The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smash84]

:

 

[Eds]

Watson bang on the money for me. Exactly what I'd like to say if I were sufficiently eloquent.

 

[Red]

Because the game isn't all about statistics.

On CW we tend to rule by the numbers - a bowler with an average .02 runs lower must be exponentially better than the other, X didn't perform in India so Y gets the gig, if we adjust Stat A for era and narrow it down to matches beginning on a Wednesday Bowler X has a hole in his record, so Bowler Y gets selected - it ends up getting completely ridiculous.

There's an element of the rose tint, sure, but what would humans be as a species without romanticism? Why can't we look back at a man like Larwood, who bowled with fire before bowling with fire was cool, and rate him above a bowler with a slightly better average? Why can't we look past the numbers and see that he tamed Bradman, that his career was cut hopelessly short by injury and administrators? Why must we be ruled by the statistics?

If we were purely ruled by numbers, how boring would selecting XIs be? Where would the game be? "So, promising young bowler A paid 27 runs per wicket in the CC this year. Old County Pro B paid 26. He gets the gig".

Larwood had an aura about him that no other bowler can match. His name struck fear into batsmen, and he changed the game forever. Forget the statistics, forget bowling averages. He reformed cricket in a way no bowler ever has, or ever will do.

Its another reason why Frank Worrell always makes my WI All Time XI. His value is far more than can be expressed in statistical analysis. Larwood is the same.

Ask Tangy, ask Jager. Ask any of the Larwood supporters and I'm sure they'll agree (at least to an extent). The statistics of Harold Larwood paint a picture wholly different to reality. He cannot be expressed in numbers (as beautiful as mathematics is).

In my mind, he was the greatest bowler of all time, bar none. And no amount of numbers being thrown at me will change my mind. Ever.

So, if that's the case, and considering this is an ATG discussion thread, would you include Larwood in your World all time ATG team?

Great, eloquent post, and I agree with most of it. Numbers can be very misleading. They can also be very revealing though. And Larwood's contemporaries, in the same teams as him, against the same opposition, had better numbers.

 

[kyear2]

I agree that he is over rated, but why does Benaud ect rate him so highly based purely on his first class record. I acknowledge that I largely do the same with Richards and Procter, but what Test Cricket they did play they excelled in and they also proved themselves in WSC. Larwood struggled in test cricket, which is, pardon the pun, the greatest test for a cricketer.

 

[fredfertang]

I agree that he is over rated, but why does Benaud ect rate him so highly based purely on his first class record. I acknowledge that I largely do the same with Richards and Procter, but what Test Cricket they did play they excelled in and they also proved themselves in WSC. Larwood struggled in test cricket, which is, pardon the pun, the greatest test for a cricketer.

No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one

 

[kyear2]

But he didn't Fred, it was unjust how his career ended, but to project how he would have done after the war and ignore his actual figures is pure speculation.
Additionally I don't think that Australia would have offered the new ball every 55 overs if Larwood was still around

 

[kyear2]

btw, why is it only brought up that Bradman before the war played in near un paralleled batting conditions when we are discussing Larwoods bowling and not Bradman's career itself?
Just wondering out loud.

 

[Prince EWS]

btw, why is it only brought up that Bradman before the war played in near un paralleled batting conditions when we are discussing Larwoods bowling and not Bradman's career itself?
Just wondering out loud.

Have heard it brought up about Bradman's career many times tbh.

 

[Red]

No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one

I'm interested in your opinion on this Fred, as you seem knowledgable about England's cricket history.

Larwood played a limited number of tests, and in them had less statistical success than contemporaries Gubby Allen and Bill Voce. In FC cricket however, Larwood's stats stand out more (although they are still comparable to the other two mentioned). Gubby Allen, for instance, has very good FC stats as well, slightly inferior to Larwood's but somewhat similar.

Also, some have been suggesting that Larwood "revolutionised" quick bowling. I'm not sure that's the case. Australia had Jack Gregory bowling very quick a few years prior to Larwood's career, and Gregory had very similar stats in both tests and FC cricket to Larwood. Ted McDonald was another quick Australian pre-Larwood with a very refined quick bowler's action. McDonald, like Larwood, played few tests for what seems ordinary averages and stats, but a lot of FC games for excellent numbers.

 

[kyear2]

Have heard it brought up about Bradman's career many times tbh.

For the record I do consider Bradman the best bat ever, just not twice as good as the second tier group.

 

[watson]

No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one

I've been watching some archive footage of Larwood and Lindwall in action on a video I bought recently (thanks Monk for the recommendation - it's excellent).

What struck me was how similar their respective bowling actions were. If Lindwall didn't have such a long drag with his right-foot then I'd say that they had identical actions. Even in slow motion it is very difficult to tell Larwood and Lindwall apart at the point of delivery.

Anyway, the point being that it is possible that Larwood and Lindwall could have had similar stat's if Larwood's was left uninterupted by Bodyline and injury. It is a big assumption to say that similar bowling actions translate into similar stat's. But it's not a bad assumption. Larwood could have quite easily ended up being England's version of Lindwall if fate had been different. But no better or greater than Lindwall because their bowling actions are almost identical.

Just a thought.

 

[Red]

I've been watching some archive footage of Larwood and Lindwall in action on a video I bought recently (thanks Monk for the recommendation - it's excellent).

 

[NUFAN]

Any idea of what England's greatest XI would be excluding Cricketers born in England?

 

[kyear2]

So then, once again Larwood, Bedser or Snow and Pietersen or Barrington?

 

[Red]

Non English Born
Andrew Strauss
Colin Cowdrey
Ted Dexter
Kevin Pieterson
Douglas Jardine
Allan Lamb
Billy Murdoch (wk)
Tony Greig
Gubby Allen
Andy Caddick
Gladstone Small

 

[NUFAN]

Similar to my team really.

1. Andrew Strauss
2. Colin Cowdrey
3. Ranji
4. Ted Dexter
5. Kevin Pietersen
6. Douglas Jardine
7. Matt Prior
8. Gubby Allen
9. Phil Edmonds
10 Andrew Caddick.
11 John Ferris

Some great batsman overlooked.

 

[Dan]

So, if that's the case, and considering this is an ATG discussion thread, would you include Larwood in your World all time ATG team?

Great, eloquent post, and I agree with most of it. Numbers can be very misleading. They can also be very revealing though. And Larwood's contemporaries, in the same teams as him, against the same opposition, had better numbers.

The more I think about it, the more I would. To me, I'd go with something like this as the GOAT XI:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Don Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Garfield Sobers
6. Viv Richards
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Imran Khan
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Harold Larwood
11. Shane Warne

Warne > O'Reilly & Murali because I want a slower wrist spinner. Sobers above Richards to break up the right handers.

 

[Dan]

I've been watching some archive footage of Larwood and Lindwall in action on a video I bought recently (thanks Monk for the recommendation - it's excellent).

What struck me was how similar their respective bowling actions were. If Lindwall didn't have such a long drag with his right-foot then I'd say that they had identical actions. Even in slow motion it is very difficult to tell Larwood and Lindwall apart at the point of delivery.

Anyway, the point being that it is possible that Larwood and Lindwall could have had similar stat's if Larwood's was left uninterupted by Bodyline and injury. It is a big assumption to say that similar bowling actions translate into similar stat's. But it's not a bad assumption. Larwood could have quite easily ended up being England's version of Lindwall if fate had been different. But no better or greater than Lindwall because their bowling actions are almost identical.

Just a thought.

Lindwall actively modelled his action on Larwood's. At one point some Notts fans (IIRC, read it a few days ago and can't remember all the details) had a crack at him for copying Larwood. Lindwall shrugged his shoulders - saying something along the lines of "Why not copy the best?"

 

[Jager]

No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one

Tangy with the goods I'd estimate a 20 average or thereabouts.

For me the best team would be...

Jager's XI

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Herbert Sutcliffe
3. Barry Richards
4. Don Bradman
5. Keith Miller*
6. Garfield Sobers
7. Mike Procter
8. Don Tallon †
9. Harold Larwood
10. -
11. -

The last spots can be any of 10. Verity/Warne/O'Reilly or 11. Marshall/Donald/Ambrose/Davidson/Waqar. Just can't choose!

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

If I remember correctly, I read somewhere Larwood was Lindwall's childhood hero