Lilee/Thompson Vs McGrath/Warne.?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest 32787

I think the England players who lived in fear of Thommo, would rather have played McGrath or Warne, it was pathetic to watch.

Atherton doesn't dispute that Donald was a more hostile bowler than Pollock or McGrath.. but he was out there to doa job.. and that job was to bat... and that job was easier when you had balls to hit.

Donald was more intimidating.. but so what?

Ask top rock climbers or ice climbers or white-water kayakers about fear: it's not a term that really MEANS very much. If you stopped to think about your situation as you faced up to balls leaping off a lively, uneven pitch at 95+ mph then sure you'd feel a temptation to tighten up.. but the fact is no one gets to the top in sport unless they are capable of getting "into the zone".. where basically you just tune all that stuff out and operate in a bubble.

The reason these guys get to the top is that as the balls start coming through faster, and more agressively.. it just sharpens their minds and concentrates them on what they need to do: it's only the tailenders who realy aren't Test level batsmen who are affected negatively by "fear".

Originally Posted by Beny

The fear factor did not change their effectivness.

Exactly: I bet the batting records of the tail end players against Lillee and Tompson was pretty diabolical.. but the guys that matter are the top order batsmen.. and those, on the whole, have a far worse record batting against McGrath and Warne than against Lillee and Thompson.

What frightens batsmen isn't being hit or being hurt... it's misjudgement.... and the likelihood of misjudgement is increased through consistent, pressure bowling and being unable to get the ball away.. and it's released when you face a bowler like Thompson because you just KNOW you're going to get balls to hit.

Originally Posted by Paoli69 32802

Are the PWC ratings absolute gospel as to whose the better cricketer??

PWC ratings at one moment in time are suggestive. Over longer periods of time (say a number of years) they become rather more than that: they are a sophisticated measure of a cricketer's worth to his team. They still need interpreting, sure... but they are a damn good starting point.

Thing is... leaving aside OUR thoughts on these players... my impression remains that most former professionals would be entirely in agreement with what the ratings would suggest on this matter: McGrath hasn't become the cult figure that Lillie was... but the guys who have actually played at the top level generally seem agreed that he's at least the equal of Lillee.. and arguably the greatest Australian seamer EVER... and just about anyone I every heard on the subject seems to think that at his best, Warne even better still: not just the best Aussie slow bowler.. but the best leggie the game has ever seen.

[Milo]

The Lillee vs McGrath debate is a very intersting one in my opinion. Lillee has the reputation as being fit for every world XI anyone (including ex players) has ever produced. His statistics, however whilst still being very impressive, do not seem to back this up. He has a lot of wickets per test, but he has been expensive on many occasions (maybe the downside of the wicket taking bowler) and rarely knocked over teams for under 200; in fact he has a very high proportion of bowling centuries for a top class bowler. McGrath in contrast, has a great number of cheap 5 wicket hauls, and is very tidy (rarely gets knocked about). Lillee has however, the largest percentage of opening batsmen wickets in the history of the game. He didn't take many taienders wickets and boasts Viv, Gower, Boycott, Gooch, Amiss, Edrich as 6 of his top 10 most frequent victims. It is true to say he took the top order apart. But so does McGrath. I for one, find it very difficult to separate.

I conclude by putting them both squarely in the top 5 of Aussie seam bowlers (along with Lindwall, Miller and Davidson). I can do no better.

Warne is class and Thomson (well he was nothing better than adequate). Anyone who saw his embarrassingly poor tour of England in 85 will understand what I mean. At his best (as Rachael rightly says) in 74-76 he was fast, but exceptionally one dimensional - certainly no better than Rodney Hogg was in the 79 series. Injury may have hindered his career, but that's life, we don't put Ian Bishop up there with the likes of Marshall and Holiding do we? Fact remains, his career is not littered with anything much to talk about other than the 74-75 Ashes (on which his whole reputation has been built) and the West Indies series of 75/76 (which was still over 4 an over)

Therefore, Lillee & Thommo OR McGrath and Warne - Easy, the latter. McGrath and Gillespie would also shade it in my opinion.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Donald was more intimidating.. but so what?

What frightens batsmen isn't being hit or being hurt... it's misjudgement.... and the likelihood of misjudgement is increased through consistent, pressure bowling and being unable to get the ball away.. and it's released when you face a bowler like Thompson because you just KNOW you're going to get balls to hit.

Rachael, it did not work like you think, the batsmen never managed to be able to hit a ball of Lilee or Thompson, because this was new, the England batsmen had not face bowling like this before, it was a new dimension to the game, England players were just not ready, and there was real fear, I watched these bowlers in action.

So desperate were England they brought into the side, a county bread and butter batsman by the name of David Steel, he was the one England batsman who was not afraid, to get into line, he got cocky in the end, and hooked both bowlers all over the park,a white haired old looking chap of 33, read here his profile is interesting, and he was dropped from the touring party, with an average of arround 45, all against the Australian quicks.
Read her about lillee

Originally Posted by Milo 32841

The Lillee vs McGrath debate is a very intersting one in my opinion.

Warne is class and Thomson (well he was nothing better than adequate). Anyone who saw his embarrassingly poor tour of England in 85 will understand what I mean.

Milo, I dont know if you ever saw Lilee or Thompson play, well I did when they were at their best, they started the fat bowling revolution, pioneers if you like, the like had never been seen since bodyline,and Harold Larwood.
you mention Thommo, when he was past his best, I remember watching both Lilee and Botham, both has beens, strage they got each other out to identical deliveries, wide half vollies, believe me it was pathetic.

Does not detract anything from when they were at their peak though.

Read David Steeles profile here and it mentions Lilee and Thompson, and what they were like, awesome.

lillee have a look at his profile.

[Beny]

So desperate were England they brought into the side, a county bread and butter batsman by the name of David Steel, he was the one England batsman who was not afraid, to get into line, he got cocky in the end, and hooked both bowlers all over the park,a white haired old looking chap of 33, read here his profile is interesting, and he was dropped from the touring party, with an average of arround 45, all against the Australian quicks.

Ern, you've just proved Rach's argument!

Fact is that scary as they may have been, they were not as effetive as McGrath and Warne.

[Ernest]

Beny I have proved how embarrasing it was to be an England supporter,when lillee was bowing, he was more effective against England I reckon.

Lillee was a legend Beny, Mcgrath as good as he is, is'nt.

[Beny]

We've done the stats about how McGrath is statisticly a better bowler than Lille, however that is not really the concern at the momment. Thommo is nowhere near as good as Warne or for that matter Gillespie.

[Ernest]

No you may be right Beny, but at the time he was I think the most feared bowler in the world, and Beny, dont forget the world had not seen the like since bodyline.

As to weather is better, in this day and age, I would agree, he is, but go back two decades or so, and I reckom, the England batsmen would rather have faced Warne.

[Beny]

Mabey Ern but that dons'ent change the stats and there is a massive gap in the stats. It's not about who you would rather face but who is more likely to get you're wicket cheaply.

[Paoli]

I do look to see who is on top of PricewaterhouseCoopers rankings but frankly I don't think they mean anything.

The best cricketer is never universally agreed on---even a British Journalist, whose name escapes me, chose WG Grace ahead of Don Bradman in his list of best cricketers.

It is a matter of opinion---not for some computer to work out.

[Milo]

Ernest, I saw both Lillee and Thomson at their peak (a peak which I stated lasted about two years). I've given Lillee credit in my post, I do not need to read his profile, in fact I read his autobiography last year so know all there is to know.

Rose tinted spectacles Ernest. Out of interest, did you actually see Thomson bowl well again after 74-75 Ashes? Injuries punctuated his career, and he was never really anything like the bowler he was for a brief couple of years. Don't patronise people just because they have a different opinion than yours.