Honestly not sure if the order, but Lindwall does have to be no. 1
What order would you go with?
Not sure, let me take a look tomorrow when I'm fully awake.
I actually agree. This is two years ago, but back then it was a somewhat controversial opinion around these boards that bowlers > bats, so the comparison as 1 to 1 players based on quality was more often made. People could make a statement like Michael Clarke > Courtney Walsh or was more impactful or whatever with a straight face.
Switch Lindwall and Trueman and May and Harvey for me
I thought you were Indian not Australian
I thought you were Australian not English
Jij hebt secks met ezels
I thought you were stupid.
Well, you clearly did it wrong then
Yeah, that's what I meant tbf.
you already know that there is no shot I'm placing Trueman below Lindwall. May and Harvey is decently debateable and I might vote the other way some other day, today I called it on the Ashes record.
How is Lindwall not a better cricketer? He was basically a bowling all rounder.
literally read the title, "on their primary skill."
What does Trueman have over Lindwall?
decisively superior wicket taker, era wise he is the most destructive fast bowler of them all, even moreso than Steyn and Waqar as his strike rate is even more outlierish than them with respect to era. if Trueman and Lindwall play 100 games together, Trueman would've around 86 more wickets as his WPM is 4.58 to Lindwall's 3.72.
