Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Heh.Agreed, thats why I’d go for Lee over McGrath any day.
Hall may have been quicker, but it's very hard to make a case for him being as good as the other two, let alone better than them.
Heh.Agreed, thats why I’d go for Lee over McGrath any day.
That’s not what I was trying so say, and I did vote for Trueman. My point is about how these guys would do if they bowl in the 90s and the footage available makes me wonder if Trueman and Lindwall really generate the pace that modern pacers do. Hall, in comparison, is undoubtedly quick and would definitely not be out of place in the modern game.Agreed, thats why I’d go for Lee over McGrath any day.
Gotta ask: who was third and fourth? Guessing Davo maybe one?It doesn't really mean more than the opinion of anyone else and is a point of interest more than anything, but in his Top 10 cricket book Tom Graveney - who saw all of them close at hand - ranked the greatest post war fast bowlers (in 1982) and placed Lindwall 1st, Hall 2nd and Trueman 5th.
I should have just posted the full list! His top 10 fast bowlers 1945-1982 was:Gotta ask: who was third and fourth? Guessing Davo maybe one?
Graveney never seen a bowler like Hoggard.I should have just posted the full list! His top 10 fast bowlers 1945-1982 was:
1. Ray Lindwall
2. Wes Hall
3. Dennis Lillee
4. Brian Statham
5. Fred Trueman
6. Michael Holding
7. Keith Miller
8. Frank Tyson
9. Andy Roberts
10. Alan Davidson
Yeah Graveney did rate Garner very highly, but actually put him in his medium-pace/fast-medium list, arguing that he thought Big Bird was a better bowler when he cut his pace and maximised his accuracy.Interesting. He obviously rated dear old George Statham very highly.
Guess Big Bird the obvious notable exclusion, although the great man was probably still very much in the middle of his career in 82.
But then so was Holding, so I dunno.
Three consecutive low-scoring E v SA series flattered the bowlers on both sides. Also, the teams didn't get on well and were reluctant to praise each others' players.Interesting that Adcock didn't make his top 10 especially as Adcock did well against England (57 wickets in 14 tests @ 20.21) and Graveney did poorly against SA (234 runs in 6 tests @ 23.40).
His numbers are good but they came in a low-scoring era of sporting pitches. The exception was the batting-friendly Caribbean where Adcock never played. He never toured Australia either.I don’t get the recent Adcock hype. Someone tell me more.
Had some brushes with authority that saw him omitted from at least one tourwtf he played 47 out of 67 games at home?