All time XIs discussion

[Victor Ian]

Skinny?

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

I tried to say slingy but my phone disagreed

 

[Starfighter]

That's what I thought but it was too amusing to not point out.

 

[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.

That is just not on. I think we need to form a harassment party to bring these recalcitrants into line.

 

[the big bambino]

That is just not on. I think we need to form a harassment party to bring these recalcitrants into line.

Tbf they were just stirring. Should've just ribbed them back.

 

[Bolo]

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.

I get your reasons for bringing up the source, and it is a lot more useful than most. I'm just trying to highlight specific strengths (time period) and weaknesses (personal bias and/or unconventional selections) of the source. Ideally, I'd like to see a few examples of non-aussies making this type of claim in the modern era. I've seen tons of examples like this for bowlers like Lillee, Akram, and Marshall. But similar claims for Lindwall (to my knowledge) more or less died after these bowlers came along. Is this simply because better bowlers came after him? It's a theory that is supported by stats, both via a comparison to the statistically best of his era (English) and in comparison to bowlers from later eras. Raw stats are difficult, as the two posts following this highlight, but there needs to be good reason to discard them.

Lindwall is my favourite (specialist) as well. I'm just not convinced he's the best. It's not clear to me that there is a need to sacrifice someone for the sake of variety, but variety is extremely important, and if someone is to be sacrificed I'm struggling for reasons why it should not be him.

McGrath would have been quicker than Davidson at the start of his career and similar in pace at the end. I think?

 

[Bolo]

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.

There is very little that can be regarded as factual information in cricket. We have statistical data that needs subjective interpretion, and basically no other facts. What you are referring to as facts are mostly a set of impressions written in a completely different era. We need to revisit observations and assumptions made that are intrinsically limited by the limitations of the writer, be they a result of personal lack of capacity for insight/bias/intrinsic era limitations/whatever.

You are still struggling with the concept of discourse. Discussion and debate are the best learning tools. It is through challenging a position or having to defend a position that is being challenged that we learn the quickest. It is also a large part of reason for the existence of a forum- why are you not just reading articles or books if you feel like things shouldn't be discussed?

You seem to think I have some bias against him. Not at all. He's basically a complete prototype for my favourite type of player. What I have is a limited amount of information that seems to point to him not being as good as others. I want him to be top notch, but I'm not going to consider him to be so because I want it to be so. This is a best 11 not a favourite one.

 

[the big bambino]

There is very little that can be regarded as factual information in cricket. We have statistical data that needs subjective interpretion,

You are simply advocating the primacy of prejudice.

 

[Red]

What about an Australian team that leaves out Lillee, Warne AND McGrath just for the sake of all round batting? Lindwall was a noted very good batsman.


Trumper
Lawry
Bradman
G.Chappell
Miller
Border
Gilchrist
Gregory
Benaud
Davidson
Lindwall

 

[morgieb]

Some of the takes in this thread makes me wonder why people watch cricket.

 

[the big bambino]

What about an Australian team that leaves out Lillee, Warne AND McGrath just for the sake of all round batting? Lindwall was a noted very good batsman.


Trumper
Lawry
Bradman
G.Chappell
Miller
Border
Gilchrist
Gregory
Benaud
Davidson
Lindwall

Probably include Monty Noble for Gregory.

 

[jimmy101]

In my opinion the statistical data needs objective interpretation, if anything.

 

[jimmy101]

Probably include Monty Noble for Gregory.

Or even O'Reilly.

 

[the big bambino]

Yep for sure though I'm guessing Red Hill wanted to bat his side all the way down to no. 11.

 

[Red]

Yeh I was going for depth batting. If I wanted to include OReilly, it'd make more sense to include Warne instead.

 

[stephen]

I think its safe to say that:

McGrath
Lillee
Lindwall
Miller
Davidson

Are a class or two above all other Australian quick bowlers. Given Miller can bat any ATG team has to leave one of them out.

Based on what I know of the bowlers in question I'd leave out Lindwall. Not because he's not an incredible bowler, I rate him highly. But because I think Davidson would make a better change bowler than Lindwall, given he was probably the most accurate bowler of the lot.

The standout spinners are noticeably tiered:

Warne

O'Reilly
Grimmet

Benaud

The rest.

 

[Starfighter]

Based on what I know of the bowlers in question I'd leave out Lindwall. Not because he's not an incredible bowler, I rate him highly. But because I think Davidson would make a better change bowler than Lindwall, given he was probably the most accurate bowler of the lot. .

I'd give the new ball to Lindwall and make Lillee the change bowler. Actually I'd give Davo the new ball over Lillee too.

 

[jimmy101]

Interestingly, Tom Graveney in his Top Ten Cricket Book, published in 1982, put Lindwall first on his list of greatest fast bowlers post-war.

1. Ray Lindwall. "He had genuine pace and even when at top speed had full control of the ball. At his best when partnered by Keith Miller, Lindwall was always beautifully balanced at delivery, could swing the ball both ways and was a marvellously competitive player."
2. Wes Hall.
3. Dennis Lillee. "In the second half of his career, he has developed into a canny bowler - using cunning as well as stunning speed to dismiss batsmen. He has excellent control of length and direction and cleverly varies his pace. He had the character to beat a crippling back injury and then to overtake Lance Gibbs as the No. 1 wicket taker."
4. Brian Statham.
5. Fred Trueman.
6. Michael Holding.
7. Keith Millier.
8. Frank Tyson.
9. Alan Davidson. "His left-arm quickies left a procession of batsmen flashing at thin air as he perfected the art of making the ball move late in the air or off the pitch in either direction. Early in his career he was a slow bowler but it was crickets gain when he turned to speed."
10. Andy Roberts.

 

[Red]

Interesting isn't it. I dont think many people on CW would place Hall above Holding and Roberts.

Also interesting that he ranks Statham ahead of Trueman.

 

[Starfighter]

What's he say about the others? (don't push copyright too hard)

 

[jimmy101]

Interesting isn't it. I dont think many people on CW would place Hall above Holding and Roberts.

Also interesting that he ranks Statham ahead of Trueman.

Bill Lawry was another who rated big Wes extremely highly, and tbh I'm not sure why many people here don't place him on the same platform as the others that followed him. If anything Hall had it harder due to lack of lack of support apart from Charlie Griffith.

And yeah, Statham over Trueman is an interesting one. Graveney surely would have seen lots and lots of both men during his playing career, so he's as good a judge as any. Statham actually possesses the better FC average out of the two.