Fast bowlers for Pre Packer XI

[Matt79]

Important thing is to keep Lindwall firmly as first runner up - give him the in for the final bowler's spot.

Just in case I haven't said it anywhere previously here, overall Lindwall >> Davidson IMO.

 

[King Pietersen]

I'm unsure of the rules and specifications for this poll, but why's there no place for Sydney Barnes on this poll? 189 Test Wickets at 16, and 719 FC wickets at an average of 17. Surely that's good enough to get into any side?

As far as the options in the poll go, I'd plump for Lillee and Trueman.

 

[The Sean]

It's only for the period since WWII.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Surprised not to see Garth McKenzie in the poll. Not really a contender along side Lillee, Trueman or Lindwall but a better bowler than Taylor or Adcock.

 

[The Sean]

His average is above the cut-off point of 27, so he's goneski.

 

[bagapath]

I'm unsure of the rules and specifications for this poll, but why's there no place for Sydney Barnes on this poll? 189 Test Wickets at 16, and 719 FC wickets at an average of 17. Surely that's good enough to get into any side?

As far as the options in the poll go, I'd plump for Lillee and Trueman.

welcome to CW. this is part of an ongoing series of polls to choose teams from different eras. this team is for the 1945 - 1979 era. the name "pre packer" might have misled you. it is "post ww2 - pre packer" team.

 

[funnygirl]

Lillee and Trueman.

 

[bagapath]

very tempted to take lindwall and davidson to the next poll (with spinners and mixed variety bowlers) and announce lillee and trueman as winners. dont see this trend changing much, any of you have issues?

 

[The Sean]

I'm more than happy to call this and move on.

 

[Evermind]

It must be said, "Lillee" is a pretty girly name for a tough fast bowler.

 

[bagapath]

so were "vivian" and "lara" for attacking batsmen

 

[Uppercut]

Looking back at the career numbers that these two great fast bowlers assembled, it's hard not to vote for Trueman - as good as Lindwall's record is, Trueman's is better in most aspects. However Lindwall is one of those cricketers who is rated so exceptionally highly by those who played with and against him that it's hard to ignore - indeed, most of the accounts I've read comparing the fast men of the pre-70s era seem to rate Lindwall the highest of all, and even to this day there are those who saw him in action who claim that no one since - not Lillee, Marshall or anyone else - has been better.

It's true that there's probably a nostalgic element to this, a remembrance of that smooth, controlled run up and beautifully dynamic round-arm action. However I can't believe that such a reputation can be written off 100% as pure nostalgia, and there must be a reason that the likes of Hutton, Compton, Graveney, Hassett and Harvey claimed he was the very best they ever saw.

Hmm, indeed. Well, i always give the same answer. I try not to judge players I've never seen, particularly in comparison with each other. They can sometimes be interesting to hear about, read about or watch archive footage of, but i don't feel in a position to say exactly how good they were, particularly when trying to separate two world-class players.

But if the historian in me gets the better of me and I'm going to answer a poll, I'll give the number of wickets they took, or runs they scored more weighting than what was said about them at the time. Hard facts are subject to less qualifications than general opinions.

For example, two fifths of all of the batsmen dismissed by Lindwall were out bowled. The effect on spectators of stumps flying out of the ground is overwhelming, personally it's one of the things I most love to see when watching cricket. But does it thereby give people an exaggerated idea of a bowler's effectiveness?

Equally, Trueman had a famously aggressive nature and would often taunt batsmen. The effectiveness of this in a fast bowler is debateable, but did it endear him to those he played against, never mind the typical 1950s onlooker? Were those who genuinely did not like him at all ever likely to say he was the greatest fast bowler around, or would they prefer to bestow that honour to a figure they found more likeable?

Of course, there's counter-points to all of this, and none of it's especially important. All it demonstrates to me is that contemporary opinions are incredibly difficult to use as evidence regarding how good a player someone was. Much more reliable, although still far from perfect, are how often they did what they were there to do- take wickets- and Trueman did so considerably more often than Lindwall did. This isn't to say that Trueman was better- there could be a number of other factors contributing to it- but if i was asked for an opinion, it's what I'd have to conclude.

 

[aussie]

I'm late. Harsh leaving out Peter Heine i feel

 

[archie mac]

It must be said, "Lillee" is a pretty girly name for a tough fast bowler.

It was a good name for a chant

 

[JBH001]

i had kept the fast bowling cut off at bowling avg of 27 (for spinners it is 30). mckenzie averaged close to 30

Ah, fair enough. Bit of shame, as he was better than his stats suggest. A fine bowler (and Lillee's idol).

Edit/ After some thought, finally went for Lindwall and Davidson.