Dale Steyn (pre-injury) vs Dennis Lillee

[Sarwar89]

A very simple question.

Whenever legends of Cricket select their best test 11. Generally Dale Steyn is always over looked. His statistics are brilliant and unlike Dennis Lillee he has performed so well in dead pitches of Asia.

Instead everybody seems to go for Dennis Lillee. Isnt it unfair on Dale Steyn ( pre injury Dale Steyn i mean)

 

[Rahul1]

Steyn. Without a doubt.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Why pre injury, bro? Injury is a of sportsmen which reduce their potential. Both Imran & Waqar were beast before their injuries, specially Waqar's injury almost finished his threats.

 

[Robert]

A very simple question.

Whenever legends of Cricket select their best test 11. Generally Dale Steyn is always over looked. His statistics are brilliant and unlike Dennis Lillee he has performed so well in dead pitches of Asia.

Instead everybody seems to go for Dennis Lillee. Isnt it unfair on Dale Steyn ( pre injury Dale Steyn i mean)

Hard to say. Lillee Mk1 was an express who didn’t move it much. Lillee Mk2 was slower but swung and cut it about, a prototype for Hadlee.

Steyn always had that lovely fast outswinger.

It would be interesting to see Lillee against today’s batters. I think he would be blasting their poles out pretty often as their defensive techniques are weak, though he would also go for more fours and sixes.

Whereas if you put Steyn in the 1970s he would be effective getting top batters to nick off to slip, but would be up against batters with tighter techniques so that strike rate would be less impressive.

Both would be top men in any era.

 

[TM Riddle]

Steyn is one of the GOATs in red ball cricket. His superior record in Subcontinent easily edges him past Lillys Shillys of yesteryears.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Better avg, better str rate. Played in a much more batter friendly era(according to the oldies). So dale is clearly better.

 

[Robert]

On the other hand, Steyn played half his cricket on helpful SA wickets with bounce and seam and sometimes cloud cover, while DK played on those Aussie pancakes of the 1970s - no bounce, no seam, no swing.

Any side would want both these men to take the new ball together.

 

[big_gamer007]

Steyn is clearly the better bowler.. The current steyn is on his last legs so doesn't look as great, but this happens with every bowler during the end of their careers they just don't look as good as they once were..

Maybe McGrath was an exception.

 

[barah_admi]

A very simple question.

Whenever legends of Cricket select their best test 11. Generally Dale Steyn is always over looked. His statistics are brilliant and unlike Dennis Lillee he has performed so well in dead pitches of Asia.

Instead everybody seems to go for Dennis Lillee. Isnt it unfair on Dale Steyn ( pre injury Dale Steyn i mean)

Which injury would be my first question?

Second would be, Steyn very early in his career was fast but inaccurate and at times, ineffective, in the middle part of his career he was still pretty quick but very effective and now, he still has some pace but is not always the most effective bowler around and you fear he can barely complete his spell, so high is the risk of further injury.

The middle version of Steyn is the best BUT that is nowhere near how good Lillee was in his prime, arguably quicker and more effective as a wicket taker.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Dennis Lillee was massively aided by Australian umpires.

 

[wrongun]

Dennis Lillee was massively aided by Australian umpires.

So one bowler in the world massively benefited from the pre-neutral umpires period but no other bowlers of the time benefitted equally? Or do you write off all bowlers from the era, WI included- they had home umpires too... Wasim & Waqar... Imran... India's spin quartet- ignore them all or did Lillee get some sort of secret special deal?

All those batsmen who say Lillee was the best they ever faced - are they in on the conspiracy?

FWIW I don't think there is a correct asnwer- some will say Lillee because they saw or heard tales of him directly and cannot imagine anyone better than the impressions of their youth. Similarly todays fans may not be able to conceive of someone better than Steyn.

Statistically, Steyn did it all, he's box office to watch, a clutch performer, incredible skill & determination. Anecdotally, Lillee played in a golden age of fast bowlers and was universally regarded as a prince among them.

 

[Swashbuckler]

On the other hand, Steyn played half his cricket on helpful SA wickets with bounce and seam and sometimes cloud cover, while DK played on those Aussie pancakes of the 1970s - no bounce, no seam, no swing.

Any side would want both these men to take the new ball together.

I remember once you and a couple of others praised Greg Chappell for being the best batsman on pacy and bouncy Australian tracks. How did they become flat pancakes when discussing Lillee?

 

[big_gamer007]

I remember once you and a couple of others praised Greg Chappell for being the best batsman on pacy and bouncy Australian tracks. How did they become flat pancakes when discussing Lillee?

Anything old is automatically better than the current thing.. it's not just when discussing cricketers it's the same at every aspect of life even the best of people get judgement clouded by nostalgia ..

 

[Robert]

I remember once you and a couple of others praised Greg Chappell for being the best batsman on pacy and bouncy Australian tracks. How did they become flat pancakes when discussing Lillee?

I perhaps said that Chappell was the best Australian batter I ever saw; I do not recall mentioning the wickets in relation to him.

Read Imran’s autobiography regarding the generally flat state of Australian wickets in Lillee’s time, Melbourne especially.

 

[Buffet]

Steyn, Marshall and McGrath are the top 3 pacers.

 

[Godhelpma]

Steyn is overrated , have not seen DK so I will not be able to comment . Steyn is very good only in one facet of game I.e test just like Yunus Khan .

 

[kingusama92]

Steyn.

Essentially dominated in all conditions.

 

[Robert]

Anything old is automatically better than the current thing.. it's not just when discussing cricketers it's the same at every aspect of life even the best of people get judgement clouded by nostalgia ..

Untrue. When I was a kid the food was bad, there were bombs going off on British streets due to the NI situation, SA had apartheid and nuclear war looked likely.

 

[Ab Fan]

Dale Steyn..

Only 4-5 names are superior to him.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Steyn is head and shoulders above Lille. Dominated ATG Indian batting lineup on India pancake pitch. Lille has terrible stats in Asia.

Lille wouldn't even be in a tier 2 team. Steyn, McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc are all much better than Lille. Lille is on par with the likes of Waqar at best.

 

[Dead Ball]

Steyn is you factor effectiveness/consistency.

Lillee if you factor intangibles like aura, x factor, sher-dil, nostalgia etc..

 

[jnaveen1980]

So one bowler in the world massively benefited from the pre-neutral umpires period but no other bowlers of the time benefitted equally? Or do you write off all bowlers from the era, WI included- they had home umpires too... Wasim & Waqar... Imran... India's spin quartet- ignore them all or did Lillee get some sort of secret special deal?

All those batsmen who say Lillee was the best they ever faced - are they in on the conspiracy?

FWIW I don't think there is a correct asnwer- some will say Lillee because they saw or heard tales of him directly and cannot imagine anyone better than the impressions of their youth. Similarly todays fans may not be able to conceive of someone better than Steyn.

Statistically, Steyn did it all, he's box office to watch, a clutch performer, incredible skill & determination. Anecdotally, Lillee played in a golden age of fast bowlers and was universally regarded as a prince among them.

Which batsman says that other than English players. I would pick Hadlee over him any day.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

On the other hand, Steyn played half his cricket on helpful SA wickets with bounce and seam and sometimes cloud cover, while DK played on those Aussie pancakes of the 1970s - no bounce, no seam, no swing.

A huge part of Steyn's legacy is his phenomenal performances in the subcontinent. He has produced the kind of spells most overseas fast bowlers can only dream of in Asia.

 

[Robert]

Which batsman says that other than English players. I would pick Hadlee over him any day.

Sobers, Richards and Imran. The latter said Lillee was the best quick bowler he ever faced, for his sheer bravery.

As to your Hadlee point, he could lose confidence when hit - the West Indians said he was not the terror he was at Notts when he toured the Caribbean. And Botham memorably got into his head one time. Hadlee, armed with the second new ball, had no slips up and everyone fielding on the rope.

Whereas Lillee got stronger and stronger under pressure. He had a fine record against the very best batters of his time, and couldn’t be bothered bowling at tailenders.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

A huge part of Steyn's legacy is his phenomenal performances in the subcontinent. He has produced the kind of spells most overseas fast bowlers can only dream of in Asia.

Also when Asian teams were very strong. SL and India had their best batting lineup when Steyn destroyed them at home. It was unthinkable for a foreign bowler to dominate Asian teams in Asia over multiple series during late 200s and early 2010s.

 

[SL_Fan]

Steyn easily.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Sobers, Richards and Imran. The latter said Lillee was the best quick bowler he ever faced, for his sheer bravery.

As to your Hadlee point, he could lose confidence when hit - the West Indians said he was not the terror he was at Notts when he toured the Caribbean. And Botham memorably got into his head one time. Hadlee, armed with the second new ball, had no slips up and everyone fielding on the rope.

Whereas Lillee got stronger and stronger under pressure. He had a fine record against the very best batters of his time, and couldn’t be bothered bowling at tailenders.

Pathetic record in Asia including Srilanka who were rookie team. Nothing much to speak of in West Indies. with 0 wickets. When you factor in the umpiring howlers he benefitted from Australian umpires he was not exactly the best of his era

 

[Romali_rotti]

Steyn and it's not even close... Steyn proved himself on batter friendly tracks in India, he didnt have the luxury of bowling 6 bouncers in an over etc. Lillee was a good fast bowler for his time, however he is not comparable to Steyn in skill, speed or talent.... Steyn had a beautiful run-up and action while Lillee runs in like a Kangaroo in the wild..... However Both Steyn and Lillee are inferior to the greatest fast bowler of all time Mcgrath...

 

[Robert]

Pathetic record in Asia including Srilanka who were rookie team. Nothing much to speak of in West Indies. with 0 wickets. When you factor in the umpiring howlers he benefitted from Australian umpires he was not exactly the best of his era

So you are not impressed by the word of Sobers, Richards and Imran?

Do you think you are a better authority on fast bowling than them?

 

[Robert]

Pathetic record in Asia including Srilanka who were rookie team. Nothing much to speak of in West Indies. with 0 wickets. When you factor in the umpiring howlers he benefitted from Australian umpires he was not exactly the best of his era

So how did he increase the wicket record from 305 to 355, in only seventy tests?

So Australian umpires were the most partisan in the world? How do you know that?

 

[Haroon786]

Doubt most or any of the posters saying Steyn have seen Lillee bowl live (neither have I) but I believe there should always be some consideration given to a debate and both sides of the argument.

I think Lillee was the greater bowler, but Steyn the more effective and better bowler. Similar to how Wasim is rated compared to McGrath.

 

[Robert]

Doubt most or any of the posters saying Steyn have seen Lillee bowl live (neither have I) but I believe there should always be some consideration given to a debate and both sides of the argument.

Sure. I could try to compare Trueman with Lillee, though I have not seen Trueman bowl. I have read books and looked at scorecards but not watched the Yorkshireman.

So if you asked me which was better, I would say they were both champions and I cannot give a properly informed opinion. That would be the intellectually honest position.

 

[jnaveen1980]

So how did he increase the wicket record from 305 to 355, in only seventy tests?

So Australian umpires were the most partisan in the world? How do you know that?

Well Australian umpiring was dreadful until 2000. India suffered so many times across various series. Gavaskar even walked out once in the 80s. Nowhere else it happened.

 

[jnaveen1980]

So you are not impressed by the word of Sobers, Richards and Imran?

Do you think you are a better authority on fast bowling than them?

share their exact quote. I mean there were lot of good bowlers back then. From Richards own team there were a lot. SObers never played against him in a real Test match. He was good. Not goat material as you like us to believe. Anyone who bullies ENgland is always considered the "greatest" . Wonder why.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

share their exact quote. I mean there were lot of good bowlers back then. From Richards own team there were a lot. SObers never played against him in a real Test match. He was good. Not goat material as you like us to believe. Anyone who bullies ENgland is always considered the "greatest" . Wonder why.

I found Indians are in general very non-biased compared to Australians and Brits regarding cricket. Only player Indians hype was Tendulkar (who was legit undisputed no.1 batsman in 90s across formats). Lille is the same as Ashwin, a glorified home bully (and Ashwin is mocked relentlessly in India). I think India's standard for player evaluation is higher and bias is much lower.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I found Indians are in general very non-biased compared to Australians and Brits regarding cricket. Only player Indians hype was Tendulkar (who was legit undisputed no.1 batsman in 90s across formats). Lille is the same as Ashwin, a glorified home bully (and Ashwin is mocked relentlessly in India). I think India's standard for player evaluation is higher and bias is much lower.

Seen so many fiery fast bowlers since the 80s.

Here Donald intimidating Waugh bros

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGBS-HwG55s

 

[Robert]

Well Australian umpiring was dreadfully until 2000. India suffered so many times across various series. Gavaskar even walked out once in the 80s. Nowhere else it happened.

I don’t remember the Aussie umps being bad. I thought they were the best, with the English.

 

[Robert]

share their exact quote. I mean there were lot of good bowlers back then. From Richards own team there were a lot. SObers never played against him in a real Test match. He was good. Not goat material as you like us to believe. Anyone who bullies ENgland is always considered the "greatest" . Wonder why.

Imran said something to the effect of “Lillee’s courage and sheer refusal to quit when the going was hard made him #1 in my book.”

 

[Robert]

Sobey....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=erJRmfB2LKk

 

[jnaveen1980]

Imran said something to the effect of “Lillee’s courage and sheer refusal to quit when the going was hard made him #1 in my book.”

That doesn't exactly sound like he was the absolute best of the best. He just higlighted couple of his attributes.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I don’t remember the Aussie umps being bad. I thought they were the best, with the English.

Well you don't know much then since you have not followed much of Asian cricket in Australia.

 

[jnaveen1980]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpiring_in_the_1970–71_Ashes_series

Leg before wicket
No Australian batsman was given out leg before wicket in the entire series, the clearest evidence of umpiring bias in the minds of the England players.[21] Again Keith Stackpole benefited, in the Second Test he survived lbw appeals from Ken Shuttleworth and Peter Lever before he was out caught by Lever off Snow for 8.[21] There was an experimental lbw law in force at the time which made it more difficult to dismiss batsmen, particularly for spin bowlers. In any case five England batsmen were given out lbw in the series.

This was against England. Think about Asian sides.

 

[wrongun]

Well Australian umpiring was dreadful until 2000. India suffered so many times across various series. Gavaskar even walked out once in the 80s. Nowhere else it happened.

You don't know much about the era you are trying to speak about.

Getting once almost walked away from a Pakistan match because the umpiring was so awful. Miandad & Lawry were pretty tough to get out LBW at home!

West Indies felt the home umpiring for Hadlee's NZ was so bad Holding kicked down the stumps.

Every country was convinced that the other countries were the worst offenders in umpiring. That's why neutrals were brought in.

But you've shifted your argument from Lillee only looks good due to home umpires favouring him to - Australian umpires were bad?

 

[wrongun]

That doesn't exactly sound like he was the absolute best of the best. He just higlighted couple of his attributes.

In context, when he's saying which bowler is the best and that all the very best have incredible skill and features which make them dangerous, then what separates the best from this pack... Then he gives the quote.

 

[Muhammad10]

Steyn, as long as the batsman isn't Babar Azam.

 

[Robert]

U

Well you don't know much then since you have not followed much of Asian cricket in Australia.

I know that Aussie umps were always considered competent and reliable during the Ashes in my time. I assume that competence translated to matches against India.

 

[Dead Ball]

Lillee was untested in the toughest conditions for fast bowling of his time (in the subcontinent) There have been Aussie bowlers in the past who have bowled very well in flat pitches of Aus, but have struggled in the subcontinent (Brett Lee, M Johnson etc)

Not only that, he was untested in the den of the toughest opponents of his era , the West Indies.

Compare him to a bowler who has taken wickets in every condition, in an era where there are limitations on bouncers, the batsmen are wearing heavy protective gear, bigger bats at a better AVG and better SR....There is absolutely no comparison...

Opinions of Sobers (who rated an Indian spinner he faced named Subhash Gupta over Warne) and Imran (who rated Inzamam at par with Sachin on talent) should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Dead Ball]

So you are not impressed by the word of Sobers, Richards and Imran?

Do you think you are a better authority on fast bowling than them?

Sobers was of the view that Subhash Gupte was a better spinner than Warne.

Viv Richards is of the view that Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman to ever take the cricket field.

So should we start treating their words as gospel truths? If you disagree , are you a better authority on cricket than them?

 

[Robert]

Sobers was of the view that Subhash Gupte was a better spinner than Warne.

Viv Richards is of the view that Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman to ever take the cricket field.

So should we start treating their words as gospel truths? If you disagree , are you a better authority on cricket than them?

In the law courts we listen to expert witness statements and give a level of credence to these.

I consider Sobers and Richards to be voiced of authority. If they make those statements there must be something in them.

Conversely, I find it extraordinary that on a Pakistani cricket board, the word of Imran is questioned - and can only think this is due to prejudice by some but not all Indians.

 

[Dead Ball]

In the law courts we listen to expert witness statements and give a level of credence to these.

I consider Sobers and Richards to be voiced of authority. If they make those statements there must be something in them.

Conversely, I find it extraordinary that on a Pakistani cricket board, the word of Imran is questioned - and can only think this is due to prejudice by some but not all Indians.

My point is great cricketers can hold biased opinions too, towards cricketers of their era/cricketers from their country etc. Donald Bradman did not include Vivian Richards in his All Time XI which is a travesty. Sobers, choosing Subhash Gupte over Warne is inexplicable. Lillee rated Gundappa Vishwanath over Sunil Gavaskar. These are strictly personal opinions based on personal taste that won't hold any ground if you compare performances.

Besides Steyn and Lillee are from different eras. Are you disagreeing that Steyn has a more all rounded record in a more batting friendly era? I think we will have a much more productive debate if we ignore who had what to say about a particular bowler and compare performances on the field instead.

 

[jnaveen1980]

We cannot call this era batsmen era and also diss someone like Steyn. If t is easy to take wickets in this era then every batsman that average 50 are better than Richards and co.

 

[Robert]

Besides Steyn and Lillee are from different eras. Are you disagreeing that Steyn has a more all rounded record in a more batting friendly era? I think we will have a much more productive debate if we ignore who had what to say about a particular bowler and compare performances on the field instead.

I think this "all rounded record" is a red herring. In another generation some kid will be telling you Steyn was not a great player because he never bowled in the Antarctic, or perhaps on the Moon.

All you can do is beat what is put in front of you and Lillee was superlative at that. If he played one match in WI (breaking down) and none in India (where Australia didn't tour during his career) three tests in Pakistan when he was injured and doing a medium pace stock bowler job, and one in SL at the end of his career, this is not really an issue to me.

Both these bowlers are champions. I can't separate them. Aesthethically I prefer Lillee because he had a beautiful action and radiated such cool menace, but that's just me.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I think this "all rounded record" is a red herring. In another generation some kid will be telling you Steyn was not a great player because he never bowled in the Antarctic, or perhaps on the Moon.

All you can do is beat what is put in front of you and Lillee was superlative at that. If he played one match in WI (breaking down) and none in India (where Australia didn't tour during his career) three tests in Pakistan when he was injured and doing a medium pace stock bowler job, and one in SL at the end of his career, this is not really an issue to me.

Both these bowlers are champions. I can't separate them. Aesthethically I prefer Lillee because he had a beautiful action and radiated such cool menace, but that's just me.

That is just you.

 

[Dead Ball]

I think this "all rounded record" is a red herring. In another generation some kid will be telling you Steyn was not a great player because he never bowled in the Antarctic, or perhaps on the Moon.

All you can do is beat what is put in front of you and Lillee was superlative at that. If he played one match in WI (breaking down) and none in India (where Australia didn't tour during his career) three tests in Pakistan when he was injured and doing a medium pace stock bowler job, and one in SL at the end of his career, this is not really an issue to me.

Both these bowlers are champions. I can't separate them. Aesthethically I prefer Lillee because he had a beautiful action and radiated such cool menace, but that's just me.

Ok, so let's ignore Lillee's record in Asia. Shouldn't Steyn get extra points for maintaining a better record than Lillee in a batsman friendly era? For being a good way ahead of the next best pacer (James Anderson) for much for his career?

It surprises me how quickly some posters dismiss achievements of batsmen today by asserting that the game is more batsman friendly today. But refuse to apply the same conditions for bowlers.

 

[Dead Ball]

Dp

 

[Buffet]

One bowler has played and won tests in each venue.

Other bowler played 60 out of 70 tests in just Aus and Eng.

Not sure how can you compare these two. Lille didn't retire in 20s. He retired in 80s.

 

[jnaveen1980]

One bowler has played and won tests in each venue.

Other bowler played 60 out of 70 tests in just Aus and Eng.

Not sure how can you compare these two. Lille didn't retire in 20s. He retired in 80s.

Precisely

116 out of his 132 innings were in Australia and England

84 out of his 132 innings were in Australia

 

[Robert]

Ok, so let's ignore Lillee's record in Asia. Shouldn't Steyn get extra points for maintaining a better record than Lillee in a batsman friendly era? For being a good way ahead of the next best pacer (James Anderson) for much for his career?

It surprises me how quickly some posters dismiss achievements of batsmen today by asserting that the game is more batsman friendly today. But refuse to apply the same conditions for bowlers.

Not for one instant do I dismiss Steyn, I think he is one of the very best of all time.

I think this thread is silly because it is impossible to directly compare two players whose careers missed each other by decades. Which makes me doubly silly for wasting all this time on the subject!

 

[AMSS]

Which of the two chickened out of a tour to India and got found out in Pakistan while the other won his team matches single handedly in subcontinent?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Which of the two chickened out of a tour to India and got found out in Pakistan while the other won his team matches single handedly in subcontinent?

Steyn destroyed peak Indian batting lineup which had Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Sehwag and Prime Gambhir in a period arguably the worst for bowlers in cricket history. Lille bowled 90% of his career against mediocre English batsmen in a bowling friendly era. Do your math.

 

[AMSS]

Steyn destroyed peak Indian batting lineup which had Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Sehwag and Prime Gambhir in a period arguably the worst for bowlers in cricket history. Lille bowled 90% of his career against mediocre English batsmen in a bowling friendly era. Do your math.

You seem bright.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

You seem bright.

Not sure if it was sarcasm, but thanks anyway

 

[gazza619]

Steyn destroyed peak Indian batting lineup which had Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Sehwag and Prime Gambhir in a period arguably the worst for bowlers in cricket history. Lille bowled 90% of his career against mediocre English batsmen in a bowling friendly era. Do your math.

Yeah it does make sense.

I guess we all have a thing about the stars of the 70s and 80s always over rating them over and above.

 

[Robert]

Yeah it does make sense.

I guess we all have a thing about the stars of the 70s and 80s always over rating them over and above.

No, it’s a question of taking the trouble to read books and learn and give past masters the credit they are due, how they moved the game forward and how the modern masters stand on their shoulders, instead of just looking at a spreadsheet and fooling yourself into thinking that minimal qualitative analysis is the same as understanding.

 

[Robert]

Which of the two chickened out of a tour to India and got found out in Pakistan while the other won his team matches single handedly in subcontinent?

Nobody chickened out. None of the Packer players were selected for the 1979 tour of India. No Chappells, no Lillee and Thomson.

As for the Pakistan series I have debunked this myth a dozen times on PP, but people would rather believe hyperbole instead of truth.

 

[Robert]

Steyn destroyed peak Indian batting lineup which had Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Sehwag and Prime Gambhir in a period arguably the worst for bowlers in cricket history. Lille bowled 90% of his career against mediocre English batsmen in a bowling friendly era. Do your math.

167 England wickets out of 355. Lots of them were Boycott, Edrich, D’Oliveira, Cowdrey, Amiss, Greig, Gooch, Gower.

Please explain to us how 167/355 = 0.9

Come on, do your “math”.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

167 England wickets out of 355. Lots of them were Boycott, Edrich, D’Oliveira, Cowdrey, Amiss, Greig, Gooch, Gower.

Please explain to us how 167/355 = 0.9

Come on, do your “math”.

I was exaggerating, but you get my point.

2000s had the second highest batting average for the decade since 1940s. Lille played in a bowler friendly era. He averaged 30 against Pakistan after 17 tests and 27 against WI after 12 tests. For 80s, those are not good stats against top teams.

 

[Haroon786]

Sure. I could try to compare Trueman with Lillee, though I have not seen Trueman bowl. I have read books and looked at scorecards but not watched the Yorkshireman.

So if you asked me which was better, I would say they were both champions and I cannot give a properly informed opinion. That would be the intellectually honest position.

Yes, you can make inferences based on what you have researched and read/seen but IMO there should always be some flexibility for discussion so that opinions can at least be considered unlike how some people on this thread seem to think it clearly open and shut.

BTW, I consider you, MMHS, Junaids and perhaps a handful of others as posters who have been watching cricket since a long time back and actually know about players that most on PP would probably not pass on an eye test.

 

[AMSS]

Nobody chickened out. None of the Packer players were selected for the 1979 tour of India. No Chappells, no Lillee and Thomson.

As for the Pakistan series I have debunked this myth a dozen times on PP, but people would rather believe hyperbole instead of truth.

There's no myth you have busted, do disabuse yourself of the delusion. Lillee's average of 100 and SR of 204 speaks for itself.

Nobody is interested in excuses made up for Lillee's decision to chicken out of the India tour, knowing he wasn't up for it. Steyn has a body of work that is indisputable, and that too in an era when the bat was at its dominating best. No amount of hagiography for Lillee can compare with that.

 

[Robert]

I was exaggerating, but you get my point.

2000s had the second highest batting average for the decade since 1940s. Lille played in a bowler friendly era. He averaged 30 against Pakistan after 17 tests and 27 against WI after 12 tests. For 80s, those are not good stats against top teams.

Fair enough on 90%.

Hmm, not that bowler friendly - Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide were roads, the Oval was a road. England got beaten 3-0 in 1979 where Willis and Botham were powerless but Australia one the series because they had one extraordinary fast bowler.

Pakistan were not really a top team in the early eighties - even the SAB-shorn England beat them - and they deliberately rigged their wickets to nullify Lillee, to the point that Imran hardly bowled himself and kept the spinners on. That series where he bowled medium pace with a back injury knocked his numbers out of whack. Really he should not have been taken on that tour - no clue where Hogg, Lawson, Alderman etc were.

27 is still pretty good against those thunderbats Fredericks, Greenidge, Rowe, Kallicharan, Richards and Lloyd on flatties.

 

[Robert]

Yes, you can make inferences based on what you have researched and read/seen but IMO there should always be some flexibility for discussion so that opinions can at least be considered unlike how some people on this thread seem to think it clearly open and shut.

BTW, I consider you, MMHS, Junaids and perhaps a handful of others as posters who have been watching cricket since a long time back and actually know about players that most on PP would probably not pass on an eye test.

Thank you.
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is prone to a bit of mischief, but he knows stuff I don’t.

 

[big_gamer007]

Untrue. When I was a kid the food was bad, there were bombs going off on British streets due to the NI situation, SA had apartheid and nuclear war looked likely.

You are talking about worst time in your country.. Natural calamities and war times can't be compared... For people of Afghanistan or Syria the past would be better than present well anything would be better than present.
Anyways let's stick to cricket, I will reword my original statement to "anything old is automatically better than current thing in cricket for some fans, due to nostalgia factor.""

 

[Junaids]

There's no myth you have busted, do disabuse yourself of the delusion. Lillee's average of 100 and SR of 204 speaks for itself.

Nobody is interested in excuses made up for Lillee's decision to chicken out of the India tour, knowing he wasn't up for it. Steyn has a body of work that is indisputable, and that too in an era when the bat was at its dominating best. No amount of hagiography for Lillee can compare with that.

I’m sorry, I just can’t agree with this.

Barely any Tests were played in the sub-continent during Lillee’s Career. That’s just how it was.

India was a Test minnow which was slaughtered at home by the likes of John Lever in 1976-77.

Pakistan had much better players, but they were a rabble who spent most of their energy on conspiring against one another.

Lillee’s Record in Pakistan was explained at length by Imran Khan in “All Round View”. The BCCP was terrified of Lillee running through the team, so they ordered crazy batsman’s pitches.

Lillee was very similar to Hadlee, but quicker.

Like Steyn, he started off bowling 150+ but then cut down to the 140’s to prolong his career.

But Lillee’s extra height gave him an extra menace compared with Steyn. As Babar Azam recently showed, Steyn’s shortness means he can’t dry up the scoring rate once the ball goes soft.

Lillee’s extra height meant that he could get lift from a full length, which stopped the batsman from playing forward like you can against Steyn.

So from overs 20-80, Lillee’s second and third spells were more Testing than Steyn’s.

 

[Robert]

You are talking about worst time in your country.. Natural calamities and war times can't be compared... For people of Afghanistan or Syria the past would be better than present well anything would be better than present.
Anyways let's stick to cricket, I will reword my original statement to "anything old is automatically better than current thing in cricket for some fans, due to nostalgia factor.""

The seventies weren’t that bad - the worst time would have been WW1-Great Depression-WW2. My point is that I don’t live in a nostalgic internal world, I know that some things are better now.

 

[AMSS]

I’m sorry, I just can’t agree with this.

Barely any Tests were played in the sub-continent during Lillee’s Career. That’s just how it was.

India was a Test minnow which was slaughtered at home by the likes of John Lever in 1976-77.

Pakistan had much better players, but they were a rabble who spent most of their energy on conspiring against one another.

Lillee’s Record in Pakistan was explained at length by Imran Khan in “All Round View”. The BCCP was terrified of Lillee running through the team, so they ordered crazy batsman’s pitches.

Lillee was very similar to Hadlee, but quicker.

Like Steyn, he started off bowling 150+ but then cut down to the 140’s to prolong his career.

But Lillee’s extra height gave him an extra menace compared with Steyn. As Babar Azam recently showed, Steyn’s shortness means he can’t dry up the scoring rate once the ball goes soft.

Lillee’s extra height meant that he could get lift from a full length, which stopped the batsman from playing forward like you can against Steyn.

So from overs 20-80, Lillee’s second and third spells were more Testing than Steyn’s.

Sorry, your post is indistinguishable from gibberish.

India was actually ranked number for a considerable period of time during the 70s so you are also a sad case manufacturing facts.

I mean, I just looked up his stats on cricinfo and found out he played one test in Sri lanka and averaged 36. LOL! And played one more test in Windies and failed to take a wicket. Just how bad was he? Probably Jimmy Anderson of his day who's a liability outside his habitat.

And this is besides the fact.

The fact is Dennis Lillee knew he didn't have the skills or the heart to perform in India and hence chickened out. It really is as simple as that anything else you say to contrary are just weak excuses.

The rest of your counterfactuals and extrapolations are a sad waste of bandwidth.

 

[Robert]

India was a Test minnow which was slaughtered at home by the likes of John Lever in 1976-77.

Pakistan had much better players, but they were a rabble who spent most of their energy on conspiring against one another.

Lillee’s Record in Pakistan was explained at length by Imran Khan in “All Round View”. The BCCP was terrified of Lillee running through the team, so they ordered crazy batsman’s pitches.

Lillee was very similar to Hadlee, but quicker.

Like Steyn, he started off bowling 150+ but then cut down to the 140’s to prolong his career.

But Lillee’s extra height gave him an extra menace compared with Steyn. As Babar Azam recently showed, Steyn’s shortness means he can’t dry up the scoring rate once the ball goes soft.

Lillee’s extra height meant that he could get lift from a full length, which stopped the batsman from playing forward like you can against Steyn.

In 1976 India made the wickets spin to try to nullify the England quicks, but they made them so bad that Bob Willis ran riot. He averaged 22 in his ten tests in India.

I expect some people here would put Willis higher than Lillee for that reason.

 

[big_gamer007]

The seventies weren’t that bad - the worst time would have been WW1-Great Depression-WW2. My point is that I don’t live in a nostalgic internal world, I know that some things are better now.

No era in cricket is actually bad, every era was great for its time.. However threads like these where you have to compare someone from current era with an older era will always have bias/nostalgia factor..

The worst time is different for different regions.. But I do agree those phases you mentioned were probably the worst for a lot of nations..

 

[Junaids]

Sorry, your post is indistinguishable from gibberish.

India was actually ranked number for a considerable period of time during the 70s so you are also a sad case manufacturing facts.

I mean, I just looked up his stats on cricinfo and found out he played one test in Sri lanka and averaged 36. LOL! And played one more test in Windies and failed to take a wicket. Just how bad was he? Probably Jimmy Anderson of his day who's a liability outside his habitat.

And this is besides the fact.

The fact is Dennis Lillee knew he didn't have the skills or the heart to perform in India and hence chickened out. It really is as simple as that anything else you say to contrary are just weak excuses.

The rest of your counterfactuals and extrapolations are a sad waste of bandwidth.

Where do I start?

India’s “Number 1 ranking” in the 1970’s is a statistical anomaly which was first noticed in 2005.

They rarely toured in those days, and ranked right down the bottom in World Cricket. Don’t forget - the 1969-70 Aussies actually won in India en route to being massacred in South Africa. And then in the 70’s they were slaughtered at home by England in 76-77, and single-handedly by Botham in 1980.

 

[Junaids]

In the 1970’s the challenges for a fast bowler, in order, were:

1. Bowling to the West Indians in Test cricket and SuperTests from 1975-1980.

2. Bowling to the English in Tests, not counting the 77-78 Sham Ashes.

3. Bowling to the Aussies in Tests and SuperTests.

4. Bowling to the Pakistanis outside Pakistan in Tests and SuperTests.

5. Bowling to the South Africans (Richards, Pollock, Barlow, Procter) in SuperTests and county cricket.

Those are the things by which you benchmark 1970’s fast bowlers. Nothing else.

Sri Lanka wasn’t even a Test Team. Pakistan doctored their wickets and had partisan umpires. India had partisan umpires and barely toured.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Where do I start?

India’s “Number 1 ranking” in the 1970’s is a statistical anomaly which was first noticed in 2005.

They rarely toured in those days, and ranked right down the bottom in World Cricket. Don’t forget - the 1969-70 Aussies actually won in India en route to being massacred in South Africa. And then in the 70’s they were slaughtered at home by England in 76-77, and single-handedly by Botham in 1980.

All of us have internet connections, so please don't post absurd things.
India beat WI in WI in 1970s and also beat eng in eng so they deserved the no. 1 ranking.
India had the likes of gavaskar, gundappa vishwanath both of them were better than any other batsman of eng.