Comparisons are odious, as they say. Can a modern-day spin bowler be compared to an aggressive fast bowler from another era?

Or, for that matter, could the best spinner of one era have plied his trade successfully had he been playing say 30 years ago, when there may perhaps have been better players of spin? Would Sunil Gavaskar have played Mohammad Aamir better than Virat Kohli? What would have been the outcome if Vivian Richards had faced Shane Warne?

Such  questions come to mind following Ravichandran Ashwin's  feat of being the fastest to the 300-wicket. The man he displaced was one of the greatest exponents of fast  bowling - Dennis Lillee.

There may be a tendency among avid cricket followers and experts to undermine Ravichandran Ashwin’s effort claiming that he got most of his wickets at home, where pitches tend to spin and stay low. It is a given that Lillee practised his craft chiefly in the seam-friendly conditions of Australia and England, while Ashwin has the cushion of Indian pitches. But, were they good enough only in Australia and India, respectively.

Let’s take a look at the numbers.

The obvious one here is the 54 Tests taken by Ravichandran Ashwin to reach 300 wickets, compared to Lillee's 56. While the Aussie had a bowling average of 23.92 per wicket, Ravichandran Ashwin is just behind with an average of 25.06.

In the 54 Tests that he has played so far, Ravichandran Ashwin has bowled 15,636 balls, while Dennis Lillee, who ended his career with 70 Tests and 355 wickets, bowled 18,467 balls. So, if Ravichandran Ashwin plays in 70 Tests, the number of balls he bowls should proportionally translate into more wickets. However, Lillee, who got to 300 wickets in 56 Tests, managed only 55 wickets in 14 more matches.

A closer look at the numbers provides interesting insights on the question of favourable home conditions.

Ashwin has 216 wickets from 34 home Tests played at home, while Dennis Lillee took 231 wickets from 44 matches at home. While Ravichandran Ashwin has taken 84 wickets in his 20 matches abroad, Dennis Lillee took 124 wickets from 26 matches abroad in his entire career, of which only six wickets came in sub-continental pitches in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

So, it is not only Ravichandran Ashwin who benefits from pitches at home, Dennis Lillee’s was also a classic case of the same - not just in Australia but also in England.

To put it differently, teams tend to play to their strengths at home, and Ravichandran Ashwin’s effort should be lauded just like Dennis Lillee’s.

In economy rate also, the two are almost neck-to-neck - Dennis Lillee's 2.72 against Ravichandran Ashwin's 2.88. Interestingly, Dennis Lillee never toured India since during his days, it was not a favourable destination for fast bowlers given its dust-bowl pitches then.

Dennis Lillee was the quintessential fast bowler - brash, in-your-face and always menacing.

Ravichandran Ashwin, on the other hand, is more laidback but all the same playing on the nerves of the batsmen with his crafty ways.

Dennis Lillee may have had big support from his team of batsmen boasting the great Chappell brothers, among others. Ravichandran Ashwin too has some modern greats like Kohli and MS Dhoni in his team.

As fast bowlers come, Dennis Lillee was plagued with injuries throughout his career without which he may have played more matches and ended up with a lot more wickets. But it’s a reality many pacers have to live with, given their trade. One need not look beyond Pakistan and their crop of fast bowlers to acknowledge this. They come and go at the breakneck speed at which they bowl.

And as spinners go, Ravichandran Ashwin has been fortunate enough to have not picked any career-threatening injuries.

So, who is the match winner any captain would love to pick? Who would be the go-to man in a crisis?

With Lillee, his captains may have automatically picked him for his fast bowling skills whenver he was fit enough, but it may not be true in Ravichandran Ashwin’s case. The offie has faced the axe, especially after tough overseas tours, where Indian spinners tend to struggle. His illustrious predecessor Anil Kumble may be an exception to this.

Now consider Ravichandran Ashwin’s batting prowess. He has 2,051 runs with four centuries and 11 fifties to his credit in Test matches. Compared to this, Lillee scored 905 runs in his entire career with just one fifty. Interestingly, all of Ashwin’s centuries came against the West Indies (two at home, two in the Caribbean). The Windies are no more the force they once were.

In Lillee’s case, he was picked purely for his bowling. Modern cricket requires bowlers who can bat and batters who can bowl. This is not to take away any credit due to Lillee. Whatever runs he may not have made as a tail-end batsman he more than made up for as a quickie gunning for hapless opposition batsmen. To Ravichandran Ashwin’s credit, he can bat. If one were to consider this, then Ravichandran Ashwin, in the current context, is a more valuable player to his team at home.

Harking back to the question about comparison between different players from dissimilar eras, Lillee was then dominant in his own backyard and in places like England, New Zealand and the West Indies where pitches and conditions favoured pacers. Also, he had an extremely quick partner at the other end in Jeff Thomson who was more than capable in his own way to prise out established batsmen. To quote a cliche, they hunted in pairs. They were like Kumble and Harbhajan Singh of yore, to cite a more Indian example. So, is the bowler only as good as the conditions are? The answer for this may never be clearly ascertained since Lillee never toured that one place some fast bowlers dread even to this day - India.

Ashwin also has an able partner in the form of Ravindra Jadeja, though the latter perhaps is not what  Jeff Thomson was to Dennis Lillee. Yet, they have had some major successes in spin-friendly conditions.

So, the pacer or the tweaker? Take your pick.

Comparisons are odious, as they say. Can a modern-day spin bowler be compared to an aggressive fast bowler from another era?

Or, for that matter, could the best spinner of one era have plied his trade successfully had he been playing say 30 years ago, when there may perhaps have been better players of spin? Would Sunil Gavaskar have played Mohammad Aamir better than Virat Kohli? What would have been the outcome if Vivian Richards had faced Shane Warne?

Such  questions come to mind following Ravichandran Ashwin's  feat of being the fastest to the 300-wicket. The man he displaced was one of the greatest exponents of fast  bowling - Dennis Lillee.

There may be a tendency among avid cricket followers and experts to undermine Ravichandran Ashwin’s effort claiming that he got most of his wickets at home, where pitches tend to spin and stay low. It is a given that Lillee practised his craft chiefly in the seam-friendly conditions of Australia and England, while Ashwin has the cushion of Indian pitches. But, were they good enough only in Australia and India, respectively.

Let’s take a look at the numbers.

The obvious one here is the 54 Tests taken by Ravichandran Ashwin to reach 300 wickets, compared to Lillee's 56. While the Aussie had a bowling average of 23.92 per wicket, Ravichandran Ashwin is just behind with an average of 25.06.

In the 54 Tests that he has played so far, Ravichandran Ashwin has bowled 15,636 balls, while Dennis Lillee, who ended his career with 70 Tests and 355 wickets, bowled 18,467 balls. So, if Ravichandran Ashwin plays in 70 Tests, the number of balls he bowls should proportionally translate into more wickets. However, Lillee, who got to 300 wickets in 56 Tests, managed only 55 wickets in 14 more matches.

A closer look at the numbers provides interesting insights on the question of favourable home conditions.

Ashwin has 216 wickets from 34 home Tests played at home, while Dennis Lillee took 231 wickets from 44 matches at home. While Ravichandran Ashwin has taken 84 wickets in his 20 matches abroad, Dennis Lillee took 124 wickets from 26 matches abroad in his entire career, of which only six wickets came in sub-continental pitches in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

So, it is not only Ravichandran Ashwin who benefits from pitches at home, Dennis Lillee’s was also a classic case of the same - not just in Australia but also in England.

To put it differently, teams tend to play to their strengths at home, and Ravichandran Ashwin’s effort should be lauded just like Dennis Lillee’s.

In economy rate also, the two are almost neck-to-neck - Dennis Lillee's 2.72 against Ravichandran Ashwin's 2.88. Interestingly, Dennis Lillee never toured India since during his days, it was not a favourable destination for fast bowlers given its dust-bowl pitches then.

Dennis Lillee was the quintessential fast bowler - brash, in-your-face and always menacing.

Ravichandran Ashwin, on the other hand, is more laidback but all the same playing on the nerves of the batsmen with his crafty ways.

Dennis Lillee may have had big support from his team of batsmen boasting the great Chappell brothers, among others. Ravichandran Ashwin too has some modern greats like Kohli and MS Dhoni in his team.

As fast bowlers come, Dennis Lillee was plagued with injuries throughout his career without which he may have played more matches and ended up with a lot more wickets. But it’s a reality many pacers have to live with, given their trade. One need not look beyond Pakistan and their crop of fast bowlers to acknowledge this. They come and go at the breakneck speed at which they bowl.

And as spinners go, Ravichandran Ashwin has been fortunate enough to have not picked any career-threatening injuries.

So, who is the match winner any captain would love to pick? Who would be the go-to man in a crisis?

With Lillee, his captains may have automatically picked him for his fast bowling skills whenver he was fit enough, but it may not be true in Ravichandran Ashwin’s case. The offie has faced the axe, especially after tough overseas tours, where Indian spinners tend to struggle. His illustrious predecessor Anil Kumble may be an exception to this.

Now consider Ravichandran Ashwin’s batting prowess. He has 2,051 runs with four centuries and 11 fifties to his credit in Test matches. Compared to this, Lillee scored 905 runs in his entire career with just one fifty. Interestingly, all of Ashwin’s centuries came against the West Indies (two at home, two in the Caribbean). The Windies are no more the force they once were.

In Lillee’s case, he was picked purely for his bowling. Modern cricket requires bowlers who can bat and batters who can bowl. This is not to take away any credit due to Lillee. Whatever runs he may not have made as a tail-end batsman he more than made up for as a quickie gunning for hapless opposition batsmen. To Ravichandran Ashwin’s credit, he can bat. If one were to consider this, then Ravichandran Ashwin, in the current context, is a more valuable player to his team at home.

Harking back to the question about comparison between different players from dissimilar eras, Lillee was then dominant in his own backyard and in places like England, New Zealand and the West Indies where pitches and conditions favoured pacers. Also, he had an extremely quick partner at the other end in Jeff Thomson who was more than capable in his own way to prise out established batsmen. To quote a cliche, they hunted in pairs. They were like Kumble and Harbhajan Singh of yore, to cite a more Indian example. So, is the bowler only as good as the conditions are? The answer for this may never be clearly ascertained since Lillee never toured that one place some fast bowlers dread even to this day - India.

Ashwin also has an able partner in the form of Ravindra Jadeja, though the latter perhaps is not what  Jeff Thomson was to Dennis Lillee. Yet, they have had some major successes in spin-friendly conditions.

So, the pacer or the tweaker? Take your pick.

Comparisons are odious, as they say. Can a modern-day spin bowler be compared to an aggressive fast bowler from another era?

Or, for that matter, could the best spinner of one era have plied his trade successfully had he been playing say 30 years ago, when there may perhaps have been better players of spin? Would Sunil Gavaskar have played Mohammad Aamir better than Virat Kohli? What would have been the outcome if Vivian Richards had faced Shane Warne?

Such  questions come to mind following Ravichandran Ashwin's  feat of being the fastest to the 300-wicket. The man he displaced was one of the greatest exponents of fast  bowling - Dennis Lillee.

There may be a tendency among avid cricket followers and experts to undermine Ravichandran Ashwin’s effort claiming that he got most of his wickets at home, where pitches tend to spin and stay low. It is a given that Lillee practised his craft chiefly in the seam-friendly conditions of Australia and England, while Ashwin has the cushion of Indian pitches. But, were they good enough only in Australia and India, respectively.

Let’s take a look at the numbers.

The obvious one here is the 54 Tests taken by Ravichandran Ashwin to reach 300 wickets, compared to Lillee's 56. While the Aussie had a bowling average of 23.92 per wicket, Ravichandran Ashwin is just behind with an average of 25.06.

In the 54 Tests that he has played so far, Ravichandran Ashwin has bowled 15,636 balls, while Dennis Lillee, who ended his career with 70 Tests and 355 wickets, bowled 18,467 balls. So, if Ravichandran Ashwin plays in 70 Tests, the number of balls he bowls should proportionally translate into more wickets. However, Lillee, who got to 300 wickets in 56 Tests, managed only 55 wickets in 14 more matches.

A closer look at the numbers provides interesting insights on the question of favourable home conditions.

Ashwin has 216 wickets from 34 home Tests played at home, while Dennis Lillee took 231 wickets from 44 matches at home. While Ravichandran Ashwin has taken 84 wickets in his 20 matches abroad, Dennis Lillee took 124 wickets from 26 matches abroad in his entire career, of which only six wickets came in sub-continental pitches in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

So, it is not only Ravichandran Ashwin who benefits from pitches at home, Dennis Lillee’s was also a classic case of the same - not just in Australia but also in England.

To put it differently, teams tend to play to their strengths at home, and Ravichandran Ashwin’s effort should be lauded just like Dennis Lillee’s.

In economy rate also, the two are almost neck-to-neck - Dennis Lillee's 2.72 against Ravichandran Ashwin's 2.88. Interestingly, Dennis Lillee never toured India since during his days, it was not a favourable destination for fast bowlers given its dust-bowl pitches then.

Dennis Lillee was the quintessential fast bowler - brash, in-your-face and always menacing.

Ravichandran Ashwin, on the other hand, is more laidback but all the same playing on the nerves of the batsmen with his crafty ways.

Dennis Lillee may have had big support from his team of batsmen boasting the great Chappell brothers, among others. Ravichandran Ashwin too has some modern greats like Kohli and MS Dhoni in his team.

As fast bowlers come, Dennis Lillee was plagued with injuries throughout his career without which he may have played more matches and ended up with a lot more wickets. But it’s a reality many pacers have to live with, given their trade. One need not look beyond Pakistan and their crop of fast bowlers to acknowledge this. They come and go at the breakneck speed at which they bowl.

And as spinners go, Ravichandran Ashwin has been fortunate enough to have not picked any career-threatening injuries.

So, who is the match winner any captain would love to pick? Who would be the go-to man in a crisis?

With Lillee, his captains may have automatically picked him for his fast bowling skills whenver he was fit enough, but it may not be true in Ravichandran Ashwin’s case. The offie has faced the axe, especially after tough overseas tours, where Indian spinners tend to struggle. His illustrious predecessor Anil Kumble may be an exception to this.

Now consider Ravichandran Ashwin’s batting prowess. He has 2,051 runs with four centuries and 11 fifties to his credit in Test matches. Compared to this, Lillee scored 905 runs in his entire career with just one fifty. Interestingly, all of Ashwin’s centuries came against the West Indies (two at home, two in the Caribbean). The Windies are no more the force they once were.

In Lillee’s case, he was picked purely for his bowling. Modern cricket requires bowlers who can bat and batters who can bowl. This is not to take away any credit due to Lillee. Whatever runs he may not have made as a tail-end batsman he more than made up for as a quickie gunning for hapless opposition batsmen. To Ravichandran Ashwin’s credit, he can bat. If one were to consider this, then Ravichandran Ashwin, in the current context, is a more valuable player to his team at home.

Harking back to the question about comparison between different players from dissimilar eras, Lillee was then dominant in his own backyard and in places like England, New Zealand and the West Indies where pitches and conditions favoured pacers. Also, he had an extremely quick partner at the other end in Jeff Thomson who was more than capable in his own way to prise out established batsmen. To quote a cliche, they hunted in pairs. They were like Kumble and Harbhajan Singh of yore, to cite a more Indian example. So, is the bowler only as good as the conditions are? The answer for this may never be clearly ascertained since Lillee never toured that one place some fast bowlers dread even to this day - India.

Ashwin also has an able partner in the form of Ravindra Jadeja, though the latter perhaps is not what  Jeff Thomson was to Dennis Lillee. Yet, they have had some major successes in spin-friendly conditions.

So, the pacer or the tweaker? Take your pick.