Was Dennis Lillee really that great?

Bublu Bhuyan · 12th March 2010, 01:42 PM

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.

King Pietersen · 12th March 2010, 01:46 PM

I enjoy watching Lillee bowl more than the others listed there, and rate only Malcolm Marshall ahead of him. Lillee's action was just so smooth, so technically correct. I personally don't think he's over-rated at all. Stats really don't do Lillee justice, he was a fine, fine bowler.

Bublu Bhuyan · 12th March 2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Pietersen

I enjoy watching Lillee bowl more than the others listed there, and rate only Malcolm Marshall ahead of him. Lillee's action was just so smooth, so technically correct. I personally don't think he's over-rated at all. Stats really don't do Lillee justice, he was a fine, fine bowler.

Over rated in the sense that there were others during his time who were better than him.

King Pietersen · 12th March 2010, 01:56 PM

I don't agree. Only Malcolm Marshall was better from what I've seen. You're basing your entire argument on stats and stats alone. Lillee was genuinely quick, had excellent control, a magnificent action and alongside Jeff Thomson formed one of the most formidable opening attacks in the history of the game. The stats may tell you that there are bowlers better than Dennis Lillee, but from all the footage I've seen, from what I've heard in interviews with players, he was a magnificent bowler, and as I've said already, I rate only Marshall higher from that era.

angryangy · 12th March 2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan

McGrath having the luxury to bowl against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, etc

Yes, I'm sure those 11 Test wickets have destroyed many friendships.

Bublu Bhuyan · 12th March 2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryangy

Yes, I'm sure those 11 Test wickets have destroyed many friendships.

Here's what Thomson said -

Quote:

The batsmen were a bloody lot better when Dennis was around and he still took a lot of wickets. He didn't get to play against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe

Don't blame me for what he said.

StinkyBoHoon · 12th March 2010, 06:24 PM

Marshall, Hadlee and Khan were all definitely better, so is ambrose. Lillee was a fantastic player though, his peak was a little before those other guys so it's not a strict comparison of era's. I think he was quite similar to hadlee, but just not quite as good.

Marshall was in a different league when it came to bowling fast, no one could do the things he did. Watch him on youtube, Thommo sometimes moans about speedguns measuring speed out the hand these days but marshalls swing seems to speed up just after moving, it's insane. Like how frisbee moves when it dives into the ground.

Khan was a slightly better bowler through sheer force of will and personality. Though admittedly, Khan is my favourite cricketer ever.

War · 12th March 2010, 07:35 PM

Lillee's greatness can't be questioned.

But i do think Lillee/Marshall/Hadlee/Imran where all even.

Dabi · 12th March 2010, 08:07 PM

I don't think the thread starter questions Lillee's 'greatness'. He's just wondering why Lillee is rated by most as better than McGrath, Marshall and the like. There were a few bowlers in the 90s which I thought were better than Lillee even though he was a very fien bowler. Admittedly, I haven't watched any live footage wasn't born then but I based on what I've seen, I do agree that he has one of the best bowling actions (read: smoothest) I've ever seen but for me Marshall, McGrath, Waqar, Wasim, and Donald were better!

Robelinda · 12th March 2010, 08:40 PM

Age old internet argument. Give it a rest. Great great bowler, enough said.

sifter132 · 12th March 2010, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Pietersen

I enjoy watching Lillee bowl more than the others listed there, and rate only Malcolm Marshall ahead of him. Lillee's action was just so smooth, so technically correct. I personally don't think he's over-rated at all. Stats really don't do Lillee justice, he was a fine, fine bowler.

This point touches on what I think people love about Lillee. In Australia it was his charisma, sex appeal and the way he got Australia going whenever he came into bowl. But for everyone else it was his TECHNIQUE and style. He bowled the way a bowler should bowl. It's a bit like Sachin Tendulkar now. He bats the way that people think batting should be done. I could argue that Ponting and Lara have outplayed him, just like you can argue that Marshall and Hadlee and Imran were better than Lillee. But both Lillee and Sachin will always be heart winners because of their style. Whether you think that's right or not - that's your choice.

The other factor with Dennis Lillee was World Series Cricket. His international career was interrupted for 3 or 4 years by WSC and from memory he was the leading wicket taker in those tournaments. I'd say he had an extra 50, possibly 100 wickets there and those were against good teams too.

And also, the day I let a Jeff Thomson quote influence my opinion is the day I die inside. The guy's a buffoon who lives in the past. Cricketers can't possibly be any better than they were in the 70s according to Thommo.

King Pietersen · 12th March 2010, 10:19 PM

Brilliant post, summed up the legend perfectly.

It wasn't Lillee's stats that made him a much-revered cricketer in Australia, but the whole package. Not only was he a magnificent bowler, but he had the style, the technique and the character which made him a superstar. I enjoyed watching the few clips of Lillee I'd seen in the past, but thanks to a thread on CW I've been watching some clips of his bowling recently, and I just want to bowl like Dennis Lillee. The grace and the style of his bowling action and the way he delivered the ball was poetry in motion. I enjoy watching a few bowlers in the modern era, but none fascinate me like Dennis Lillee. I can't get enough of studying his bowling action, and I cannot wait to get into the nets and try a few things out that I've noticed in Lillee's action that I'd like to add to mine.

Agreed about Thomson too. He's made some pretty farcical statements in the past, the best of which being the claims that he bowled at 180kmh.

War · 12th March 2010, 10:33 PM

Personally i think Allan Donald's action was equal poetry in motion to Lillee.

One thing that i've seen & heard people criticize Lillee's record is due to his record in the sub-continent compared to other great fast-bowlers & record in the West Indies. But for obvious reason using that to critcize Lillee's record, has always be utter cod-swallop as the white folks say in England.

TumTum · 12th March 2010, 10:53 PM

Dennis was HUGE in Australia.

I don't know who was better between Lillee or McGrath, but definitely history will remember Lillee more.

Hooper · 12th March 2010, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TumTum

Dennis was HUGE in Australia.

I don't know who was better between Lillee or McGrath, but definitely history will remember Lillee more.

How do you work that out?

McGrath will be remembered as much as Lillee. More test wickets, more ODI wickets, World Cup victories, 5-0 whitewash. It'll take a few years but.