Was Dennis Lillee really that great?

[King Pietersen]

Well, lots and lots of guys who are much older than me and saw ALL of Lillee's career would all say he was completely magnificent. On this forum almost no-one has seen Lillee bowl live, heck most of the posters here havent even seen McGrath's whole career, all you have is scorecards and stats, which tell some of the story but not all of it, you will naturally go for the guy you have seen the most live. You cannot discount the WSC years, not a single person who saw or played those 2 years would tell you that it was anything other than the toughest cricket of their lives.

I'm not saying Lillee wasnt great, but I almost always think these types of threads are an utter waste of time and end up achieving nothing at all. Now, there are other places on the internet where you get some serious discussion between guys who lived through the 70's and know ALL the facts, not just ones looked up on cricinfo by a 13 year old.

I actually agree with most of this post. The majority of the arguments against Lillee brought up in this thread have come from people that haven't seen him bowl, let alone live.

However, I was born in 1990, so I didn't see him bowl live, and I don't think you needed to to respect the legend. I've seen countless clips of Lillee's bowling, and I can't help but respect the guy. Easily my favourite fast bowler of all-time.

 

[khalek]

Well khalek was looking at the overall cricketer not just the bowler thats the reason he said everyone would take Imran over Lille and I don't think anyone would disagree. He did miss the point of the thread and that its only comparing them as bowlers.

Exactly, I though that was a little bit obvious :sarcasm

There's no doubt that Lillee was a great bowler. He was quick, aggressive and had a wonderful bowling action but the thing is when you have guys like Sir Garry Sobers, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan can bowl just as well as him and can do some batting as well why on earth would you be picking Lillee over the likes of Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Mcgrath etc as one of your bowlers in an all-time XI?

 

[King Pietersen]

Because I believe he was a better bowler than Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Dev and Khan. My All-Time XI bowling attack includes Marshall, Lillee, Barnes, Warne and Sobers.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Because I believe he was a better bowler than Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Dev and Khan. My All-Time XI bowling attack includes Marshall, Lillee, Barnes, Warne and Sobers.

so people are not allowed to criticise Lillee based on stats without having seen him bowl (I have btw, obviously not live) but you are putting Barnes in your all time top 3 bowlers?

so what was his action like then?

 

[King Pietersen]

There's footage of Lillee all over the place, there's no reason for people to base an argument purely on the stats. The majority of them won't have bothered to read up on Lillee either and read about the type of bowler he was and what he did. I've read about SF Barnes and have no doubt that when taking that information and bringing in his stats that he was a mighty fine bowler. My argument comes from people just looking at stats to form an argument, which is incredibly tiresome.

 

[manee]

Well, lots and lots of guys who are much older than me and saw ALL of Lillee's career would all say he was completely magnificent. On this forum almost no-one has seen Lillee bowl live, heck most of the posters here havent even seen McGrath's whole career, all you have is scorecards and stats, which tell some of the story but not all of it, you will naturally go for the guy you have seen the most live. You cannot discount the WSC years, not a single person who saw or played those 2 years would tell you that it was anything other than the toughest cricket of their lives.

I'm not saying Lillee wasnt great, but I almost always think these types of threads are an utter waste of time and end up achieving nothing at all. Now, there are other places on the internet where you get some serious discussion between guys who lived through the 70's and know ALL the facts, not just ones looked up on cricinfo by a 13 year old.

Agreed. You really must look at some reports of Lillee's bowling and comparisons with him and the other's of his time to realise why he is rated so highly.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I agree with you about pure stats arguements, I just found that at odds with what you said about Lillee earlier.

I probably wouldn't put Barnes in the top lot though. There's just no way to know and a lot of what's written has more than a hint of romantic nostalgia.

 

[War]

Well, lots and lots of guys who are much older than me and saw ALL of Lillee's career would all say he was completely magnificent. On this forum almost no-one has seen Lillee bowl live, heck most of the posters here havent even seen McGrath's whole career, all you have is scorecards and stats, which tell some of the story but not all of it, you will naturally go for the guy you have seen the most live. You cannot discount the WSC years, not a single person who saw or played those 2 years would tell you that it was anything other than the toughest cricket of their lives.

I'm not saying Lillee wasnt great, but I almost always think these types of threads are an utter waste of time and end up achieving nothing at all. Now, there are other places on the internet where you get some serious discussion between guys who lived through the 70's and know ALL the facts, not just ones looked up on cricinfo by a 13 year old.

Yes well said old soldier. I was born in 1989 & alot of people my age do the same.

The highest authority i ever spoke to personally was Jim Maxwell who of course saw Lileee entire career. It was during the 2005 Ashes i was 16, just before the Old Trafford test when Australia where having a net session & people came for authographs. Maxwell & the TMS (test match special) radio team had just ented the ground & i asked him personally who was the greatest bowler he ever saw & he he said Lillee hands down.

The Maxwell, Jon Agnew, CMJ all entered the convo & started reliving great Lillee moments in wonderful detail. It was a brilliant historical lesson for me personally.

 

[pcfan123]

I was born in 1989

Stop calling people 'son' then. Its really tweaking irritating and lame.

 

[War]

Stop calling people 'son' then. Its really fliping irritating and lame.

:laugh :sarcasm Bloody hell you cannot be serious. Yo if it bothers you that much report it & me to the moderators.

 

[pcfan123]

Its not against the rules, its just lame. You post really well thought out arguments and it just sort of ruins it when you add little fake gangster phrases at the end. Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it. I do enjoy reading your posts.

 

[RoboRocks]

Lillee was the model fast bowler. He was the sort of bowler who would run in all day and maintain good pace and hostility in any circumstance.

I would only rate Barnes and Marshall as greater bowlers.

 

[Dare]

Well, lots and lots of guys who are much older than me and saw ALL of Lillee's career would all say he was completely magnificent. On this forum almost no-one has seen Lillee bowl live, heck most of the posters here havent even seen McGrath's whole career, all you have is scorecards and stats, which tell some of the story but not all of it, you will naturally go for the guy you have seen the most live. You cannot discount the WSC years, not a single person who saw or played those 2 years would tell you that it was anything other than the toughest cricket of their lives.

I'm not saying Lillee wasnt great, but I almost always think these types of threads are an utter waste of time and end up achieving nothing at all. Now, there are other places on the internet where you get some serious discussion between guys who lived through the 70's and know ALL the facts, not just ones looked up on cricinfo by a 13 year old.

Dont know if this was a response to my post but considering that I favor pace bowlers over batsman I have tried to find as many video clips of great bowlers as I could so while I might not be the up most expert on Lille I still know enough about him to place him in a position to the other 4. People seem to be underrating Imran Khan allot as a pace bowler and same goes for Garner.

Lillee was the model fast bowler. He was the sort of bowler who would run in all day and maintain good pace and hostility in any circumstance.

Well the same thing can be said about Courtney Walsh but he seems to go underrated all the time. He is the only WI bowler to play 100+ tests and the only pace bowler in the history of the game to bowl 30000+ balls. He did it for longer than anybody and did all the things yous said and did them well. In his younger days he was a real quick bowler, but he was always accurate. He always hit the same length and it worked for him.

 

[Robelinda]

Walsh was awesome, a different type of awesome though. He was one bowler you just couldnt hit, he never bowled anything rank and loose, always had that nagging length happening. And he had that killer in ducker that trapped many a batsman LBW hitting the top of off, he almost always bowled back of a length and was rarely driven.

But I would obviously rate Marshall ahead of him, he was just great. I was watching some of the 1988 Aus v WI series yesterday, Day 1 at the Gabba, Marshall just wasnt able to be hit, incredible setting up of a batsman- no fluke involved, a great cricket brain and a great sense of a batsman's state of mind.

 

[Slowcoach]

DK was OK.