Ray Lindwall vs Greg Chappell

[Johan]

Primary skills, kind of an inverse of Hammond vs Lillee, considered Larwood but...Nah.

 

[Coronis]

Pretty close.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Tough one

 

[Johan]

 

[kyear2]

Greg Chappell really seems to be underrated around these parts of late.

Would be interesting to have a comparison between these two as cricketers as well

 

[Johan]

Greg Chappell really seems to be underrated around these parts of late.

Would be interesting to have a comparison between these two as cricketers as well

never really seen Greg being underrated here.

 

[Thala_0710]

Lindwall just for me. Very close

 

[Johan]

Lindwall just for me. Very close

drop your top 15 pacers and batsmen

 

[Thala_0710]

drop your top 15 pacers and batsmen

It keeps changing and I've posted them a couple of times... But here goes...
I exclude pre ww1 players because I find them hard to compare with the more modern guys:
Batsmen:-
1. Bradman
2. Tendulkar
3. Hobbs
4. Lara
5. Smith
6. Richards
7. Hutton
8. Sobers
9. Gavaskar
10. Headley
11. Hammond
12. Sutcliffe
13. Pollock
14. Ponting
15. Chappell
Root is closing in. Kallis unlucky to miss out.

Bowlers:-
1. Marshall
2. McGrath
3. Hadlee
4. Murali
5. Warne
6. Steyn
7. Ambrose
8. Imran
9. Donald
10. Akram
11. Lillee
12. Garner
13. Holding
14. O Reilly
15. Lindwall
Bumrah is quite close, Trueman unlucky to miss out.

 

[Johan]

It keeps changing and I've posted them a couple of times... But here goes...
I exclude pre ww1 players because I find them hard to compare with the more modern guys:
Batsmen:-
1. Bradman
2. Tendulkar
3. Hobbs
4. Lara
5. Smith
6. Richards
7. Hutton
8. Sobers
9. Gavaskar
10. Headley
11. Hammond
12. Sutcliffe
13. Pollock
14. Ponting
15. Chappell
Root is closing in. Kallis unlucky to miss out.

Bowlers:-
1. Marshall
2. McGrath
3. Hadlee
4. Murali
5. Warne
6. Steyn
7. Ambrose
8. Imran
9. Donald
10. Akram
11. Lillee
12. Garner
13. Holding
14. O Reilly
15. Lindwall
Bumrah is quite close, Trueman unlucky to miss out.

I like this (Trueman def isn't out of the Lillee/Akram/Donald category) but...a question..

10. Headley
11. Hammond

this is very interesting, how do you conclude this? I think they're relative on skill level but one clearly had a much more expansive test career and his level of first class career was also higher.

 

[Thala_0710]

I like this (Trueman def isn't out of the Lillee/Akram/Donald category) but...a question..


this is very interesting, how do you conclude this? I think they're relative on skill level but one clearly had a much more expansive test career and his level of first class career was also higher.

So I think there's a slightly higher level of skill difference and from what I've read Headley being the second best bat, after Bradman, of his time was close to consensus. Hammond played better opposition in FC cricket, but Headley is 10000@70, which is ridiculous (50000 @56 is also ridiculous but in a different way). I think both at their best, Headley was better. I can swap them around as well though (I used to have Hammond over Headley till only a month back).

 

[capt_Luffy]

So I think there's a slightly higher level of skill difference and from what I've read Headley being the second best bat, after Bradman, of his time was close to consensus. Hammond played better opposition in FC cricket, but Headley is 10000@70, which is ridiculous (50000 @56 is also ridiculous but in a different way). I think both at their best, Headley was better. I can swap them around as well though (I used to have Hammond over Headley till only a month back).

I believe that Consensus formed much later on, if even one exists. Up until the 50s, Hammond was rated well ahead in England (Source: Peterhrt). I believe some writer back then said 4 cricketers stands above all else and they were The Doctor, Hobbs, Don and Hammond. On the otherhand, when Cardus made his Wisden 6 players of the Century, not only neither of them made the cut, none made the 9 man shortlist as well. I do believe though in Cricinfo's AT exercise, Headley missed out on the XI for Viv by like a single vote or something.

 

[BazBall21]

Very even. Lindwall edges ahead as a cricketer.

 

[Prince EWS]

drop your top 15 pacers and batsmen

Horrible selection advice.

 

[Coronis]

So I think there's a slightly higher level of skill difference and from what I've read Headley being the second best bat, after Bradman, of his time was close to consensus. Hammond played better opposition in FC cricket, but Headley is 10000@70, which is ridiculous (50000 @56 is also ridiculous but in a different way). I think both at their best, Headley was better. I can swap them around as well though (I used to have Hammond over Headley till only a month back).

I’ve not read that at all. Not that peer rating is that important. I’ll also remember that a few of Headley’s home runs were made against second string English touring teams.

 

[Thala_0710]

I’ll also remember that a few of Headley’s home runs were made against second string English touring teams.

Only for one series though, whilst Hammond consistently faced worse attacks vs Wi, Ind, Nz and Sa which Headley never got to.

 

[Johan]

Only for one series though, whilst Hammond consistently faced worse attacks vs Wi, Ind, Nz and Sa which Headley never got to.

won't call any of those except NZ "bad"

 

[Thala_0710]

won't call any of those except NZ "bad"

When you're comparing to second string Eng in the 30s and 40s, they were still bad.
Ind in the 1946 series for example had a very poor attack. Even in that series, Eng had bowlers like Farnes

 

[Johan]

When you're comparing to second string Eng in the 30s and 40s, they were still bad.
Ind in the 1946 series for example had a very poor attack. Even in that series, Eng had bowlers like Farnes

I was moreso referencing 1936, both Nissar and Amar were extremely highly rated at the time, best in the world kind of high. Regardless, I do not count ether Hammond or Headley's post war careers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

When you're comparing to second string Eng in the 30s and 40s, they were still bad.
Ind in the 1946 series for example had a very poor attack. Even in that series, Eng had bowlers like Farnes

'36 India was Very Good attack though. Amar and Nissar were rated among the Best in the World. SA also had mostly decent bowling and WI ofcourse had a Constantine, Griffith, Martindale and Francis. Both India and WI had a much superior pace attack than Australia. And even if NZ was bad overall, even they had Cowie