• 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.

CW Ranks the Bowlers

S

steve132

U19 Debutant
fredfertang said:
The reason I made the point I did is because that's exactly what you shouldn't do. Put in context their test careers simply aren't comparable
Click to expand...
In that case, how are we to compare them, which is what we need to do when we rank bowlers of different generations? Why is it legitimate to compare Larwood's and Marshall's careers in English first class cricket - as you did - but not their Test careers?

For players in cricket's Golden Age (i.e. the period before the First World War) first class records are critical simply because there was very little Test cricket. By Larwood's time, however, Tests were regular events, and were regarded as more important than other matches. In`post WWI cricket, Test performances are considered the best, although by no means the only, indicator of a player's abilities.

There are certain cricketers, such as Tich Freeman in Larwood's day and more recently Graeme Hick, who have been far more successful in county cricket than in Tests. Conversely, some cricketers (Godfrey Evans, Garry Sobers, Ian Botham) perform better in Tests, simply because they need the challenge of a big occasion. By and large the second group tends to be more highly regarded than the first. Do you think this is wrong?
 
Last edited:
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
steve132 said:
In that case, how are we to compare them, which is what we need to do when we rank bowlers of different generations? Why is it legitimate to compare Larwood's and Marshall's careers in English first class cricket - as you did - but not their Test careers?

For players in cricket's Golden Age (i.e. the period before the First World War) first class records are critical simply because there was very little Test cricket. By Larwood's time, however, Tests were regular events, and were regarded as more important than other matches. In`post WWI cricket, Test performances are considered the best, although by no means the only, indicator of a player's abilities.

There are certain cricketers, such as Tich Freeman in Larwood's day and more recently Graeme Hick, who have been far more successful in county cricket than in Tests. Conversely, some cricketers (Godfrey Evans, Garry Sobers, Ian Botham) perform better in Tests, simply because they need the challenge of a big occasion. By and large the second group tends to be more highly regarded than the first. Do you think this is wrong?
Click to expand...
I wasn't seeking to compare Larwood with Maco - I was simply making an analogy to demonstrate why I don't think Larwood should be forgotten in a poll of this nature

FTR I do believe Larwood is one of the finest bowlers ever to grace our game and I have set out why I believe that on other threads in the past - I expect I will feel the need to do so again in the future but I don't think this is the place.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
zaremba said:
Hmmmmm...

I think you'll be in a small minority if you consider that Bedser, Statham, Trueman, Miller, Davidson, Tyson, Hall, and Mahmood "don't have a patch on" Jason Gillespie and Craig McDermott. If you ranked those 10 bowlers in order, Gillespie and McDermott would be numbers 9 and 10.

And to say that Lillee (or Hadlee or Imran) is of "recent vintage" is really stretching things - his Test career began 38 years ago and ended over 25 years ago. If you're going back that far, you should equally add Larwood, Constantine, Martindale, Tate, Gilligan, Bowes, and others from the 1920s and 1930s (and perhaps even the 1910s) to the list of Lindwall's comparators.

And by the same logic, why should you lump Lillee in with the "recent bowlers" rather than as near-contemporaries of Lindwall? Lillee's Test career began just 11 years after Lindwall's ended and, as I've said, Lillee's Test career ended over a quarter of a century ago. So if we're bringing Lillee into the comparison at all, it should be as a near-contemporary of Lindwall's rather than a bowler of "recent vintage". Pretty much the same goes for Hadlee too.
Click to expand...
First of all by recent vintage i meant in my life time ie around the time of WSC. Second i included Mcdermott et al to make a point, i hope u noticed i conveniently left out the many outstanding WI bowlers of recent times which emphasises my point further. Lindwall great as he was faced precious little competition for the tag of best fast bowler of his times (1950s) as compared to the 70s, 80s and 90s thats my point.
 
S

steve132

U19 Debutant
fredfertang said:
I wasn't seeking to compare Larwood with Maco - I was simply making an analogy to demonstrate why I don't think Larwood should be forgotten in a poll of this nature

FTR I do believe Larwood is one of the finest bowlers ever to grace our game and I have set out why I believe that on other threads in the past - I expect I will feel the need to do so again in the future but I don't think this is the place.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. This isn't the right thread, but at some time I'd like to know why you rate Larwood so highly.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm off sampling bubbly like a posh wanker for the next four days in the Champagne houses of Reims and Epernay, so assuming Lindwall has this one covered my next selections over the coming days will be:

Spofforth
Lohmann
Donald
Davidson
Laker

Please default select for me the top two unpicked bowlers from that list while I'm away.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
Vote for #16 bowler of all-time

Lindwall comfortably.

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Sydney Barnes
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Curtly Ambrose
5. Richard Hadlee
6. Muttiah Muralitharan
7. Shane Warne
8. Dennis Lillee
9. Imran Khan
10. Bill O'Reilly
11. Wasim Akram
12. Fred Trueman
13. Waqar Younis
14. Joel Garner
15. Ray Lindwall

The vote for the #16 bowler of all-time begins now.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
The Sean said:
I'm off sampling bubbly like a posh wanker for the next four days in the Champagne houses of Reims and Epernay, so assuming Lindwall has this one covered my next selections over the coming days will be:

Spofforth
Lohmann
Donald
Davidson
Laker

Please default select for me the top two unpicked bowlers from that list while I'm away.
Click to expand...
Here's your vote:

1. Spofforth
2. Lohmann
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top