myths that get reiterated ad nauseum without actually having any basis in reality. Lillee and Akram being underrated on here are prime examples of the latter.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Apparently Replacing Inzy with Ponting in the field wouldn't make any difference.. Why bother about fielding skills?

These Cw nerds go on about how slip fielding is oh so important to the extent they will pick atg xis keeping in mind which players can be placed in slip cordon, or even say slip fielding batsmen should be considered all rounders (?) and will suck Australia 2000s and west indies 1980s ' teams off constantly saying how omg one of the reasons they were so unbeatable was because they had great slip fielders.

But when it's pointed out Wasim was at a disadvantage that when it comes to fielding support compared to McGrath/Marshall , then suddenly fielding no longer matters and oh sir no way that might have affected bowling stats marginally . Wasim and Waqar had prank catchers in the slips. Can you imagine how much of a disadvantage it is to a bowler that the primary mode of dismissal in tests for any bowler is far less viable to you?

Either shut the **** up about slip fielding being important or admit McGrath and Marshall might have had it marginally easier because their cordon were amazing. Actually just shut the **** up in general y'all sound so ****ing stupid ffs. No self awareness about the contradictions. Bc.

 

[smash84]

These Cw nerds go on about how slip fielding is oh so important to the extent they will pick atg xis keeping in mind which players can be placed in slip cordon, or even say slip fielding batsmen should be considered all rounders (?) and will suck Australia 2000s and west indies 1980s ' teams off constantly saying how omg one of the reasons they were so unbeatable was because they had great slip fielders.

But when it's pointed out Wasim was at a disadvantage that when it comes to fielding support compared to McGrath/Marshall , then suddenly fielding no longer matters and oh sir no way that might have affected bowling stats marginally . Wasim and Waqar had prank catchers in the slips. Can you imagine how much of a disadvantage it is to a bowler that the primary mode of dismissal in tests for any bowler is far less viable to you?

Either shut the **** up about slip fielding being important or admit McGrath and Marshall might have had it marginally easier because their cordon were amazing. Actually just shut the **** up in general y'all sound so ****ing stupid ffs. No self awareness about the contradictions. Bc.

That BC in the end just took the rant to another level.

 

[Slifer]

Lol cute. Accusing me of either anti-McGrath bias or pro-Lillee bias takes smooth brain comment of the year.

Unfortunately, the facts say Akram had an incredibly long career filled with moments of magic others couldn't replicate and Dennis Lillee retired on the world record for most test wickets. Discrediting him for playing with a literally back-breaking injury is moronic, as is marking down Akram for playing longer and having worse fielders. The only bias I have is against CW myths that get reiterated ad nauseum without actually having any basis in reality. Lillee and Akram being underrated on here are prime examples of the latter.

Who in the hell is discrediting Akram/Lillee for anything? His/their careers was were impressive than Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee. If you think Akram and Lillee are better fine. I'm not one of these little kiddies who looks at spreadsheets or any of that bs. I've been following this sport for as long as on here with the exception of JB and SJS.

I assume some of your comments about fielding etc are directed at other posters. Fwiw Lillee didn't have particularly bad fielders either, yet in the poll above, he's actually beating Akram.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Actually just shut the **** up in general y'all sound so ****ing stupid ffs.

Mods change the thread titles of every one of these insipid player comparison threads to this

 

[Burgey]

Seems there’s no mirrors at OS’s place.

 

[honestbharani]

That BC in the end just took the rant to another level.

* Virat Kohli level.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Who the hell said anything about Lillee in Asia?? And Marshall and McGrath and Hadlee are "heart throbs" imo the best of the best because they were great world wide. Hadlee certainly was not on the worlds best team. Akram was great as well but not as much as the above 3 "overall" ie not picking out phases of their careers to make them look better.

It's like Sachin in batting. My favorite batsmen are Lara and Sir Viv but Sachin had a level of worldwide consistency/excellence that's simply hard to ignore. He was better vs more opponents and in more places than Lara. Unlike you, I can look past personal bias and look at facts.

Hadlee is not a heart throb here, its just he can not be degraded that easily with stats.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Fwiw Lillee didn't have particularly bad fielders either, yet in the poll above, he's actually beating Akram.

No one said, factoring fielding support will make Akram the undisputed GOAT.