102: Nathan Lyon

100 matches. 399 wickets @ 32.12. Strike rate: 64.39. 18x 5wi.

12 years. 3x good. 2x excellent. 1x outstanding.

The discussion

Here is the thing about Nathan Lyon. Any time you adopt the moniker ‘the GOAT’ (and yes, it might have been bestowed upon him, but he certainly has not shied away from it) you have some reputation to live up to. As the saying goes — if you shoot at the King, you had better not miss.

To combat my possible bias for Nathan Lyon’s acceptance into the Hall of Fame (as a fellow spinner and as an Australian) — I find it necessary to make the argument both for and against Nathan Lyon.

The case for Nathan Lyon

The case is easy to make in a statistical context. No Australian finger-spinner has had a career as long, or with as many wickets as Nathan Lyon. Here are some of his peers:

Australian off-spinners with 50+ wickets

Source: ESPN CricInfo

As you can see, from a sheer weight of numbers perspective, no one comes close to Nathan Lyon. In that niche, he certainly is the greatest of all time. As least as far as wickets go.

We should also remember the revolving turnstile of spinners tried by Australia in the aftermath of the retirement of Shane Warne. For one Nathan Lyon there are almost a dozen players like Jason Krejza, Beau Casson, Nathan Hauritz, and Stephen O’Keefe. Tried and discarded before the arrival of a player who was formerly a groundstaff-cum-first-class cricketer in South Australia. From humble beginnings, Nathan Lyon has carved out an incredibly impressive career. He sits 17th on the all-time Test wicket charts, and with potentially a few years left at the top level, he has every chance of climbing even higher.

The case against Nathan Lyon

You shoot for the King, you had better not miss.

Lyon has missed.

Not by much, but he has missed.

Many players in the Hall of Fame can make the claim that they were close to, if not the best in the world in their discipline, at least for a short time. To an extent, Nathan Lyon could make that claim from 2015–2018. But now he has been surpassed (well and truly) by R Ashwin. The 2020–21 home series against India was supposed to have been the crowning glory (another royalty reference — let’s see how many I can get into this segment) for Nathan Lyon. Approaching 400 wickets, his opposite (R Ashwin) with the superior average and strike rate, but a poor record in Australia. There were tests in Melbourne and Sydney to spin Australia to victory, and only one match against Virat Kohli. It was all there for the taking. This was the moment for Nathan Lyon to lay down the gauntlet and assert his dominance over Ashwin to cement his place in the lineage of world-class finger-spin royalty.

But, instead, Nathan Lyon lost that battle.

Not only was Lyon outperformed by Ashwin, but he was also outperformed by all the touring spinners. Even more perplexing were his tactics against some of India’s premier batters. When using a bat-pad outside off-stump to the stoic Cheteshwar Pujara, Lyon looked threatening. In that mode, Lyon (and all finger-spinners) is at his most dangerous — threatening both edges of the bat, as well as the stumps, and causes the batter the most concern over the tightness of their technique. But, almost immediately, Nathan Lyon went away from that strategy to a stump-to-stump line. When quizzed, his response was ‘I don’t enjoy/I’m not comfortable bowling there’, or words to that effect.

The tactic looked effective, but Lyon was not comfortable executing it. That alone separates the good from the great bowlers of all-time. You might not like it, but if it is effective (and legal!!!) then needs must. Great bowlers operate in multiple modes and adopt tactics successfully that are not their preferred modus operandi. Lyon is not the first bowler (and certainly will not be the last) that has not quite mastered multiple strategies to attack batters. Take another look at that list of Australian finger-spinners. No less than six players have a better average than Nathan Lyon. For international spinners with 200 or more wickets, Nathan Lyon’s average is 18th, behind contemporaries Ravi Jadeja, R Ashwin, Rangana Herath, Graeme Swann and Shakib Al Hasan.

Stu’s view

C’mon Baldy, did Lyon really bowl that badly against India? As a neutral with no skin in the game (other than the fact that New Zealanders are bred to support NZ and everyone playing Australia), I loved watching both Ashwin and Lyon operate in that series. Yes Ashwin got the win both from a team and individual perspective, but I think you’re being a bit harsh!

The verdict

Lyon might have close to 400 wickets, but others who made it to the Hall of Fame had better averages, and/or better strike rates. Wickets count for a lot, but they aren’t everything. Lyon has a mastery of his craft, but sometimes appears reluctant to use all the weapons at his disposal in pursuit of anything other than his preferred Plan A. Nathan Lyon is my cut-off for bowlers who’ve made it to the Hall of Fame. Despite sitting just outside the top 100, Lyon nonetheless forms an integral part of its makeup. And, like Shakib Al Hasan, Lyon has several years left to make his case by improving his average and showing that he can lead his team to victory in adverse conditions.

Nathan Lyon is a very, very good bowler. I want him to be a great bowler, I really do. I really wanted him in our Hall of Fame.

But he missed.

Just.

Stu’s view

Following on from my earlier point, when I first read Baldy’s write up, I felt like it was an incredibly harsh judgement of Nathan Lyon’s very impressive career to place so much weight on one series. I get the point that to be a truly great player, which those on this list should be, you must show yourself to be capable of standing up in the big moments to win them for your team. The undeniable greats live for those moments, and deliver more often than not.

But I couldn’t shake the thought that Lyon has 400 wickets (let’s give him that extra one for the purposes of discussion). As a regulation finger-spinner. Who SPINS the ball. Hard. And bowls with such a lovely, classical arc at his best. Before I lose all the non-spinners, let’s put that into perspective — there are only four off-spinners with more Test wickets: Murali (who is really in a category of his own), plus Herath, Harbhajan and Ashwin. All who have played well over 50 per cent of their games in Asia. They also had extra variations to play with (which they deserve credit for developing, but is still worth noting).

The problem for Lyon, and for me, once I decided to dive deeper into Lyon’s career and the other players in this Hall of Fame, is that there are only 100 spots on this list. And as much as I wanted to make the case for another off-spinner, Baldy’s words kept ringing in my ears: ‘Nathan Lyon is a very, very good bowler’, and I couldn’t disagree. His longevity is superb. He has at times been the best off-spinner in his era. But would I pick him over the four spinners mentioned above? What about Graeme Swann? Leg-spinners like Warne and Kumble, even MacGill, let alone other spinners from previous generations? Has his contribution to Australian cricket been as significant as Daniel Vettori’s has been to New Zealand? Unfortunately for Nathan Lyon, when I asked myself these questions, the answer kept coming back as ‘No’.

I don’t envy Baldy’s task of ranking so many cricketers, sometimes separating them by the finest of margins. And I can assure readers that there are some I’m expecting to firmly disagree with. But this feels about right.

In one word

Almost

Bio

Record

Source: ESPN CricInfo

career peak

Source: ESPN CricInfo