Who is the greatest English bowler of all time?

[_00_deathscar]

Nah, its probably that he sucked at it.

TJB sucked off TOTAB?

 

[peterhrt]

One advantage current players like Anderson and Broad enjoy is being talked up by a commercial media promoting its product.

Some of the old-timers are rated higher by later generations studying their stats than they were in their own day. They suffered from contemporary writers living in the past, and from selectors who didn't always rate them.

Trueman had turned 28 before he became an automatic selection for England, Laker was 34 and Barnes 36. All felt they were unfairly treated. Trueman was overlooked for no fewer than five overseas tours, partly due to fears an undiplomatic outburst might upset local sensitivities. He grew tired of being compared unfavourably with Larwood and bore a grudge for the rest of his life.

After shining on debut in Australia in 1901, Barnes was picked for only one of the following fifteen home Tests over a seven year period. Despite the Australians consistently saying he was the best English bowler they had seen, for a long time he only went on tours after other bowlers had been asked and said no.

Underwood was left out nine times in England at his peak because of Norman Gifford's superior tail-end batting and fielding. Most English writers at the time thought Bedi was the world's leading left-arm spinner.

 

[Coronis]

One advantage current players like Anderson and Broad enjoy is being talked up by a commercial media promoting its product.

Some of the old-timers are rated higher by later generations studying their stats than they were in their own day. They suffered from contemporary writers living in the past, and from selectors who didn't always rate them.

Trueman had turned 28 before he became an automatic selection for England, Laker was 34 and Barnes 36. All felt they were unfairly treated. Trueman was overlooked for no fewer than five overseas tours, partly due to fears an undiplomatic outburst might upset local sensitivities. He grew tired of being compared unfavourably with Larwood and bore a grudge for the rest of his life.

After shining on debut in Australia in 1901, Barnes was picked for only one of the following fifteen home Tests over a seven year period. Despite the Australians consistently saying he was the best English bowler they had seen, for a long time he only went on tours after other bowlers had been asked and said no.

Underwood was left out nine times in England at his peak because of Norman Gifford's superior tail-end batting and fielding. Most English writers at the time thought Bedi was the world's leading left-arm spinner.

English writers are shockingly idiots.

 

[AndrewB]

One advantage current players like Anderson and Broad enjoy is being talked up by a commercial media promoting its product.

Some of the old-timers are rated higher by later generations studying their stats than they were in their own day. They suffered from contemporary writers living in the past, and from selectors who didn't always rate them.

Trueman had turned 28 before he became an automatic selection for England, Laker was 34 and Barnes 36. All felt they were unfairly treated. Trueman was overlooked for no fewer than five overseas tours, partly due to fears an undiplomatic outburst might upset local sensitivities. He grew tired of being compared unfavourably with Larwood and bore a grudge for the rest of his life.

After shining on debut in Australia in 1901, Barnes was picked for only one of the following fifteen home Tests over a seven year period. Despite the Australians consistently saying he was the best English bowler they had seen, for a long time he only went on tours after other bowlers had been asked and said no.

Underwood was left out nine times in England at his peak because of Norman Gifford's superior tail-end batting and fielding. Most English writers at the time thought Bedi was the world's leading left-arm spinner.

Trueman was 26: he was born in 1931 and played all 5 Tests against WI in 1957 and NZ in 1958; England didn't tour in 1957-8, and he played in the 1958-9 Ashes (except for missing the first two games with lumbago). Plus replacing him with Tyson in the 1954-5 Ashes was hardly an error.

Laker's average at the start of the 1955 season was 29, compared to Wardle's 22 and Tattersall's 26 (and Appleyard's 16). He got picked eventually that season in the Oval Test, did well, was retained for the 1956 series and the rest is history.

I thought Gifford was picked ahead of Underwood a few times because he was thought to be the better bowler on a dry wicket, rather than due to his batting (he nearly always batted at 10 or 11 for England).

One thing I wouldn't dispute is that English cricket journalists (or sports writers generally) write a lot of drivel.

 

[the big bambino]

I thought Willis had a great action.

 

[peterhrt]

Trueman was 26: he was born in 1931 and played all 5 Tests against WI in 1957 and NZ in 1958; England didn't tour in 1957-8, and he played in the 1958-9 Ashes (except for missing the first two games with lumbago). Plus replacing him with Tyson in the 1954-5 Ashes was hardly an error.

Laker's average at the start of the 1955 season was 29, compared to Wardle's 22 and Tattersall's 26 (and Appleyard's 16). He got picked eventually that season in the Oval Test, did well, was retained for the 1956 series and the rest is history.

I thought Gifford was picked ahead of Underwood a few times because he was thought to be the better bowler on a dry wicket, rather than due to his batting (he nearly always batted at 10 or 11 for England).

One thing I wouldn't dispute is that English cricket journalists (or sports writers generally) write a lot of drivel.

Trueman himself was not convinced he was an automatic pick in Australia in 1958-59, fearing captain May favoured Surrey teammate Loader.

He had been overlooked in Australia four years earlier in favour of Loader and Tyson, despite taking more first-class wickets than either in 1954. This had something to do with his alleged behaviour in the West Indies the previous winter, when he had a tour payment withdrawn (he always said he was stitched up).

Yes Laker had plenty of competition.

Underwood was dropped in 1971 after taking 0 for 102 in the first innings of the first Test against Pakistan on a featherbed. Gifford was a grittier cricketer, more skipper Illingworth's type. A year later he volunteered to face Lillee in the gloom as nightwatchman. He was a tail-ender with a decent defence. In a pedestrian fielding side, Gifford was also a much better fielder than Underwood, happy to get in close at short-leg with plenty of chat.

It is true that in certain quarters Underwood was regarded as a wet-wicket/bad-wicket specialist. They were the same people who rated Bedi higher.

The point wasn't so much whether the likes of Trueman, Laker and Underwood should have been selected more often. It was rather that views about them at the time were more ambiguous than their subsequent reputations might suggest.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes Laker had plenty of competition.

Doesn't excuse Jim McConnon (a far inferior bowler) being picked over him in 54/55. There was a rumour it was because Hutton bore a grudge against Laker for refusing Hutton's overtures to return to Yorkshire. Loader over Trueman was also not very defensible as Trueman was the better bowler, batsman and fielder.

Also in 50/51 Laker was left out for Bob Berry, who was at least a left-armer but not even first choice for his county and was never seriously considered for the tests. At least injury replacement Tattersall had taken more wickets than Laker in 1950 (he was leading wicket taker that year).

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's still Barnes, and if dinosaurs dont count then probably Trueman. Anderson's put himself firmly in the conversation with Trueman though, and at this stage it wouldn't be crazy to pick him. The longevity and seemingly constant improvement in overseas conditions makes it such a unique career. Bit of a prick, but props to him.

 

[peterhrt]

Doesn't excuse Jim McConnon (a far inferior bowler) being picked over him in 54/55. There was a rumour it was because Hutton bore a grudge against Laker for refusing Hutton's overtures to return to Yorkshire. Loader over Trueman was also not very defensible as Trueman was the better bowler, batsman and fielder.

Also in 50/51 Laker was left out for Bob Berry, who was at least a left-armer but not even first choice for his county and was never seriously considered for the tests. At least injury replacement Tattersall had taken more wickets than Laker in 1950 (he was leading wicket taker that year).

You are right about Hutton's influence. His tour report from the previous winter in West Indies stated that Laker had an "inferiority complex" and a "tendency to be afraid of certain batsmen". The conclusion was that Laker "should be considered in committee before future selection for overseas tours."

The report didn't do Trueman any favours either: "Trueman gave me much concern and until a big improvement is made in his general conduct and cricket manners I do not think he is suitable for MCC Tours..."

It wasn't only behaviour issues with Trueman either. Hutton later wrote: "Conditions in Australia [covered pitches for the first time] were expected to be almost identical to those in the West Indies and the Selection Committee considered Trueman and Lock hardly likely to improve on these figures [Trueman average 46, Lock 51]."

Unsurprisingly Trueman always felt the axe was hanging over him and was even dropped at his peak in 1961, after taking the blame for creating the footmarks Benaud bowled into to give Australia a remarkable victory. Benaud later revealed that the footmarks had in fact been made by Dexter.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Bump.

Came up in the overrated thread re Jimmy

 

[shortpitched713]

You'd have to disqualify Syd Barnes and his whole era entirely, to pick anyone else. Because if you're doing anything like comparing results, it's a bit laughable to compare any other English bowler to him. He's the best by far, and arguably the GOAT bowler for any Test nation, all time.

 

[Coronis]

You are right about Hutton's influence. His tour report from the previous winter in West Indies stated that Laker had an "inferiority complex" and a "tendency to be afraid of certain batsmen". The conclusion was that Laker "should be considered in committee before future selection for overseas tours."

The report didn't do Trueman any favours either: "Trueman gave me much concern and until a big improvement is made in his general conduct and cricket manners I do not think he is suitable for MCC Tours..."

It wasn't only behaviour issues with Trueman either. Hutton later wrote: "Conditions in Australia [covered pitches for the first time] were expected to be almost identical to those in the West Indies and the Selection Committee considered Trueman and Lock hardly likely to improve on these figures [Trueman average 46, Lock 51]."

Unsurprisingly Trueman always felt the axe was hanging over him and was even dropped at his peak in 1961, after taking the blame for creating the footmarks Benaud bowled into to give Australia a remarkable victory. Benaud later revealed that the footmarks had in fact been made by Dexter.

Cricket players are bitches and morons. Its really depressing how much time many talented players have lost due to personal relationships with their captains or certain people in charge.

 

[Burgey]

I still think it’s Underwood and will probably take some substantial convincing otherwise tbh

I sort of don’t factor Barnes into it given it’s still not 100% clear what he bowled, other than that he bowled it pre WW1 on a lot of glue pots. Still an all timer obviously

 

[Ashes81]

I think Fred Trueman has as strong a case as anyone.

He was the first bowler to take 300 test wkts, finished with 307 at 21.57 at a strike rate of 49.4. He took a 5 wkt haul 17 times in 67 tests.

His stats stack up alongside any pace bowler you care to mention from any country and in truth is probably the only English seamer you can say that about.

But you also need look at his FC record as obviously he played a load of county cricket, which at the time was at a very high standard.

Fred took 2,304 wkts at 18.29 - that's some record.

Fred was a 'typical' Yorkshire man, bombastic, opinionated and he was obviously a tricky character to manage but he was one hell of a bowler.

 

[Coronis]

I think Fred Trueman has as strong a case as anyone.

He was the first bowler to take 300 test wkts, finished with 307 at 21.57 at a strike rate of 49.4. He took a 5 wkt haul 17 times in 67 tests.

His stats stack up alongside any pace bowler you care to mention from any country and in truth is probably the only English seamer you can say that about.

But you also need look at his FC record as obviously he played a load of county cricket, which at the time was at a very high standard.

Fred took 2,304 wkts at 18.29 - that's some record.

Fred was a 'typical' Yorkshire man, bombastic, opinionated and he was obviously a tricky character to manage but he was one hell of a bowler.

The only drawback would be his large very large percentage of home tests (I believe he was left out of more than one tour for reasons other than form though), but he generally did well enough in his few tours, aside from his first to the Windies (peak Walcott and Weekes at home)

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

As good as Trueman was,he doesn’t have any reason at all to get ahead of Barnes,apart from probably bit better adjusted Strike rate.

 

[Ashes81]

As good as Trueman was,he doesn’t have any reason at all to get ahead of Barnes,apart from probably bit better adjusted Strike rate.

Barnes has an outstanding record but it's tough me to say he's our best ever bowler when he only played 27 tests and only against 2 other countries.

 

[Cozico]

You are right about Hutton's influence. His tour report from the previous winter in West Indies stated that Laker had an "inferiority complex" and a "tendency to be afraid of certain batsmen". The conclusion was that Laker "should be considered in committee before future selection for overseas tours."

The report didn't do Trueman any favours either: "Trueman gave me much concern and until a big improvement is made in his general conduct and cricket manners I do not think he is suitable for MCC Tours..."

It wasn't only behaviour issues with Trueman either. Hutton later wrote: "Conditions in Australia [covered pitches for the first time] were expected to be almost identical to those in the West Indies and the Selection Committee considered Trueman and Lock hardly likely to improve on these figures [Trueman average 46, Lock 51]."

Unsurprisingly Trueman always felt the axe was hanging over him and was even dropped at his peak in 1961, after taking the blame for creating the footmarks Benaud bowled into to give Australia a remarkable victory. Benaud later revealed that the footmarks had in fact been made by Dexter.

That was indeed a controversial tour. Apparently local whites in the Caribbean told Hutton not to associate with black West Indies players and Hutton complied and told his team to do likewise, but I guess that won’t be in the tour report.

 

[Anil]

has to be either trueman or barnes...

 

[Coronis]

That was indeed a controversial tour. Apparently local whites in the Caribbean told Hutton not to associate with black West Indies players and Hutton complied and told his team to do likewise, but I guess that won’t be in the tour report.

Amongst other things.

The second-most controversial tour in history

England's tour of West Indies in 1953-54 had it all - diplomatic incidents, riots, a chucking row, and a gripping Test series

www.espncricinfo.com