Quite, but given the surfeit of quality Windies pacemen in that 60+ year sample even making the top ten is no mean effort. If Courtney had been (say) Indian, Sri Lankan or a kiwi he'd be absolutely nailed on for a spot in their all-time XI. He'd probably even be challenging for a spot in the post-war England XI too. FST would certainly rank above him, but he isn't embarrassed by the comparsion with Bedser, Statham, Snow, Willis, Both, etc.
He would certainly be in the hunt for a place in an English post war XI (if he was English obv). Id have him over Willis (no disrespect to Willis there), though behind Snow.
King had his chances wrecked by injury, Camps'll tell you that any time. Dillon, well, I never really thought he was that good (better than Franklyn Rose and Marlon Black mind) and always much more liked the look of Nixon McLean.
Maybe, but Courtney was a stock bowler for the first half of his career. IIRC he had 170 wickets in his first 50 tests, and then as greater responsibility was placed on him with the retirements of players like Marshall, and injuries to players like Bishop, he simply got better and better with age.
To throw in a few obvious stand-out names to show that it's not at all outrageous to leave him out of a top-20...
Remembering the original claim was as a top 20 alltime Test bowler. This is how Ive grouped your post war seamers from above.
If that is only your opinion, I am okay with it, but when say "would never be close to mentioned in the discussion of best seam bowlers" , you seem to be speaking as if that is some kind of fact.
.... in your opinion.
At least in Smith's case there can justifiably be the claim he got an extremely raw deal, even if he was exceptionally unlikely to have been Test-class.
