All time XIs discussion

[CricAddict]

Great stuff mate, but can we get Tamim Iqbal's name fixed?

Done.

 

[ankitj]

Given Australia have McGrath, Lillee and Miller to lead the pace attack, there is a case to actually include Bill O'Reilly in the AT XI

 

[Red]

Yeh I think so. If you have Miller in the team, it's massively advantageous to choose both Warne and OReilly in the XI imo

 

[Victor Ian]

I still haven't been sold on why Lillee is in the team instead of Davidson. If it is about popularity, then the team should include Elle McPherson. I know dropping Lillee is heresy but I find the idea of the variety that Davidson brings interesting.

So what I want to understand is, does variety matter for the quicks, in the sense that a left handed bowler might have a better advantage against a certain handed batsman? It didn't seem to matter for the Great West Indies of Australian teams.

 

[harsh.ag]

Bringing Davidson in for variety is a decent call, but not at the expense of Lillee. He could be bought in for Lindwall (if he's in the team). Or Miller (if you're okay with a bowling all-rounder rather than a more wholesome one).

I think Lillee is overrated as well but jeez you people go to the far end sometimes, thinking left hand variety is so important as to drop him for Davidson. And anyone who thinks Davidson was a better bowler straight out because of the lower average is not using enough brain cells.

 

[Victor Ian]

I think Australia has runs scored covered. So I don't care about average as much as I care about strike rate. Lillee is far superior. Never in a million years is Miller open for debate.

But is variety worth it at all, if the non variety has better history of performance? Lillee is still offering variety. He is the aggressive, dangerous, cunning bowler. McGrath is impecable line. Warne is Leg Spin Lindwall is perfect motion and stumps danger, and Miller is Miller. Under what circumstance, would having the lefty help this team? Is there a certain type of ball they bowl that right handers can't? (excuse my bowling ignorance)

 

[Days of Grace]

Who are the new ball bowlers in the Australian XI? Seems there are four of them.

 

[Starfighter]

Doesn't that go for a lot of these sort of XIs? You pick the best bowlers - who would always take the new ball during their career - and then ponder over who gets to be first change.

I'd give it to Lindwall definitely, and probably McGrath.

 

[Bolo]

My feeling on lindwall is that he's basically a slower holding and could make way for either O'Reilly or Davidson for variety. He's not a quick I know much about though. Anyone care to change my mind and convince me he's in the Lillee type tier?

 

[Brian Lara]

Probably the people slanderously suggesting that Lillee shouldn’t be in the first team.

 

[Red]

My feeling on lindwall is that he's basically a slower holding and could make way for either O'Reilly or Davidson for variety. He's not a quick I know much about though. Anyone care to change my mind and convince me he's in the Lillee type tier?

Just a copy/paste from wiki but there are plenty who say he was the best of all time.

David Frith wrote that "there was a balance, rhythmic run, a build-up" and an "ecstasy" in his smooth delivery action.[6] Richie Benaud said that Lindwall was "technically the best fast bowler" that he ever saw.[7] During the 1950s, Lindwall's action was copied by young children and a number of first-class Australian bowlers, including Ron Gaunt, John Power and Barry Fisher consciously copied his action.[6] Alan Davidson, who succeeded Lindwall as Australia's pace spearhead, labelled him as "the best fast bowler I ever saw".[105] Lindwall's childhood hero Harold Larwood rated Dennis Lillee to be equal to Lindwall "but not ahead of him".[105] Following Lindwall's tour of England in 1953, his English counterpart Alec Bedser said that Lindwall was "the best fast bowler I've seen, because of his variety and control".[105] Lindwall was particularly known for his trademark outswinger, which swung late and at high pace. Fred Trueman believed that Lindwall's ability to simultaneously swing the ball and at such pace and accuracy was matched only by himself and Wes Hall.[105] Frank Tyson wrote that "he appears to be just jogging his fifteen yards up to the stumps – until the last couple of strides of his approach, when he suddenly explodes into his delivery stride...when he releases the ball, his bowling arm is so low that it borders on the round-arm".[106] Lindwall's ability to swing the ball at high pace allowed him to repeatedly breach the defences of his opponents; of his 228 Test wickets, 98 were bowled and another 31 were leg before wicket.[9] Lindwall's repertoire was reinforced with a dangerous yorker and bouncer, and changes of pace.[105] As Tyson said "who is not 'Lindy's bunny' when he slots his yorker in the right spot?".[107] In 1952 he developed an inswinger and then coupled it with his yorker,[60] which homed into the feet of batsmen at high pace.[73] Denis Compton said that Lindwall had the subtleties of a slow bowler, saying that he "raised what is considered to be the labouring force of cricket [fast bowling] to an artform with his tactical shrewdness, control and variations".[73] Lindwall's emergence after the Second World War along with his new ball partner Keith Miller heralded a new era in cricket. The pair were regarded as the two best fast bowlers of their era, and signalled a change in the cricket landscape, which had been dominated during the interwar period by batsmen.[9] Together the pair formed a new ball fast-bowling combination regarded as one of the best in Test history.[6] During the 1948 tour of England, the hosts had agreed to have a new ball available every 55 overs, and the Australians used this to unleash Lindwall and Miller on the Englishmen with a shiny new ball. The pair often targeted the leading opposition batsmen, particular England's Len Hutton and Denis Compton with large amounts of short-pitched bowling, raising fast bowling to a new standard.[9][108] Hutton's battles with Lindwall were regarded as one of the key match-ups in Anglo-Australian battles of the time, and Hutton said his opponent had the ability to "strike at will".[105] Hutton felt that Lindwall's bouncers were the best that he faced, saying of their accuracy:"You had to play them or be hit".[9] Lindwall refused to bowl bouncers at tailenders, saying that "If the day ever came when I have to bowl bouncers at tailenders then I won't deserve to play for Australia".[109] When England developed quality pace bowlers of their own in the 1950s, Hutton was captain and he implemented a similar strategy to that executed by Lindwall and Miller.[9] In retirement, Lindwall went on to mentor Lillee,[9] who went on to break the Test world record for wicket-taking.

 

[Victor Ian]

Lindwall is my favourite fast bowler. Lindwall would destroy batsmen in today's era of DRS LBW's. His percentage of bowled and LBW is huge (56.6%). In terms of wanting variety, I think Lindwall is a must. McGrath and Lillee take most of their wickets with catches.

Nearly everything I've ever read about him, claims him to be the best ever fast bowler, which seems outright strange when you look at his numbers. Lillee takes 5 wickets per match. Lindwall is back in the pack with only four. Lillee had 7 10wkts and Lindwall had none. Lillee struck every 50odd balls, Lindwall only every 60.

Do we have anyone who can shed more light on this 'mediocrity' of numbers compared to the superb heights of esteem those who saw him hold for him? Why did fast bowlers of his era not seem to rack up the stupid numbers that today's bowlers do (per test)?

 

[Starfighter]

Lindwall was used by Bradman especially and the other Australian captains more selectively and bowled fewer deliveries a match than Lillee. Bill Johnston was used in the role of stock bowler and others also got a go in different situations. For example he bowled only 12 overs on the Brisbane sticky in 1946, and didn't bowl at all in the second innings with Miller and the slower Toshack being used being used instead. This would restrict his ability to take huge hauls, although it's still strange he never took a ten-for. On the other hand I don't think anybody was ever not giving Lillee all the overs he wanted on a bowling friendly wicket. Lindwall also played in a more defensive era (s/r 79, ave 29.96 econ 2.27) than Lillee (s/r 73, ave 31.54 econ 2.59). If you're bowling less in a time when it takes more balls to get a wicket you're obviously going to take fewer wickets a match. That's why I don't like using wickets per match or strike rates as measures of ability, they're just as dependent on the batsmen and tactics as the bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

My feeling on lindwall is that he's basically a slower holding and could make way for either O'Reilly or Davidson for variety. He's not a quick I know much about though. Anyone care to change my mind and convince me he's in the Lillee type tier?

Oh I think once you've made up your mind no amount of facts will change it. So stick with what you think.

Miller is the second player I'd pick for an Aussie XI but doesn't have to be given the new ball. He's the sort of impact bowler that can be brought in anywhere. I believe Lindwall and Johnston opened the bowling on occasion in the 48 series. For mine Lindwall is a cut above Lillee whom I'd demote for O'Reilly.

 

[jimmy101]

This is an interesting discussion. What I'm getting from this is that there's not much separating Lillee, Davo & Lindwall.

 

[Victor Ian]

Do we have any Martin features here on Lindwall? Any other Lindwall Love threads I can go read?

edit: never mind - i found them all

 

[Bolo]

One fact struck me as a bit incongruous between the info of Redhill and Victor Ian- he took a disproportionate amount of wickets lbw or bowled, but his main weapon was the outswinger. A tendency to bowl really full?

On comments from people rating him as the best ever- there wasn't much competition before him in terms of quicks. It's a lot easier to be comparatively highly rated when you aren't competing with much. I think Lillee gets a similar boost when so many opinions of him come up as the single best. This said, I think Lillee was one of the best anyway and am not sure about Lindwall.

Lindwall also played in a more defensive era (s/r 79, ave 29.96 econ 2.27) than Lillee (s/r 73, ave 31.54 econ 2.59). If you're bowling less in a time when it takes more balls to get a wicket you're obviously going to take fewer wickets a match. That's why I don't like using wickets per match or strike rates as measures of ability, they're just as dependent on the batsmen and tactics as the bowler.

These are seldom magic bullets, because you often need interpretation, but they are extremely useful measures. They are the reason we can seperate Steyn and Philander for example by stats as bowlers of vastly differing quality despite Philanders superior bowling average.

There's also an assumption that if you are bowling fewer balls per match you will be bowling when most likely to be effective, not bowling tired etc. and are more likely to get cheaper quicker wickets as a result.

Adjust for era on the data you have provided and there is no difference between Lindwall and Lillee. Adjusted for era with a split between quicks and slow bowlers bearing in mind the usage levels of each and the result could be different. I'm not sure though- it's an assumption. Maybe a comparison vs top contemporaries is the route to go.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the strike rate of Trueman vs lindwall? There's a 20% difference. This is a huge number- Ambrose to Flintoff is a similar difference. His wpm is also significantly higher- 6 more matches but 79 more wickets. Tyson, another contemporary, struck 30% quicker, although admittedly he only took 1/3 of Lindwalls career wickets. Lindwall compares more favourably to Miller, but they are in the team for different reasons.

Oh I think once you've made up your mind no amount of facts will change it. So stick with what you think.

I'm saying I have an impression of Lindwall based on incomplete facts and am literally asking for my mind to be changed. Your perspective on the purpose of discourse is somewhat broken to draw this type of conclusion in contrast to what is actually being said.

 

[Starfighter]

By the way, I take that you've never seen Lindwall bowl?

 

[Victor Ian]

Actually the outswinger taking lots of bowled and lbw confuses me too. How? My guess is he got those wickets by luring a batsman to play for the swing and then using his Yorker. Or perhaps he bowled a line down leg, getting the batsman to open up the stumps on the offside. I would love to hear how he did this.
The thing with Lindwall is he is rated better than Lillee, or equal, by renowned writers who had seen both careers.

 

[Bolo]

Haven't seen any footage I feel I can judge him on. Same goes for just about any really old footage of any quick- side on footage make it tough to judge what the ball is doing and lack of reference on frame speed make it tough to judge pace, although he looks very quick. Highlights always make it tough to assess the quality of a bowler.

Is there any footage in particular available online that gets past these problems?