• 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
    46
  • This poll will close: .
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Trueman vs Lindwall is reasonably close considering the disparity in home pitches and how often each played away from home. Lindwall probably peaked higher early on in his career though those English sides were noticeably weaker. He was also brought out of retirement for which his average suffers 1 point. Trueman's longevity in terms of how long his career stretched is insane really but he only played 5 more matches than Lindwall so not sure what to make of that. I'm aware he missed a third of matches he could've played because of selectors being morons. I'll call that one a tie. Trueman's selling point is his strike rate of under 50 in one of cricket's slowest scoring eras but one has to be aware that he averaged 3 more runs away than Lindwall with a worse SR. 47/67 out of his tests were at home. Hard to say he impressed in either Australia or WI, which would've been his biggest challenges though pitches in the Caribbean were awful back then so can't blame him for that. Lindwall, on the contrary, was dynamite in England. Trueman really should've made at least one more tour to Australia and it's baffling to me that he didn't. Anyway, I'm going to go against the grain and say Lindwall. I would say you could reasonably argue that no finer pacer has come along since his retirement.

Hall was good and all but he's not on the same level.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
trundler said:
Trueman's longevity in terms of how long his career stretched is insane really but he only played 5 more matches than Lindwall so not sure what to make of that.
Click to expand...
English selectors not liking his character. The only time he didn't really deserve selection was in 1956-57 when he was in poor form in County. After friction on the 53/54 WI tour he was basically sidelined until Hutton was well and truly out of the picture.

Hall's reputation is a bit overrated albeit his home pitches were pretty flat. He's not on the level of the other two.

It's a bit hard. Lindwall has a bit more rounded a record though he arguably did play weaker teams, but I don't think he maintained that level as long as Trueman.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Probably Trueman, but only just. And yeah, Hall doesn’t belong in the same discussion with the others.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Starfighter said:
English selectors not liking his character.
Click to expand...
I did say that in the very next sentence.

Yeah, it's a toss up really. Re Lindwall playing weaker sides: it's no surprise Morris and Harvey declined so rapidly into the 50s as English cricket recovered.
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
Can't still believe Hall has a 160 odd in india. Bloke had a rubbish technique
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Trueman > Lindwall >Hall
All three were impressive but Hall is over-shadowed by so many great WI quicks in later years. I rate Trueman above Lindwall purely on the quality of batsmen they played against. Lindwall's action was regarded as the finest example for budding fast bowlers to follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top