Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
After World War II had ended Australia sent a Bradmanless but strong team team to New Zealand. Playing a match that was only declared a test the following year, a new greatest fast bowler from Australia, if not of all time, made his debut.
When one reads the quite copious number of words written about Ray Lindwall they will inevitably mention his classical, sometime even described as perfect bowling action. Hence one might be a little bit confused when I say that the bowler closest to him in style in the modern age was Lasith Malinga, but back in the time when there was much less interfering coaching he bowled with a conspicuously low arm. As a matter of fact, like many bowlers in the era, he is startlingly different to any fast bowler today. Quite a number of imitators existed in Australian cricket for a while (we'll get to them eventually). He was often compared with Harold Larwood, a comparison not lost on English spectators as he made the ball fizz about the batsmen's heads after the rather poor treatment the latter received for doing the same. He was not quite as fast as Larwood, though at least one opinion I've read puts him as being the same speed as Wes Hall, and no-one disputes that he was fast enough. He was, however, arguably the more skilful bowler, eventually mastering the inswinger and slower ball to complement a fierce outswinger.
Continuing the comparison, his action in particular was pointed as being similar to Larwood, and indeed Lindwall did see the older bowler at Sydney in 1932, arguably a little too young to have been able to imitate him directly. But if Larwood's action with its straight, even paced run, hands held close to sides, and neat arc represented efficiency, Lindwall's was a bit more idiosyncratic. He bowled off the same number of paces - 14 - as Larwood. Coming in off a slight curve he gradually accelerated but never really burst into a full sprint. With his left shoulder forward, seemingly leaning towards the batsman, he kept his left arm neatly tucked in front, often clutching the right hand, but a few steps from the end he swung his right arm well out and behind, a mannerism that seems to have made it into the runs of later bowlers like Ron Gaunt.
As he made his way rhythmically into the crease, his 'leap' being barely longer than his regular strides, he pulled up his right hand next to his ear before swinging it out sideways, almost towards the nearer wicket, and the left arm swung up and the left hand occupied the space formerly taken by the right. Thrusting the left arm straight up he pulled his right down and then as the left arm straightened the right swung in an extravagant arc until, as it came up to chest height, it pointed out towards mid-off. As he tucked in the left arm his right swept round and he delivered with a prominent rotary motion unlike - with one exception - any bowler today.
Some people on here have noticed his elbow seems slightly bent, and indeed this is prominent in quite a few films. It does not seem to straighten and he was never accused of throwing, it seems his arm simply did not straighten any more than that. Despite a low arm, angled at about 45° and maybe even less at times, with his wrist he manages to keep his fingers close to upright. When bowling the inswinger he seems to have raised the amor slightly higher still. He front leg is very bent in a style that would make many coaches cringe but that seems to be common among those with the light skidding delivery strides and long drag.
Which is the final point to note. Lindwall was renowned for how far he dragged his back foot and with interpretations of the no-ball rule at the time being a bit variable there was considerable controversy as to whether his delivery was fair at times, but ultimately not much came out of it. Overall he was a picture of what at the time was the epitome of fast bowling, a representative of the classical style that has been absent from cricket for many years now.
He was 25 when he made his debut against New Zealand, the War having taken what might have been several good years from his test career. His impact was rather subdued for a while, not least due to Bradman's captaincy that preferred to use him sparingly while using the medium pacers and spinners. He first really made his mark in the fourth test with six wickets and for several years would be a constant fear in the English batsmen's minds. He took nine wickets the next test, his first innings 7/63 for coming as Len Hutton scored 122, one of many interesting tussles they were to have over the next few years. This innings showed the remarkable tendency of his skimming deliveries to hit the stumps - four batsmen were bowled. In fact 43% of his dismissals came this way. Of bowlers with more than 100 test wickets, only Lohmann has a higher percentage.
His best innings figures of 7/38 came the next year against India, in a series where a batting lineup ill-suited to pace were troubled more than what the wickets he took would suggest. Over in England he terrorised batsmen as his difficult to pick length was rendered even harder by the variable bounce of the pitches, although his famous blow to Denis Comptom was from a ball that was only waist high. His finest moment (and best match figures of 9/70) was at the Oval, where England, choosing to bat on a damp and doubtful pitch, were bowled out for only 52. Lindwall took six wickets, again bowling four.
His next test series in South Africa was not quite so successful. On slow, dry pitches that favoured spinners and high-armed seamers he returned one five-for but his relatively modest haul saw him replaced by the unassuming fast-medium of Geff Noblet in the final test. Back at home the next year he had a similarly modest series against England. At this time Australian pitches were much slower after a brief period of being faster in the mid-late thirties, and the slower, more upright bowlers were once again more successful. Against the West Indies in 1951/52 he averaged the same but with a bigger haul of wickets was no-longer being overshadowed by his teammates. Furthermore he caused a lot of trouble to the West Indian batsmen, who were nervous players of pace and were troubled by the bouncers for which Lindwall was criticised.
In 1952 he spent a season in the Lancashire League in England and learned to swing the ball in. The Ashes series the next year would see his finest performance. With the reliable Johnston greatly diminished through injury, Miller fading and the remainder inexperienced or ineffective he carried the Australian bowling. His run was slower - almost a jog - and he was no longer quite as intimidating, but with greater skill than ever he winkled out his best series haul of 26 wickets, the next best being Miller's ten.
By the time England came around again in 1954/55 (Australia making far fewer test appearances in the fifties than the old country) he was 33 and definitely on the decline. A modest total of 14 wickets at his worst average yet (27, compared to England's overall batting average of 25) was a tidy but eventually unimpactful return as Frank Tyson stormed his way through the Australians. The series the West Indies following would see him average over 30 for the first time, but the shiny West Indian pitches were death to fast bowlers, even those of the home side - his opposition counterpart Frank King averaged over 100. After a poor perforce in the 1956 Ashes he took his third test seven-for at Chennai on the short tour of India and Pakistan at the end of the year, but was then swept out with the remainder of the Bradman era old guard.
That wasn't quite the end the story though. In 1959 Ian Meckiff broke down in the third test and Lindwall, still taking wickets domestically, was recalled at age 37. Moderate returns in that series were followed by poorer ones in India and Pakistan. No matter his skill he no longer had the pace to threaten on the flat pitches. The main effect of the comeback was to dent his figures, but he did pass Clarrie Grimett to become the most prolific Australian bowler with 228 test wickets.
A strange anomaly of Lindwall's career was that he never took ten wickets in a test match. His strike rate of 59.87 is poor for a bowler with his average by modern standards, but cricket was a different, much more defensive game then. His overs a match isn't spectacular and I did once calculate that he actually bowled more later in his career when his performances weren't so good, which seems partly to do with the difference between Bradman's tactics, who tended to use the fast bowlers in bursts and Johnston or Toshack in a holding role, and those of his successors. Nonetheless he took nine a couple of times and it will have to remain a bit of an anomaly. Also despite his reputed skill he was unable to maintain his rate of wicket taking late in his career like McGrath or Hadlee. I think this one's simpler, with his low arm - which got lower - he couldn't offset the loss of bounce and pace off the pitch.
1946/47. Notice it was actually possible to swing the (2nd in this case) new ball in Australia back then.
1948
1950/51
1953
When one reads the quite copious number of words written about Ray Lindwall they will inevitably mention his classical, sometime even described as perfect bowling action. Hence one might be a little bit confused when I say that the bowler closest to him in style in the modern age was Lasith Malinga, but back in the time when there was much less interfering coaching he bowled with a conspicuously low arm. As a matter of fact, like many bowlers in the era, he is startlingly different to any fast bowler today. Quite a number of imitators existed in Australian cricket for a while (we'll get to them eventually). He was often compared with Harold Larwood, a comparison not lost on English spectators as he made the ball fizz about the batsmen's heads after the rather poor treatment the latter received for doing the same. He was not quite as fast as Larwood, though at least one opinion I've read puts him as being the same speed as Wes Hall, and no-one disputes that he was fast enough. He was, however, arguably the more skilful bowler, eventually mastering the inswinger and slower ball to complement a fierce outswinger.
Continuing the comparison, his action in particular was pointed as being similar to Larwood, and indeed Lindwall did see the older bowler at Sydney in 1932, arguably a little too young to have been able to imitate him directly. But if Larwood's action with its straight, even paced run, hands held close to sides, and neat arc represented efficiency, Lindwall's was a bit more idiosyncratic. He bowled off the same number of paces - 14 - as Larwood. Coming in off a slight curve he gradually accelerated but never really burst into a full sprint. With his left shoulder forward, seemingly leaning towards the batsman, he kept his left arm neatly tucked in front, often clutching the right hand, but a few steps from the end he swung his right arm well out and behind, a mannerism that seems to have made it into the runs of later bowlers like Ron Gaunt.
As he made his way rhythmically into the crease, his 'leap' being barely longer than his regular strides, he pulled up his right hand next to his ear before swinging it out sideways, almost towards the nearer wicket, and the left arm swung up and the left hand occupied the space formerly taken by the right. Thrusting the left arm straight up he pulled his right down and then as the left arm straightened the right swung in an extravagant arc until, as it came up to chest height, it pointed out towards mid-off. As he tucked in the left arm his right swept round and he delivered with a prominent rotary motion unlike - with one exception - any bowler today.
Some people on here have noticed his elbow seems slightly bent, and indeed this is prominent in quite a few films. It does not seem to straighten and he was never accused of throwing, it seems his arm simply did not straighten any more than that. Despite a low arm, angled at about 45° and maybe even less at times, with his wrist he manages to keep his fingers close to upright. When bowling the inswinger he seems to have raised the amor slightly higher still. He front leg is very bent in a style that would make many coaches cringe but that seems to be common among those with the light skidding delivery strides and long drag.
Which is the final point to note. Lindwall was renowned for how far he dragged his back foot and with interpretations of the no-ball rule at the time being a bit variable there was considerable controversy as to whether his delivery was fair at times, but ultimately not much came out of it. Overall he was a picture of what at the time was the epitome of fast bowling, a representative of the classical style that has been absent from cricket for many years now.
He was 25 when he made his debut against New Zealand, the War having taken what might have been several good years from his test career. His impact was rather subdued for a while, not least due to Bradman's captaincy that preferred to use him sparingly while using the medium pacers and spinners. He first really made his mark in the fourth test with six wickets and for several years would be a constant fear in the English batsmen's minds. He took nine wickets the next test, his first innings 7/63 for coming as Len Hutton scored 122, one of many interesting tussles they were to have over the next few years. This innings showed the remarkable tendency of his skimming deliveries to hit the stumps - four batsmen were bowled. In fact 43% of his dismissals came this way. Of bowlers with more than 100 test wickets, only Lohmann has a higher percentage.
His best innings figures of 7/38 came the next year against India, in a series where a batting lineup ill-suited to pace were troubled more than what the wickets he took would suggest. Over in England he terrorised batsmen as his difficult to pick length was rendered even harder by the variable bounce of the pitches, although his famous blow to Denis Comptom was from a ball that was only waist high. His finest moment (and best match figures of 9/70) was at the Oval, where England, choosing to bat on a damp and doubtful pitch, were bowled out for only 52. Lindwall took six wickets, again bowling four.
His next test series in South Africa was not quite so successful. On slow, dry pitches that favoured spinners and high-armed seamers he returned one five-for but his relatively modest haul saw him replaced by the unassuming fast-medium of Geff Noblet in the final test. Back at home the next year he had a similarly modest series against England. At this time Australian pitches were much slower after a brief period of being faster in the mid-late thirties, and the slower, more upright bowlers were once again more successful. Against the West Indies in 1951/52 he averaged the same but with a bigger haul of wickets was no-longer being overshadowed by his teammates. Furthermore he caused a lot of trouble to the West Indian batsmen, who were nervous players of pace and were troubled by the bouncers for which Lindwall was criticised.
In 1952 he spent a season in the Lancashire League in England and learned to swing the ball in. The Ashes series the next year would see his finest performance. With the reliable Johnston greatly diminished through injury, Miller fading and the remainder inexperienced or ineffective he carried the Australian bowling. His run was slower - almost a jog - and he was no longer quite as intimidating, but with greater skill than ever he winkled out his best series haul of 26 wickets, the next best being Miller's ten.
By the time England came around again in 1954/55 (Australia making far fewer test appearances in the fifties than the old country) he was 33 and definitely on the decline. A modest total of 14 wickets at his worst average yet (27, compared to England's overall batting average of 25) was a tidy but eventually unimpactful return as Frank Tyson stormed his way through the Australians. The series the West Indies following would see him average over 30 for the first time, but the shiny West Indian pitches were death to fast bowlers, even those of the home side - his opposition counterpart Frank King averaged over 100. After a poor perforce in the 1956 Ashes he took his third test seven-for at Chennai on the short tour of India and Pakistan at the end of the year, but was then swept out with the remainder of the Bradman era old guard.
That wasn't quite the end the story though. In 1959 Ian Meckiff broke down in the third test and Lindwall, still taking wickets domestically, was recalled at age 37. Moderate returns in that series were followed by poorer ones in India and Pakistan. No matter his skill he no longer had the pace to threaten on the flat pitches. The main effect of the comeback was to dent his figures, but he did pass Clarrie Grimett to become the most prolific Australian bowler with 228 test wickets.
A strange anomaly of Lindwall's career was that he never took ten wickets in a test match. His strike rate of 59.87 is poor for a bowler with his average by modern standards, but cricket was a different, much more defensive game then. His overs a match isn't spectacular and I did once calculate that he actually bowled more later in his career when his performances weren't so good, which seems partly to do with the difference between Bradman's tactics, who tended to use the fast bowlers in bursts and Johnston or Toshack in a holding role, and those of his successors. Nonetheless he took nine a couple of times and it will have to remain a bit of an anomaly. Also despite his reputed skill he was unable to maintain his rate of wicket taking late in his career like McGrath or Hadlee. I think this one's simpler, with his low arm - which got lower - he couldn't offset the loss of bounce and pace off the pitch.
1946/47. Notice it was actually possible to swing the (2nd in this case) new ball in Australia back then.
1948
1950/51
1953
