Jim Laker vs Clarrie Grimmett

[kyear2]

Clarence Victor Grimmett easily. Sad how his career was ended after arguably the best series performance of all time.

Bradman saw plenty of Warne and was as big of admirer of Warne as it gets. But Bradman seems pretty clear of his view on Grimmett being a superior bowler. Speaks volume of Grimmett ability really.

O’Reilly seems to be pretty clear on Grimmett being the best bowler to ever breath. No doubt on Tiger being biased but I genuinely don’t believe Tiger’s statement is that much far from truth really.

People always prefer players they played with, or from their era. It's really not that hard to understand.
Modern professional players for the large majority had greater competition, more varied conditions and have improved from the pre war era of cricket.

 

[the big bambino]

People always prefer players they played with, or from their era. It's really not that hard to understand.
Modern professional players for the large majority had greater competition, more varied conditions and have improved from the pre war era of cricket.

Fans also have their biases too. The most amazing being the belief their favourite era is resilient to the passage of time. So for example some find the butt hurt to much to accept that teams from the 1980s would be destroyed by modern sides.

 

[Coronis]

Clarence Victor Grimmett easily. Sad how his career was ended after arguably the best series performance of all time.

Bradman saw plenty of Warne and was as big of admirer of Warne as it gets. But Bradman seems pretty clear of his view on Grimmett being a superior bowler. Speaks volume of Grimmett ability really.

O’Reilly seems to be pretty clear on Grimmett being the best bowler to ever breath. No doubt on Tiger being biased but I genuinely don’t believe Tiger’s statement is that much far from truth really.

lol Bradman dropped him for ****ing Frank Ward for stupid personal beef.

Bradman was also heard repeatedly mentioning that Grimmett had forgotten how to bowl leg breaks because so many of his deliveries were flippers.

When Bradman came in to bat, Grimmett had the ball. A few flippers and a couple of overs later, came the ball which The Argus reported thus:

“He went forward to pull a ball with that not-so-straight-bat shot he uses so often, but the ball, cleverly flighted, dropped shorter than expected, and Bradman missed, the ball just disturbing the bails. Had the wickets been missed, Oldfield must surely have stumped him.”

Grimmett, normally a taciturn man who watched his words, could not resist a clearly audible comment to Richardson, “That’ll teach him I can still bowl a leg break.”



O’Reilly was biased on the subject, very much so. Naturally he preferred spinners and loved having Grimmett as his bowling partner to hold up one end allowing him to be extra aggressive at the other. Their styles complimented each other perfectly.

 

[Prince EWS]

lol Bradman dropped him for ****ing Frank Ward for stupid personal beef.

Bradman was also heard repeatedly mentioning that Grimmett had forgotten how to bowl leg breaks because so many of his deliveries were flippers.

When Bradman came in to bat, Grimmett had the ball. A few flippers and a couple of overs later, came the ball which The Argus reported thus:

“He went forward to pull a ball with that not-so-straight-bat shot he uses so often, but the ball, cleverly flighted, dropped shorter than expected, and Bradman missed, the ball just disturbing the bails. Had the wickets been missed, Oldfield must surely have stumped him.”

Grimmett, normally a taciturn man who watched his words, could not resist a clearly audible comment to Richardson, “That’ll teach him I can still bowl a leg break.”



O’Reilly was biased on the subject, very much so. Naturally he preferred spinners and loved having Grimmett as his bowling partner to hold up one end allowing him to be extra aggressive at the other. Their styles complimented each other perfectly.

Dropping shorter than expected but still going on to hit the stumps actually sounds exactly like a flipper to me tbf.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

lol Bradman dropped him for ****ing Frank Ward for stupid personal beef.

Bradman was also heard repeatedly mentioning that Grimmett had forgotten how to bowl leg breaks because so many of his deliveries were flippers.

When Bradman came in to bat, Grimmett had the ball. A few flippers and a couple of overs later, came the ball which The Argus reported thus:

“He went forward to pull a ball with that not-so-straight-bat shot he uses so often, but the ball, cleverly flighted, dropped shorter than expected, and Bradman missed, the ball just disturbing the bails. Had the wickets been missed, Oldfield must surely have stumped him.”

Grimmett, normally a taciturn man who watched his words, could not resist a clearly audible comment to Richardson, “That’ll teach him I can still bowl a leg break.”

Indeed. It was all of Bradman’s ego rather than anything else really. But Grimmett did state few statements which anyone anything as good as Bradman certainly wouldn’t have liked. But dropping Grimmett for f*****g Ward was total disrespectful and stupid.

Bradman definitely liked Warne more than Grimmett. Not like he didn’t include his other favorite Sachin in his ATG Xi. If Bradman felt Warne was a better bowler than Grimmett, Bradman would definitely have included Warne instead of Grimmett as he no way was dropping O’Reilly.

Bill O’Reilly reckoned Grimmett told him his basic advice to bowlers was "pin em down, size em up, get em out"

In my list though, I would go,
O’Reilly > Warne > Grimmett

 

[kyear2]

Fans also have their biases too. The most amazing being the belief their favourite era is resilient to the passage of time. So for example some find the butt hurt to much to accept that teams from the 1980s would be destroyed by modern sides.

But if teams from the '80s would be destroyed, what would happen to teams from the '30s?

 

[Coronis]

But if teams from the '80s would be destroyed, what would happen to teams from the '30s?

Bradman would live up to his nickname of Atlas

 

[the big bambino]

But if teams from the '80s would be destroyed, what would happen to teams from the '30s?

Who cares ... apart from you?

 

[Line and Length]

Lakers fame is based on the 56 series when he was given pitches cricket had not seen since the primitive paddocks of the 1880s. O’Reilly said he could’ve taken 12 wickets without removing his coat. His efforts in Australia opportunistic and inferior to Tayfield anyway. A great player yes, but one who was boosted by fortunate circumstances moreso than most others.

This is an oft repeated effort to downplay Laker's performances. Perhaps you should be reminded that in that famous 4th Test when Laker took 19-90. There were other spinners operating too. Tony Lock finished with 1-106, Richie Benaud 2-123 and Ian Johnson 4-151.
Looking at the 5 Test series, Lakers 46 wickets @ 9.61 is on a different level to Lock (15 @ 22.47), Benaud (8 @ 41.25) and Johnson (6 @ 50.5).
If the pitches were 'the primitive paddocks' you say, then why couldn't other spinners reap the benefits?

 

[the big bambino]

This is an oft repeated effort to downplay Laker's performances. Perhaps you should be reminded that in that famous 4th Test when Laker took 19-90. There were other spinners operating too. Tony Lock finished with 1-106, Richie Benaud 2-123 and Ian Johnson 4-151.
Looking at the 5 Test series, Lakers 46 wickets @ 9.61 is on a different level to Lock (15 @ 22.47), Benaud (8 @ 41.25) and Johnson (6 @ 50.5).
If the pitches were 'the primitive paddocks' you say, then why couldn't other spinners reap the benefits?

No one is downplaying Laker. But you are too much god polishing him to admit practically everyone who played in the match and those former test players who watched it knew it was made for him. Fingleton, O'Reilly and Harvey being particularly scathing.

 

[Line and Length]

No one is downplaying Laker. But you are too much god polishing him to admit practically everyone who played in the match and those former test players who watched it knew it was made for him. Fingleton, O'Reilly and Harvey being particularly scathing.

I repeat - Why couldn't other spinners reap the benefits?

Colin McDonald didn't complain. He made 32 and 89 in team scores of 84 and 205. Harvey just couldn't handle Laker and made a pair. Fingleton and O'Reilly were journalists writing for the Australian media.

 

[the big bambino]

I repeat - Why couldn't other spinners reap the benefits?

Colin McDonald didn't complain. He made 32 and 89 in team scores of 84 and 205. Harvey just couldn't handle Laker and made a pair. Fingleton and O'Reilly were journalists writing for the Australian media.

It's incredible that you are presenting the pitch as just fine; nothing wrong with it. You are ignoring the controversy surrounding the pitches that summer so as not to upset your fanboying. A consequence of which is to dismiss Fingleton and O'Reilly as "just journos" to give yourself an excuse to disregard their contrary opinions without actually addressing them.

Look at their avarages man - Laker averaged 9 that summer. Well under his ave v Aus. Lock was penetrative against a good opponent for perhaps the only time in his life. Yes I'm sure they were all shirtfronts. I also find the repetition of your question as a sad admission of ignorance. I mean why have O'Keefe, Lyon and even Krezja taken bags in India when Warne struggled? Must be that Warne can't bowl right?

Or just maybe if a pitch suits one type of bowler it won't necessarily suit all in the category.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Warne can't bowl in India tbh

 

[kyear2]

Who cares ... apart from you?

You literally are the one who brought it up. Literally.
Can't have it both ways.

 

[Line and Length]

It's incredible that you are presenting the pitch as just fine; nothing wrong with it. You are ignoring the controversy surrounding the pitches that summer so as not to upset your fanboying. A consequence of which is to dismiss Fingleton and O'Reilly as "just journos" to give yourself an excuse to disregard their contrary opinions without actually addressing them.

Look at their avarages man - Laker averaged 9 that summer. Well under his ave v Aus. Lock was penetrative against a good opponent for perhaps the only time in his life. Yes I'm sure they were all shirtfronts. I also find the repetition of your question as a sad admission of ignorance. I mean why have O'Keefe, Lyon and even Krezja taken bags in India when Warne struggled? Must be that Warne can't bowl right?

Or just maybe if a pitch suits one type of bowler it won't necessarily suit all in the category.

I never said the pitch (or pitches) was fine. I'm simply pointing out that Laker had a purple patch that no other spinners could match - despite having spin friendly conditions.
Talking of ignorance, I never knew O'Keefe, Lyon and even Krezja bowled at the same time on the same pitches as Warne.
I find your personal attack shows a total lack of understanding of my question. A spin friendly pitch is a spin friendly pitch regardless of type of spin bowler. That one spinner stood out so much more than others playing is the point I'm making. A point you find hard to accept.

 

[the big bambino]

You literally are the one who brought it up. Literally.
Can't have it both ways.

What am I having both ways?

 

[the big bambino]

I never said the pitch (or pitches) was fine. I'm simply pointing out that Laker had a purple patch that no other spinners could match - despite having spin friendly conditions.
Talking of ignorance, I never knew O'Keefe, Lyon and even Krezja bowled at the same time on the same pitches as Warne.
I find your personal attack shows a total lack of understanding of my question. A spin friendly pitch is a spin friendly pitch regardless of type of spin bowler. That one spinner stood out so much more than others playing is the point I'm making. A point you find hard to accept.

I was hoping you would be above that but it seems you aren't. And the second highlight is simply a lie. Clearly Indian pitches have been difficult for leg spinners and better for faster tweakers and off spinners. Just as Australian pitches were once and for many decades favorable for leggies but not so for off spinners. But you know that and just because it doesn't suit you either ignore the point or dissemble. Very disappointing.

 

[Line and Length]

So my opinion becomes a lie. That is a disappointing way to debate.

 

[Line and Length]

@the big bambino Despite the fact that you call my original post 'god polishing' and subsequent posts accusing me of 'ignorance' and calling my stated opinion a 'lie', I'll refine my original question to suit your claim that spin friendly pitches don't suit all styles of spin.

Conceding that the pitches were designed to suit Laker, can you explain how, in 5 Tests, one right arm offie (Laker) took 46 wickets @ 9.61 while another right arm offie (Ian Johnson) could manage only 6 wickets @ 50.5.

I still remember listening to the radio commentary and seeing newsreel footage of Laker's feats and while this may have coloured my views, his performances were still remarkable.

 

[ataraxia]

@the big bambino Despite the fact that you call my original post 'god polishing' and subsequent posts accusing me of 'ignorance' and calling my stated opinion a 'lie', I'll refine my original question to suit your claim that spin friendly pitches don't suit all styles of spin.

Conceding that the pitches were designed to suit Laker, can you explain how, in 5 Tests, one right arm offie (Laker) took 46 wickets @ 9.61 while another right arm offie (Ian Johnson) could manage only 6 wickets @ 50.5.

I still remember listening to the radio commentary and seeing newsreel footage of Laker's feats and while this may have coloured my views, his performances were still remarkable.

Weren't the pitches in 1958 designed to nullify the Aus spinners and help the Eng spinners greatly?

It's still a huge average difference, but worth bearing in mind.