For Aussie fans: Name your most feared opposition XI

[flamy]

Sehwag Gambhir Dravid Tendulkar Laxman Ganguly Dhoni Harbhajan Mishra Zaheer Khan Ishant Sharma

[bharat297]

Hahaha nice ... :hysterical:

[Lurker]

Mate, I'm not quite that old. :regular_smile: Also, I was 12 before I knew anything at all about cricket. I was at a mate's house in Dec. '58. We went inside to get a drink and passed through the loungeroom. He went ahead to the kitchen as something caught my eye, on the TV. It was cricket at the MCG. What really intrigued me was this smallish man in white stroking the ball in the most interesting way. He was a left hander and was playing some silken square drives and cuts. I was fascinated how he could hit the ball through (what I later learned was) the off side. When the spinners came on, (Messrs Laker & Lock) he danced down the wicket and drove them. I stood, transfixed. My mate called me and I left the little man to go on and score 167 in a Test I later read about. Australia had beaten England by 8 wickets. The man's name ? Neil Harvey. From that point on, I was hooked. I devoured cricket books and read everything in the papers about cricket and started playing, at school. Richie Benaud was the then Aussie captain who, with Frank Worrall, really breathed life back into Test cricket a couple of years later during that marvellous series which included the first ever tie. It was also when I first witnessed the incredible talents of the one and only Garfield Sobers. I never saw the great Ray Lindwall play but I did meet him at the Gabba after a Sheffield Shield match in '66. I went into the Victorian dressing rooms to meet the players. He was chatting to Peter Burge so I took a deep breath and introduced myself. We had a bit of a chat and I got his autograph.

Thanks for the lovely walk down memory lane Donny. I feel like writing you lucky so and so, all in good humour of course. I bet it would have been awesome growing up in the era when Benaud and Worrell did so much good for Aus-WI cricket, and cricket in general. Some totally awesome blokes in that era. Since you are a big Sobers fan I beleive the case of who was the greatest all-rounder of them all would pretty much be dismissed by you, eh? The reason I had asked about Lindwall, and I see you mention him as great as well, is because of the sheer respect in which he is held by his peers, Aussies and non-Aussies. He is one of those players whom stats shall never do full justice. Still I have to ask if a bowler who averages less than 4 wickets per test deserves to be considered one of the greatest ever? More so since I have seen him being picked ahead of Mcgrath in all time Aussie XI(alongside Lillee). Unfortunately I havent managed to lay my hands(yet) on what made Lindwall so awesome? By the by perhaps my favorite Aussie player, of all times, shall be Keith Miller..an unparalleled character if ever there was one. And this whole post reminds me of the time Keith Miller played for Learie Constantine led Dominions against England and played in what he recognizes as his favorite game. So you see Donny, Greatest XI are not such a drag after all ;-) xxx

[Donny]

Actually, Lindwall's stats DO do him justice. To have bowled the equivalent of 7162, 6 ball overs in first class cricket for a 21.35 average is outstanding. His Test average of 23 also finds him ahead of many other great pacemen: AK Davidson (Aus) 186 wickets @ 20.53 MD Marshall (WI) 376 @ 20.94 J Garner (WI) 259 @ 20.97 CEL Ambrose (WI) 405 @ 20.99 FS Trueman (Eng) 307 @ 21.57 GD McGrath (Aus) 563 @ 21.64 H Trumble (Aus) 141 @ 21.78 AA Donald (SA) 330 @ 22.25 Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 431 @ 22.29 Imran Khan (Pak) 362 @ 22.81 KR Miller (Aus) 170 @ 22.97 R Lindwall (Aus) 228 @ 23.03 SM Pollock (SA) 421 @ 23.11 Waqar Younis (Pak) 373 @ 23.56 Wasim Akram (Pak) 414 @ 23.62 MA Holding (WI) 249 @ 23.68 WA Johnston (Aus) 160 @ 23.91 DK Lillee (Aus) 355 @ 23.92 IR Bishop (WI) 161 @ 24.27 CA Walsh (WI) 519 @ 24.44 Fazal M'mood (Pak) 139 @ 24.70 JB Statham (Eng) 252 @ 24.84 AV Bedser (Eng) 236 @ 24.89 The other aspect of Lindwall being so high in pundits' estimation was his classical style,"with a smooth and rhythmic run-up and textbook side-on bowling action, from which he generated his trademark outswinger which moved away late at high pace". (Wiki) He also scored a century against England in his third Test, batting at #9. Seven years later, he scored another, at #8, against the Windies.

[Mr. Wicket]

I trust you've heard the story of how Lindwall was inspired. In the 32/33 Ashes, most of Australia were shocked by the tactics Jardine employed and by the brute force method he used with Harold Larwood spearheading his attack. Ray Lindwall - a young kid then - was more mesmerized than shocked, watching Larwood live whose action was one of the most amazing things to behold (I've seen brief, brief clips of footage of it - and there's one man whom I would have LOVED to watch bowl over an entire spell) and idolized him. Lindwall tried to emulate Larwood, action and all, and did a pretty fine job in the end. One of Jack Fingleton or Richie Benaud - I forget whom (I need to check these texts again) - once wrote though that Lindwall's passion wasn't bowling. He actually didn't enjoy bowling that much later in his career - yet did a superb job bowling long, hostile spells and working over the finest batsmen. What apparently really gave him enjoyment though was the willow - he loved spending time in the nets and took his batting in the lower order quite seriously, making some very impressive scores down the order.

[King Tendulkar]

Lindall played in a non competitive era. Don't rate him

[Donny]

That you don't rate him means zilch, deesy. Perhaps it would have a smidgen of meaning if you explained why 1946 to 1960 was a 'non competitive era'.

[bharat297]

I wouldnt say I dont rate him because well mainly I didnt see him much. Everyone that played him has said he was one of the best. But its too difficult to compare a bowler of that era to one now. I mean, if you look at the pitches back then (they were hardly looked after, and were uncovered too). Add to that the fact that the batsman didnt have helmets. Also add to that the fact that there were no restrictions on bouncers. There was no limited overs cricket to help batsman improve their strokeplay. On the flip side, they didnt get the opportunity to train as much as the modern day players or have all the sophisticated coaching methods. Even still, its too difficult to compare players from 2 different eras. If Dale Steyn could bowl the way he is bowling now back in the 1950s ... im pretty sure given all those above factors he would rip through any batting line up. Conversely, if Lindwall had to bowl on the flatter wickets of today with the batsman-biased rules that exist today, would he have been as successful? Like I said ... too difficult to compare

[Donny]

Who's asking you to compare ?

[bharat297]

No one ... I was just saying this in reference to dsr's post.

[King Tendulkar]

That you don't rate him means zilch, deesy. Perhaps it would have a smidgen of meaning if you explained why 1946 to 1960 was a 'non competitive era'.

you were brought up in this era, so you watched him play. All i know is that Gambhir would smoke him all over the park, like he is doing to your boys today! It was not a competitive era wth only your english brothers as competition. Just like bradmans record does not mean much as he played in the most uncompetitive era with only england as opp.

[DomainK]

Sehwag Gambhir Dravid Tendulkar Laxman Ganguly Dhoni Harbhajan Mishra Zaheer Khan Ishant Sharma

:two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

[Donny]

Read my posts, deesy.

I never saw the great Ray Lindwall play"

It was not a competitive era wth only your english brothers as competition.

Lindwall played against South Africa, England, India, West Indies, New Zealand and Pakistan. Bradman played against India, South Africa, England and the Windies. Get back to me when you learn to read.

[King Tendulkar]

Sorry chameli. I thought you were about 88. Well Chameli Lidall pleyed when India, pak , windies etc were not a fore. Bradman played when no one was good apart from england and even they were poor. They played in non competitive era. They had no gambhirs to make them chase leather chameli!

[Lurker]

I trust you've heard the story of how Lindwall was inspired. In the 32/33 Ashes, most of Australia were shocked by the tactics Jardine employed and by the brute force method he used with Harold Larwood spearheading his attack. Ray Lindwall - a young kid then - was more mesmerized than shocked, watching Larwood live whose action was one of the most amazing things to behold (I've seen brief, brief clips of footage of it - and there's one man whom I would have LOVED to watch bowl over an entire spell) and idolized him. Lindwall tried to emulate Larwood, action and all, and did a pretty fine job in the end.

Yes I have heard that Salil. No wonder then that when Ray Lindwall was asked to compile the list of 10 greatest fast bowlers of all time Larwood was at top. Speaking of Lindwall did you know he lived quite close to Bill O'Reilley? He kept trying to impress the great leggie whenever the latter would come over to watch game in the park only to find him bury his face in the newspaper. Reilley would go on to tell Lindwall to concentrate on fast bowling since that was where he was good at. Also Lindwall had his right arm a smaller size that normal which helped him generate prodigious outswing. (Dont ask me how that works, I read it in Benaud's XI book hehehe).

One of Jack Fingleton or Richie Benaud - I forget whom (I need to check these texts again) - once wrote though that Lindwall's passion wasn't bowling. He actually didn't enjoy bowling that much later in his career - yet did a superb job bowling long, hostile spells and working over the finest batsmen. What apparently really gave him enjoyment though was the willow - he loved spending time in the nets and took his batting in the lower order quite seriously, making some very impressive scores down the order.

I could swear you were talking of Keith Miller. Miller did not pay as much attention to his bowling but thoroughly enjoyed his batting. If you are indeed correct then it makes me wonder if Lindwall-Miller attack was that good without both fellows putting in 100%, how much better could it have been? If only.... xxx

[Lurker]

Actually, Lindwall's stats DO do him justice. To have bowled the equivalent of 7162, 6 ball overs in first class cricket for a 21.35 average is outstanding. His Test average of 23 also finds him ahead of many other great pacemen. The other aspect of Lindwall being so high in pundits' estimation was his classical style,"with a smooth and rhythmic run-up and textbook side-on bowling action, from which he generated his trademark outswinger which moved away late at high pace". (Wiki) He also scored a century against England in his third Test, batting at #9. Seven years later, he scored another, at #8, against the Windies.

Donny, By nature I am not a stats person so I kinda hate to this statistically. Lindwall's stats is pretty good in terms of average but if you look at his strike rate and wickets per test, they are good but not great. His strike rate is around 60 and wickets per test less than 4. Now this is no different than say Akram who I also consider one of the all time greats. But did Lindwall have the same mastery(or more) than Akram? That would be my question. On an aside note, dont worry much about some youngsters having a go at you. More than likely it is the ignorance speaking. Any half sane Indian cricket fan greatly appreciate Australian cricket players of yore. More so because Australia almost always sent their best team to India and not some mumbo jumbo that England, for example, sent across. Lindwall played in India and in fact led Australia in a Test with members like Benaud, Harvey, McCay, Burges and so on. So yeah he is pretty darn respected amongst Indian fans, those who know of course. xxx

[Mr. Wicket]

I could swear you were talking of Keith Miller. Miller did not pay as much attention to his bowling but thoroughly enjoyed his batting. If you are indeed correct then it makes me wonder if Lindwall-Miller attack was that good without both fellows putting in 100%, how much better could it have been? If only....

I am talking about Lindwall. The book also says the same about Miller. But don't think they didn't put 100% in, just because of their preference for the willow. From what I've read, batting was a greater passion for both than bowling - yet they took on the task of spearheading the Australian attack with 100% effort, and would never give the batsmen a hint of respite. As for 'Tiger' O'Reilly - truly one of the immortals, and a man who apparently was hard to get many words of praise from! What is frightening is that he has a better record than Warne, and almost any spinner after his day other than Murali. And he played in an era built for batsmen: slow pitches designed to last several days due to the nonsense of 'timeless tests', batsmen who could use such lack of time constraints to play zero-percentage cricket - yet he had figures to rank alongside the greatest bowlers ever (Marshall, McGrath, etc). In some of Fingleton's books (Masters of Cricket, Fingleton on Cricket and Cricket Crisis), there are some absolutely delightful essays on O'Reilly, as well as the O'Reilly/Grimmett tandem.

[Donny]

But did Lindwall have the same mastery(or more) than Akram? That would be my question.

Impossible to answer. :regular_smile: It's a subjective question anyway. Unless they bowled in the same era with the same facilities and at the same batsmen, how could anyone tell ? These days, some bowlers can get reverse swing as the ball gets scuffed - some can't. Lindwall may have been brilliant at it or not. It just wasn't around then, or bowlers hadn't noticed it. They just didn't have had endless videos to scan as we do now - and have had for a few decades now. Actually, Australia didn't even get television till 1956, some 10 years after England. Neither country had video machines or VCRs during Lindwall's career. Other than attending a match, the only way fans or even the players would have seen themselves was at the movies for a very short time during the newsreel. Before Imran Khan and Waqar Younis hit the scene, it was suggested that some bowlers did know at least a bit about reverse swing but weren't letting on. As video became more sophisticated, such things were able to be examined in minute detail. It's also relevant that even up to the 70s, most, if not all, Test cricketers had to get time off from work to play and were paid a pittance in relation to the revenue generated which is what made the game so ripe for Kerry Packer's 'takeover'. There were no bowling coaches in the 50s, no head coach, no bonding sessions, no training camps, no academies, no huge bat or gear sponsorship deals and no special bowling footwear other than quite heavy leather boots. Training ? Maybe once or twice a week, after work, at their local club.

[bharat297]

^ Yea that goes back to what I was saying in post #88 about it being impossible to compare between eras.

[Donny]

It doesn't go back to anywhere - certainly not to your post. It was my reply to a direct question from Lurker.