All time XIs discussion

[Bolo]

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.

Batsmen more used to leaving outside off as evidenced by lower era strike rates and his stock ball was not his primary wicket taking delivery?

 

[Starfighter]

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?

Not really. It took a long time for the modern angle to become standard, and that was for television, which there's not that much surviving footage of pre-1970. Newsreels are always from an angle, as is the majority of television footage from that era too (even when straight end on became standard you have the bowler's vs batsmen's end thing). The only televised tests he would have played were in the 58/59 Ashes.

Bits of this film from 0:29 (Melbourne 1946/47) are probably the best, but I don't think it was his best bowling day, and it's a low (and varying?) framerate so the footage seems speeded up and oddly paced:

 

[Victor Ian]

I don't know how much Mallet's opinion is worth - but he ranked the best bowlers he had seen; Lindwall, Lillee, Wasim, Davidson, Marshall.

Ashley Mallett on the five best fast bowlers he has seen - ESPN

 

[Victor Ian]

One of the reasons I admire Lindwall was the way he played the game the Australian way... The Australian way before they changed the Australian way to be a synonym for being a ****.

Nice article here. Category: | The Courier Mail

 

[Bolo]

Not really. It took a long time for the modern angle to become standard, and that was for television, which there's not that much surviving footage of pre-1970. Newsreels are always from an angle, as is the majority of television footage from that era too (even when straight end on became standard you have the bowler's vs batsmen's end thing). The only televised tests he would have played were in the 58/59 Ashes.

Bits of this film from 0:29 (Melbourne 1946/47) are probably the best, but I don't think it was his best bowling day, and it's a low (and varying?) framerate so the footage seems speeded up and oddly paced:

Thanks, that's some of the best footage I've seen in this regard from the era, and it's useful for understanding style. Still, I can't really get much of an idea of quality from it- indications in both directions, but mostly just can't tell from the footage.

I don't know how much Mallet's opinion is worth - but he ranked the best bowlers he had seen; Lindwall, Lillee, Wasim, Davidson, Marshall.

Ashley Mallett on the five best fast bowlers he has seen - ESPN

No idea about Ashley Mallet specifically, but one thing I tend to do is discount the weight of a commentators opinion when they are selecting players from their home countries. Bias is incredibly prevelant. Marginal calls to end to end up in favour of their home nation more often than not, and calls that do not seem marginal to less vested observers often go the same way. An Australian picking 3/5 Aussies as the best bowlers ever screams alarm bells to me, particularly when one or two of them are outside the list of usual suspects.

I tend to discount opinion on cricketers a commentator has played with or against for similar reasons, although to a lesser extent.

I want a number of similar opinions before I give much credence to an opinion. Look at Shane Warne's picks for how a 'good cricketing brain' can produce some real excrement.

One thing of interest is when this list was compiled. Declaring Lindwall a top 5 bowler in 1970 would be virtually meaningless- almost all of the great quicks had not debuted yet, and his ranking would likely have changed significantly. Most comments fall into this category, originating from somewhere soon after his playing career. This one is more recent and takes into account the great bowlers subsequent to his career.

 

[chasingthedon]

looking for some more solid reason than these

I mean come on - Mitchell Johnson was scarier than Lillee and so was Thomson. That doesn't mean they should be in AT XI.

I think what this boils down to is the difference between nominating an all-time great and nominating an all-time great team. Essentially in picking the two you're looking in opposite directions - when you're selecting an all-time great player you're looking backwards, at what he achieved, whereas when you're picking an all-time great team, you're looking forward, how would he play in certain situations and with the other members of the team. So Lillee being scarier may be more important in that sense than Davidson's all-round ability.

Having said that, if the opposition ATG team has the likes of Viv Richards in its batting line-up, Lillee's scariness is less of an asset than against Mike Denness et al.

 

[NUFAN]

Lillee received more votes than McGrath btw and tbh I certainly dont think its a shock at all that Lillee and McGrath were the 2 quicks initially chosen.

Lindwall vs Davidson is the real battle, I would have gone Davo.

 

[NUFAN]

BTW one of the things I have loved about this is that it gets you thinking just how many (or how few) cricketers a country has produced for each role.

 

[Victor Ian]

It certainly matters when a list was compiled. The fact that the one I posted contains Akram sort of hints that it is late enough to have seen all players up to Akram.
Bias matters but the point was his ranking of the Aussies.

 

[Victor Ian]

BTW one of the things I have loved about this is that it gets you thinking just how many (or how few) cricketers a country has produced for each role.

Yep. I'm amazed at how early on in the alphabet I become unimpressed.

 

[Bolo]

It certainly matters when a list was compiled. The fact that the one I posted contains Akram sort of hints that it is late enough to have seen all players up to Akram.
Bias matters but the point was his ranking of the Aussies.

I don't think the bowlers are ranked comparatively, it's only Lindwall who is mentioned as ahead of the others.

It's dated 2012, so effectively current. This makes Mcgrath a pretty notable omission of we are examining the nationalities of his selection. Davidson in particular ahead of Mcgrath is unusual.

 

[the big bambino]

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.

The facts on Lindwall are well known and available. Normally a person would then draw the conventional conclusion and acknowledge his reputation. If your conclusion is incongruous with the facts then you clearly do not respect them as much as your own pre conceived opinion. To paraphrase the saying; against prejudice even the Gods rage in vain. Under those circumstances no one is obliged to waste their time changing your mind.

 

[Victor Ian]

I don't think the bowlers are ranked comparatively, it's only Lindwall who is mentioned as ahead of the others.

It's dated 2012, so effectively current. This makes Mcgrath a pretty notable omission of we are examining the nationalities of his selection. Davidson in particular ahead of Mcgrath is unusual.

Perhaps he considers McGrath not so fast, otherwise, yes, it is a weird omission. The point of that link was more to highlight that there are people who have ranked Lindwall highly even though they have seen most of the bowlers we all rave about. Mallett is just the first link that I came across quite easily.

Lindwall is my favourite. I'm not saying he is better than the rest, rather that he is not worse than the rest and should certainly not be the fall guy for some decision to add variety.

 

[Victor Ian]

The facts on Lindwall are well known and available. Normally a person would then draw the conventional conclusion and acknowledge his reputation. If your conclusion is incongruous with the facts then you clearly do not respect them as much as your own pre conceived opinion. To paraphrase the saying; against prejudice even the Gods rage in vain. Under those circumstances no one is obliged to waste their time changing your mind.

I, for one, am not wasting my time trying to convince anyone. I'm getting to read all over again about how great Lindwall was and just sharing the bits that might answer Bolo's questions, who seems to be the main person questioning. I think that is fair. It is hard to appreciate the older players that you have never seen play.

I easily fall for the picture painted by statistics. However, we must all be aware of those cases where someone in any team is the best player but somehow there are hacks that get all the glory. Take a look at that Pathe footage back up there. Lindwall bowls early, gets the best players out, then is not seen again while someone I've never heard of bowls unchanged through the middle and late order batsman to take the haul. Once the dam is cracked it is easy to bring the rest of it down and it seems Lindwall, and Miller, didn't get afforded this luxury, perhaps as was standard for the time. It seems the quick bowlers were saved from breaking themselves. Lindwall could have bowled at the end and picked up many more wickets, but he may also have had a tale of a broken back that he had to come back from in his career.

 

[the big bambino]

Stats are trickier in that they can mislead but ultimately reveal. Headline stats can be superficial but the initial impression or the superficiality can be confirmed or discovered if you break them down. They also have to be read in the context of the player's era. So negative comment can be created around Lindwall's SR (almost 60) but that is looking at the past through the way the game is played today and explained by the preference of one era on defence over attack. Anyway there are plenty of anecdotes that support the stats so there is a lot of information to be gleaned. It is a little harder for less well known players. For some reason I've developed a curiosity for the old Derbyshire seamer Copson. But the information is there to get an idea on the methods on just about any cricketer whose played, if you have the time.

 

[Victor Ian]

I'll tell you what I still haven't found, that I'd love to come across, is a description of how Lindwall would go about setting up a batsman to take his wicket. But I'll keep looking. I don't mind reading everything on the internet about him to find it.

 

[the big bambino]

You know I had a book containing an article about his methods but I threw it out, with others, when I let people who'd make fun of my interest in cricket get me down. All I can remember was a line about batsmen who became familiar with length became easy prey to him.

 

[Victor Ian]

You know I had a book containing an article about his methods but I threw it out, with others, when I let people who'd make fun of my interest in cricket get me down. All I can remember was a line about batsmen who became familiar with length became easy prey to him.

Sounds on the money. Similar to that account I just read of someone in the nets thinking he had slowed down a bit after a few balls then getting one that nearly knocked his bat out of his hand. Most things I read about Lindwall talk about his exceptional change of pace without any change in action and that he used that wisely to set batsmen up at will. He did not bowl his fastest ball all the time but could pull it out with accuracy on a whim after he had gotten the batsmen used to expecting something else.

 

[jimmy101]

You know I had a book containing an article about his methods but I threw it out, with others, when I let people who'd make fun of my interest in cricket get me down. All I can remember was a line about batsmen who became familiar with length became easy prey to him.

Oh man that's a shame. Hopefully you can replenish your cricket literature collection one day & grab some new copies of those books you gave away.

 

[Starfighter]

How much of a beast would Literally have been in modern cricket? I, m thinking with his skinny action, Johnson monster mode for a whole career. As I've already said, the DRS would greatly aid him and so too would reverse swing. Along with his bouncer that came at you at an awkward height and his Yorker he'd simply be f'in unplayable.

Skinny?

He might struggle a bit with not getting much bounce possibly.