Ray Lindwall vs Sunil Gavaskar

[Johan]

Better test Cricketer? both primary and secondary allowed.

Raymond Lindwall
1,502 runs in 84 innings, average of 21, 2 centuries and 5 half centuries.
228 wickets in 113 innings, average of 23, 12 fifers and no tenfers.

Sunil Gavaskar
10,122 runs in 214 innings, average of 51.12, 34 hundreds and 45 half centuries.

 

[kyear2]

Was doing to be easily Sunny, now it's a bit closer in my head.

Ummm, Sunny wasn't elite in the cordon but he was good. Would say the same for Ray, so Sunny keeps it.

 

[Johan]

Ray Lindwall is basically Allan Donald who can bat a bit, a fast aggressive bowler who lost years to the second World War/Apartheid, not a very good bat but can bat.

I think Gavaskar>Donald but this one is hard for me.

 

[BazBall21]

Lindwall being a no8 tips it for me. His consistency&ability v great batsmen makes it debatable in their primary suits.

 

[kyear2]

Lindwall being a no8 tips it for me. His consistency&ability v great batsmen makes it debatable in their primary suits.

Yeah, if you have it debatable in their primary skills, I can see Lindwall edging it out.

Sunny was India's designated slip for a while, but was not elite and not in the same class as Azhar who succeeded him.

He was however said to be as proud as his 100 catches as he was for any of his other feats.

 

[Johan]

who'd win a head to head?

 

[BazBall21]

who'd win a head to head?

I suspect Lindwall across a good sample, part of why I voted for him. In general, great bowlers often beat great batsmen.

 

[ma1978]

The difference is Gavaskar had a long sample relative to Lindwall. We’ll never know about Lindwall

 

[Johan]

The difference is Gavaskar had a long sample relative to Lindwall. We’ll never know about Lindwall

What? Lindwall played for 10 years, he had a longer career than Allan Donald

 

[capt_Luffy]

What? Lindwall played for 10 years, he had a longer career than Allan Donald

*14

 

[Johan]

*14

I don't actually care for his 1958-60 stuff, just an old man trying to relive the glory days.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't actually care for his 1958-60 stuff.

Was mid but not that poor imho

 

[ma1978]

What? Lindwall played for 10 years, he had a longer career than Allan Donald

and half the tests of Gavaskar

im not saying he didn’t play long enough to be an ATG (he most certainly is), but in a direct comparison the fact that Gavaskar played a higher volume of tests and was at an elite level for longer is a factor

 

[kyear2]

I suspect Lindwall across a good sample, part of why I voted for him. In general, great bowlers often beat great batsmen.

That is also true. Great bowlers tend to impact the performance of great batsmen more so than the other way round.

 

[Johan]

and half the tests of Gavaskar

im not saying he didn’t play long enough to be an ATG (he most certainly is), but in a direct comparison the fact that Gavaskar played a higher volume of tests and was at an elite level for longer is a factor

Number of Tests mostly doesn't matter as that's too era dependent, we don't say Malcolm Marshall is below James Anderson because of the completely different volume of Tests do we? I think 10 years for a express bowler and 16 for a Batsman is pretty similar in longevity as batsmen almost always last longer but bowlers win more games.

 

[kyear2]

What? Lindwall played for 10 years, he had a longer career than Allan Donald

exactly

 

[ma1978]

Number of Tests mostly doesn't matter as that's too era dependent, we don't say Malcolm Marshall is below James Anderson because of the completely different volume of Tests do we? I think 10 years for a express bowler and 16 for a Batsman is pretty similar in longevity as batsmen almost always last longer but bowlers win more games.

Malcolm and Anderson don’t have the same level of elite output. The number of or at least time at the top level is a way to differentiate when you’re comparing players of similar quality which I believe Gavaskar and Lindwall are

 

[Johan]

Malcolm and Anderson don’t have the same level of elite output. The number of or at least time at the top level is a way to differentiate when you’re comparing players of similar quality which I believe Gavaskar and Lindwall are

Yeah but it's still not fair considering the number of Tests played is different, so fundamentally it's stacked against older players and against countries that are not England.

 

[ma1978]

Yeah but it's still not fair considering the number of Tests played is different, so fundamentally it's stacked against older players and against countries that are not England.

we disagree on this but I believe the bar is higher for old players… within reason. I rate Ray Lindwall higher than say Jimmy Anderson but not higher than Shaun Pollock who was a pretty similar player.

 

[Johan]

we disagree on this but I believe the bar is higher for old players… within reason. I rate Ray Lindwall higher than say Jimmy Anderson but not higher than Shaun Pollock who was a pretty similar player.

would you be consistent to apply a similar higher bar for Viv Richards and Sunil Gavaskar in a comparison to Joe Root and Steven Smith though?