Bill O'Reilly vs Clarrie Grimmett

[Matt79]

As the topic suggests - I'm aware there will have been discussion of this point before, I think there was a thread a while back.

However, this one has a poll!

One for the history buffs and book fans, which one of Australia's great leg-spin pairing was the better? I'd really appreciate it if Shane Warne could be left out of the discussion as well - he's irrelevant to the question that's posed.

Battle of contrasting styles. When I was first starting to read about them, I preferred Grimmett - I think the idea of this old guy in his cap, having been rejected by his own country, and a couple of states eventually dominating at test level with his round-arm deliveries, trying flippers and giving the batsman nothing, really appealled. Not knowing much about cricket history other than a couple of Bradman biogs that I'd read that gave O'Reilly a caning for his feud with the Don, I think I also had a set against Bill.

As I've read more, I've come to think that O'Reilly was probably the better, however. Although their peaks probably didn't align, it seems the consensus of most, but not all, who faced them, or saw them operate together, that O'Reilly was the somewhat more lethal, and the stats bear that out to a degree, although the margin is so very fine...

Tiger

Scarl

 

[Richard]

What happened on the first attempt?

Anyway, like you I've always liked the Grimmett story. Perfectly conceivable there was as little to choose between them as Warne and Murali (and plenty of people - stupidly in my view - try to separate them).

Almost feels an insult to vote for Hohns (you could've picked a decent bowler like James Higgs FFS!) but I've never yet been able to bring myself to split them.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

I bracket these 2 along with Warne and Murali as the four greatest spinners ever however in this poll I voted for Grimmett because of patriotism (he grew up in NZ), innovation (Not just the flipper but during WWII he developed a legspinning delivery that looked like his usually poorly disguised wrongun but the war stopped him from using it in first class cricket) and longevity (Not only did he play 1st class cricket into his late 50's but some time in the early to mid 1960's when he was in his early 70's he bowled as a net bowler to the touring South Africans including the likes of Graham Pollock and Eddie Barlow and the touring South Africans apparantly thought that he was the best bowler they had faced on the whole tour). Another factor in favour of Grimmett was that he was a better batsman (He started off his 1st class career openning the batting).

 

[Matt79]

What happened on the first attempt?

Forgot to include the poll...

 

[Goughy]

I couldnt answer with any degree of certainty or preference.

 

[Richard]

Forgot to include the poll...

Well deleted - still can't work-out how to delete a thread these days, though I used to be able to do it easy.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't think you can split them but I would add that if I had the chance to watch just one pre war Aussie leg spinner at work then from what I've read it would Arthur Mailey rather than either of these gents

 

[archie mac]

Until Warne came along every expert had Tiger in his all time Aust. team, and although many also had Grum, it always seems from those who watched or played against them that Tiger was just a little better

 

[Richard]

I don't think you can split them but I would add that if I had the chance to watch just one pre war Aussie leg spinner at work then from what I've read it would Arthur Mailey rather than either of these gents

You prefer the classic "wayward" wristspinner then?

Know the feeling - someone like Warne, Grimmett etc. who defies all the norms is just too much of times - especially for an England supporter!

 

[fredfertang]

It's no doubt in part because he seems rather less Australian than the others (ie the waywardness and an ability to laugh at himself) and in part because he was a fine writer on the game (he wrote in the same style as he bowled)

 

[Richard]

Yes, Mailey's skills with a pen are enjoyable TSTL.

 

[Top_Cat]

Don't know, never saw either of them bowl.

 

[archie mac]

Don't know, never saw either of them bowl.

 

[a massive zebra]

The suggestion that one cannot compare players one has never seen is really preposterously ignorant. Get off your ass, do some research, and make an informed opinion. In any case, even if this ridiculous argument did hold true, copious amounts of film is available featuring both these bowlers.

 

[a massive zebra]

I've expressed my views on this topic several times previously, but to reiterate, I would take O'Reilly any day of the week.

O'Reilly was almost universally recognised as the best of the two by contemporaries, and certainly the more feared by top class batsmen. He didn't turn the ball as much as Grimmett, but enough to beat the bat. His long loping run-up and general demeanour were the very picture of hostility. He never had a bad series, and was far more successful against the best team of his time, England.

O'Reilly v England 102 wkts @ 25.36 in 19 matches
Grimmett v England 106 @ 32.44 in 22 matches

Grimmett's Test figures are flattering as, like Titch Freeman, he took advantage of the weaker teams and tail-enders contributed a lot to the total of his victims.

 

[The Sean]

Geoff Armstrong is a strong advocate of this school of thought. In two of his books, Top 10s of Australian Cricket and The 100 Greatest Cricketers (in which list he does not include Grum), he argues that Grimmett’s legend is built largely on his performances against minnow nations and in Sheffield Shield cricket, and that his best effort against England (11 wickets) came fortuitously in his first Test against them to establish his reputation, after which he was far from dominant, and actually dropped more than once. He also notes that Jack Hobbs considered Mailey the superior bowler.

While there’s some merit in this argument, I do think it’s unfairly harsh on Grimmett, particularly given the esteem with which he was held in the game by all he played against. Any man who can get Bradman out as often as Clarrie did can’t be too bad in my books.

 

[archie mac]

Geoff Armstrong is a strong advocate of this school of thought. In two of his books, Top 10s of Australian Cricket and The 100 Greatest Cricketers (in which list he does not include Grum), he argues that Grimmett’s legend is built largely on his performances against minnow nations and in Sheffield Shield cricket, and that his best effort against England (11 wickets) came fortuitously in his first Test against them to establish his reputation, after which he was far from dominant, and actually dropped more than once. He also notes that Jack Hobbs considered Mailey the superior bowler.

While there’s some merit in this argument, I do think it’s unfairly harsh on Grimmett, particularly given the esteem with which he was held in the game by all he played against. Any man who can get Bradman out as often as Clarrie did can’t be too bad in my books.

Armstrong is a bit like that, He also down grades Ponsford, very annoyed with the way he write, He should say IMO once in a blue moon, instead of suggesting his opinions are fact

Anyway good to see you back

 

[Top_Cat]

The suggestion that one cannot compare players one has never seen is really preposterously ignorant. Get off your ass, do some research, and make an informed opinion. In any case, even if this ridiculous argument did hold true, copious amounts of film is available featuring both these bowlers.

For one, there's not copious amounts of footage of them. That is an exaggeration relative to guys like Bradman who played the same era. I've personally seen some footage of a few balls, nothing significant and believe me I've looked.

For two, I've done plenty of reading myself on cricketers young and old.

For three, yes my view is that you can't make a fully informed view on how good cricketers unless you've seen them bowl/bat for a significant period of time otherwise you're relying on the opinions of others. As scholarly and wide-ranging as they may be, it's not strong enough evidence for me, not without significant caveats anyway. You wanna discuss it, go ahead, I won't be joining in. Those are my opinions, deal with it.

 

[chasingthedon]

O'Reilly v England 102 wkts @ 25.36 in 19 matches
Grimmett v England 106 @ 32.44 in 22 matches

QUOTE]

Interesting to compare Grimmett and O'Reilly against the same opposition - I took it a bit further and looked at the four Test series they both appeared in together, i.e facing the same opposition and bowling on the same wickets:-

Grimmett 107 wkts @ 20.50
O'Reilly 89 wkts @ 22.88

The first series they both played in was O'Reilly's debut and he didn't do much, and although he was certainly more successful in the first Ashes series, they were both outstanding in 1934.

Resolving the wickets per opposition:-

Grimmett 30 vs England, 77 vs South Africa
O'Reilly 55 vs England, 34 vs South Africa

Although the South Africans had beaten the English twice in the early 30s, these were under-strength England sides, so there's no doubt the English were a superior side to the South Africans.

Personally, I think that O'Reilly was one of those greats who was able to find something extra against the best opposition.

 

[a massive zebra]

For one, there's not copious amounts of footage of them. That is an exaggeration relative to guys like Bradman who played the same era. I've personally seen some footage of a few balls, nothing significant and believe me I've looked.

Obviously not hard enough. There is a lot of footage of them. Detailed highlights of the 1930 and 1934 Ashes tours can be found on the DVD "1930s Cricket Legends," highlights of the vast majority of Ashes tests between 1926 and 1938 can be found from the British Pathe website, and film on a number of important Sheffield Shield matches from the 1930s is also available from various sources.

For three, yes my view is that you can't make a fully informed view on how good cricketers unless you've seen them bowl/bat for a significant period of time otherwise you're relying on the opinions of others. As scholarly and wide-ranging as they may be, it's not strong enough evidence for me, not without significant caveats anyway. You wanna discuss it, go ahead, I won't be joining in. Those are my opinions, deal with it.

Contemporary authors can provide you with an in depth feel for the style of batting/bowling, strengths/weaknesses, contemporary opinions of a particular cricketer. Data on where they performed and against whom is usually easily accessible. IMO this is easily enough to make an informed opinion.