Originally Posted by Jager
I don't understand why Lindwall is better than Davidson to you...
Davidson's strike rate gives me pause, and while Lindwall's was also high Lindwall went to the West Indies on some pretty flat pitches and destroyed the batting line up with the exception of Walcott, similar to what he and Miller had done in '51 without exception. Lindwall also lost some of his great years to the war. Davidson also benefitted from some weak South African and Indian batting which is always a critism of Sir Everton.
Most importantly speed kills and Lindwall drove fear into his opponents and was the
key factor to what was one of the three greatest teams of All Time and in a recent thread we had, it was acknowledged that until Lillee came around, Lindwall was seen as the Greatest Ever Fast Bowler.
Before someone asks about Mcgrath, as I have continuously said, both Mcgrath and Tendulkar makes my All Time XI basically because of their overall weight of numbers and sustained excellence which are impossible to ignore, and Mcgrath's contribution once again to one of the All Time Great teams. I think that Lara and Ambrose, among others were better at their peak and Akram more talented, but Mcgrath just kept going and was a winner.
I do not dislike Davidson, he was an ATG fast bowler, his left hand variety and lower order batting add even more to his value, but like Garner, the average doesn't tell the entire story. For the record was also an ATG bowler, but even tough he has a lower average I still see Holding as being his superior.