• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Fred Trueman , Ray Lindwall or Wes Hall : The Better Fast Bowler?

Fred Trueman , Ray Lindwall or Wes Hall : The Better Fast Bowler?

  • Total voters
    55
  • This poll will close: .
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I feel like Lindwall is really underrated. What a cricketer
 
Himannv

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
Agreed, thats why I’d go for Lee over McGrath any day.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
The Sean said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gotta ask: who was third and fourth? Guessing Davo maybe one?
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
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.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
The Sean said:
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
Click to expand...
Graveney never seen a bowler like Hoggard.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
BoyBrumby said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

As for Statham, Graveney seemed to consider him one for the purists, and a classic unsung hero as the perfect foil for both Trueman and Tyson.
 
Himannv

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
I think Statham is somewhat underrated in general and it’s nice to see him rank highly in that list.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
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).
 
P

peterhrt

U19 Captain
Fuller Pilch said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.

Tayfield received little credit from the English despite his numbers. Cowdrey said he never found him threatening. The South Africans were not impressed with Laker, considering him a bad-wicket bowler, negative and harmless when the ball wasn't turning.

Adcock had a reputation of being injury-prone and bowling too short, but he did generate genuine pace.
 
P

peterhrt

U19 Captain
Himannv said:
I don’t get the recent Adcock hype. Someone tell me more.
Click to expand...
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.

Averages of bowlers in the Tests when Adcock played. Qualification 20 wickets.

Wardle 15
Tyson 16
Davidson 17
Bailey 19
MacGibbon 20
Statham 20
Adcock 21
Benaud 21
Trueman 22
Heine 24
Reid 24
Tayfield 24
Goddard 28

It can be argued that he outbowled his teammates and faced better batsmen than most of his opponents. On the other hand he was supported by the best fielding side of the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top