Was Dennis Lillee really that great?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

If you ask any Australian player who saw Dennis Lillee bowl, and ask him to pick one between him and McGrath, I'm pretty damn sure they'll pick Lillee in a heartbeat. Lillee is often described as 'the outstanding bowler of his generation'. I'll even go a step further and say that most players from that era will consider Lille as the finest pacemen they have ever seen. I've seen lots and lots of former player drool over Lillee's mercurial abilities. Just to give you an example, have a look at what Lillee's bowling partner Jeff Thomson have to say about Lillee and his comparison with McGrath. This was way back in 2005. Lillee is still the greatest, say Thommo and Dougie - Cricket - Sport P.S. Please read the entire article properly. It contains lots of direct quotes from Jeff Thomson. You'll understand what I've said after you read it. Thomson brings in a lot of important points like the over all quality and number of batsman from Lillee's era being better than the ones in McGrath's era, and McGrath having the luxury to bowl against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, etc. While Mcgrath having a much superior bowling average, considering the points that Thomson makes, it can be assumed for a moment that Lillee was the better bowler. However, there were quite a few bowlers from the era of Lillee himself who boasted of much superior bowling averages - 1. Malcolm Marshall 2. Joel Garner 3. Michael Holding 4. Richard Hadlee 5. Imran Khan All the above 5 players from his era averaged better than him with the ball, some by a good margin while some by a whisker. I'll admit out of those 5 players, 2 of them took less wickets than him (Holding, Garner). The more you play, the more it's difficult to maintain batting/bowling averages. Keeping that in mind let's take those 2 names out of the equation. The players we are left with are - 1. Malcolm Marshall 2. Richard Hadlee 3. Imran Khan These 3 players played more Test matches than Lillee, took more wickets than him and averaged better with the ball than him. Let's compare - Marshall - 81 Tests, 376 wickets, 20.94 (ave), SR - 46.7 Hadlee - 86 Tests, 431 wickets, 22.29 (ave), SR - 50.8 Imran - 88 Tests, 362 wickets, 22.81 (ave), SR - 53.7 vs Lillee - 70 Tests, 355 wickets, 23.92 (ave), SR - 52 It's true that stats don't tell us the exact true story. But isn't it obvious looking at the above comparison that those 3 bowlers outperformed Lillee in every department (barring Imran Khan in SR)? I didn't watch Lillee bowl, but looking at the above comparison, I really do believe that Lillee is over rated.

[Serani]

Didnt Lillee try to avoid sub continent pitches like the plague? seem to recall seeing that somewhere, compared to Malcolm Marshall who destroyed India in India.

[achilles]

No. Its just that people think he is great coz the British & Aussies told the world so. I would rank any West Indian bowler above him. Agree with Serani... Marshall was better.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

No. Its just that people think he is great coz the British & Aussies told the world so. I would rank any West Indian bowler above him. Agree with Serani... Marshall was better.

He was certainly a great, great bowler. However, it's strange that he's hyped up as being better than everyone else when there are 5 bloody bowlers that too in the same era with much superior bowling averages. Even if we remove the ones with lesser wickets than Lillee from that list, there remains 3 bowlers who clearly had better averages. Imran Khan despite having to bowl half his matches on dead tracks, managed a much better average than him.

[Serani]

Maybe its because he wore a head band?

[Deleted_User_1]

Although Gavaskar excelled against the WI quicks overall, but he struggled against Lillee. In fact that is probably one bowler he could not dominate part also because he played only two series against him, once at the very beginning of his career as Rest of the World XI in Australia in 1971 when Lillee was fearsome and causing a lot of problems for folks, and the other time during India's Aus tour of 1980-81 when Sunny really struggled with his form. Sadly when Gavaskar was at his peak in 1977-78 when India toured Aus, Lillee was playing in the Packer World series. In 1985-86 when India toured Aus again, Lillee had already retired.

[vvvslaxman]

Lillee was a great bowler no doubt. Perfect fast bowler. Almost a fast bowler that was designed. Do we have to compare everybody .Stats don't say much.

[The Outsider]

A very important factor to consider when judging and ranking players is how their peers ranked them. Lillee was ranked very, very highly by some very good batsmen he bowled to and other observers of the game. It's all well and good for us to sit here 10, 20, 50 years later and churn out some numbers, but the actual players who faced them in the middle did not know or care that a particular bowler averages 22.xx and another one 24.xx, so the one averaging 24.xx is worse. A classic example of this is Akram. There is almost a consensus amongst the best of his generation that he was the most difficult bowler to face even though he did not necessarily have the best stats. Not really saying that Lillee was better than Marshall or vice versa, but over reliance on stats when there is really very little between them except a few points here and there can be dangerous.

[Lurker]

It's true that stats don't tell us the exact true story. But isn't it obvious looking at the above comparison that those 3 bowlers outperformed Lillee in every department (barring Imran Khan in SR)? I didn't watch Lillee bowl' date= but looking at the above comparison, I really do believe that Lillee is over rated.

Amazing how you are "over rating" someone even though you have not seen him bowl at all! Even worse I doubt you would have followed the other folks - Marshall, Imran etc - over say 5-6 seasons to make a judgement call. In the end you are accusing Lillee of being overrated, and overrating everyone else even though you have no first hand account :haha: Was Lillee a great? Hell Yeah. Was he the greatest ever? Well depends on who you ask. Everyone has his own opinion. I dont rate Mcgrath much, I place him behind Akram and Ambrose as lead bowlers of their time. And I place him behind Lindwall and Lillee in Austalian cricket, still some would classify Mcgrath as the greatest ever. Fair enough. That doesnt mean I would think McGrath is overrated now, does it?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Now for those of you who rate this guy very highly I would like to ask this question : would you guys rate Sanga, Mahela the same way as Lillee based on their home stats which are out of the world ?

No but I would rate you as the person who makes the worst comparisons and analogies in the history of cricket :giggle::giggle:

[The Outsider]

No but I would rate you as the person who makes the worst comparisons and analogies in the history of cricket :giggle::giggle:

I was about to post the same. Which of Jaya's and Sanagakkara's contemporaries or even neutral observers/commentators rate them as the best they have come up with? There were numerous with Lillee. For the record, I don't rate Lillee as better than Marshall or McGrath or even equal, but at the same time it's not a ridiculous notion for some people to consider him right up there. There is very little separating these top bowlers and it boils down to personal preferences rather than 22.xx and 23.yy.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

You guys are not getting the point. Of course Lillee was a genuine great. Being over rated does not mean a player is not great. Being over rated simply means a player being rated higher than how good he actually was. Compare Imran Khan with Dennis Lillee. Despite having to bowl half his matches on dead tracks in the sub continent, Imran achieved a much better average than Lillee, this despite the fact that Imran played more Test matches than him. Why exactly isn't Imran Khan glorified as much as Lillee is, as a bowler? As for Mahela and Sanga having good batting averages, they achieved it from 2000 onwards, an era where even a monkey could have averaged close to 50 if you trained him how to hold a bat. If they played in the 90's they'd have struggled to average even 40. There were just 4 batsman averaging more than 50 from 1999 to 2000. Tendulkar topped it with an average of 58. Interestingly, Steve Waugh came second with an average of about 51 (look at the gap).

[Lurker]

You guys are not getting the point. Of course Lillee was a genuine great. Being over rated does not mean a player is not great. Being over rated simply means a player being rated higher than how good he actually was. Compare Imran Khan with Dennis Lillee. Despite having to bowl half his matches on dead tracks in the sub continent' date= Imran achieved a much better average than Lillee, this despite the fact that Imran played more Test matches than him. Why exactly isn't Imran Khan glorified as much as Lillee is, as a bowler?

Or maybe you are the one not getting the point. Your entire argument relies on statistics simply. It makes me wonder if I am discussing this with a cricket fan or CI Statsguru??? As for Imran well great as he was I have never thought of him as being half as good as Lillee, or Marshall. There are tons of issues with him from biased umpiring to ball tampering to whatever else. By the way who told you Imran is not rated??? He would make an all time list based solely on bowling, not my all time list mind you but certainly of others.

[achilles]

It makes me wonder if I am discussing this with a cricket fan or CI Statsguru???

Although this comment sure cracked me up, Imran was a better bowler than Lillee. And lets not try to paint Lillee like some fairy from the sky. The guy had a run-in with practically every cricketer of the era.

[vvvslaxman]

You guys are not getting the point. Of course Lillee was a genuine great. Being over rated does not mean a player is not great. Being over rated simply means a player being rated higher than how good he actually was. Compare Imran Khan with Dennis Lillee. Despite having to bowl half his matches on dead tracks in the sub continent, Imran achieved a much better average than Lillee, this despite the fact that Imran played more Test matches than him. Why exactly isn't Imran Khan glorified as much as Lillee is, as a bowler? As for Mahela and Sanga having good batting averages, they achieved it from 2000 onwards, an era where even a monkey could have averaged close to 50 if you trained him how to hold a bat. If they played in the 90's they'd have struggled to average even 40. There were just 4 batsman averaging more than 50 from 1999 to 2000. Tendulkar topped it with an average of 58. Interestingly, Steve Waugh came second with an average of about 51 (look at the gap).

Err Imran khan.. soda cap man should not be included in that list :hysterical: There was so much blatant ball tampering going on in his days.

[vvvslaxman]

Let me put this way. Lillee and Thomson were the reasons why Helmets were invented.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bublu Bhuyan]

As for Imran well great as he was I have never thought of him as being half as good as Lillee' date=' or Marshall. There are tons of issues with him from biased umpiring to ball tampering to whatever else. By the way who told you Imran is not rated??? He would make an all time list based solely on bowling, not my all time list mind you but certainly of others.[/quote'] Not half as good as Lillee? Why? Didn't he achieve better results playing in the exact same era as Lillee? Also it's a fact that he had to bowl half his matches on dead tracks of the sub continent. If you are talking about ball tampering, then what about Akram, why exactly the same doesn't apply to him? When did I say Imran is not rated? All I said is that as a bowler he doesn't even get half the credit that Lillee gets. It's one thing when you talk about batsman. Viv Richards, despite averaging lower than Border, Gavaskar, Chappel and Miandad, is rated higher than all of them because of his unmatched ability to destroy bowling attacks. In batting, it's not only how many runs you score, but also about the way in which you score them. I don't think there's such a thing in bowling. I mean no one gives a damn how a bowler takes his wickets, all that matters is whether he is getting wickets or not.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Let me put this way. Lillee and Thomson were the reasons why Helmets were invented.

Fast and furious, completely agreed. WISDEN noted during that era that the bowling combo of Lillee and Thomson was easily the most fearsome in Test cricket history. But does speed necessarily make a bowler the best among his contemporaries? Akhtar's speed never made him even half the bowler that Akram was.