-
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.
James Anderson vs Clarrie Grimmett
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
a massive zebra
International Captain
Those stats kind of prove my point that Grimmett was better in Ashes Tests but not significantly better. The only thing massively in Grimmett's favour is the number of 5fers and wickets per match. This is simply a product of him bowling 416 balls per Ashes test - a level of output simply impossible for a modern fast bowler. Grimmett's Ashes strike rate of 86 is actually mediocre and inferior to Anderson (albeit very different eras so the last point is not a strong one, but I never claimed Anderson was better in Ashes anyway).
sayon basak
International Debutant
The average bowling average in the matches that Grimmett played in was 32.72, and the average bowling average in the matches that Anderson played in is 32.93. Although the conditions were very different, the overall stats seem very similar (not considering the rise in economy and dip in strike rate)
Also a very similar WPM
Wondering if that would justify drawing a conclusion without bringing eras into consideration.
Also a very similar WPM
Wondering if that would justify drawing a conclusion without bringing eras into consideration.
the big bambino
International Captain
Is it really consistent to compare strike rates but not work rates? Cricket is played over time and the more overs you get in the more opportunities to bowl out your opposition. Grimmett bowled his overs in half the time pace men bowl theirs. In terms of SR measured in time there is little difference between the two, probably slightly in favour of Grimmett.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Need to account for Bradman.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Not just Don really. England had Hobbs, Hammond, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Compton in various combinations throughout that time. As a unit, English batting was somehow better.
Coronis
International Coach
Whilst Australia had the indiviual standouts (Bradman, O’Reilly) England overall had a better batting and bowling imo. If hypothetically Bradman never existed, that 30’s English team is probably one of the most dominant of all time, and wins all the series in the 30’s.
Bodyline might not ever happen, Larwood might not get blacklisted, making their attack even better through the remainder of the decade. Grimmett probably plays 2 more Ashes series and breaks 250 wickets.
Bodyline might not ever happen, Larwood might not get blacklisted, making their attack even better through the remainder of the decade. Grimmett probably plays 2 more Ashes series and breaks 250 wickets.
Last edited:
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
One is a middle range ATG, whilst the other is a lower range ATG who gets in through longevity.
Last edited:
a massive zebra
International Captain
Hutton and Compton's careers did not overlap with Grimmett. The both debuted after his last Test.
Last edited:
Coronis
International Coach
Thanks Obama
sayon basak
International Debutant
Still his point stands.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Patsy Hendren, Maurice Leyland, Douglas Jardine, Eddie Paynter, Frank Woolley, Phil Mead, Jack Russell Sr..... The overall English batting mid War was too strong.
sayon basak
International Debutant
Yeah...apart from Don they're batting lineup just wasn't better, McCabe or Ponsford are the ones among the few worth mentioning I guess.
Early in the period Macartney is definitely worth a mention. Went from being an all-rounder pre-WW1 to a very effective batsman after it. He only played some of the series in that half dozen year period after the war though. Ryder was good too but again didn't always play. Collins was solid. Bardsley was getting on a bit and definitely was better earlier in his career.
Woodfull was a good batsman in the middle portion of the period, though obviously not in the same class as the three great English openers. Brown was good and Fingleton solid during the letter period. Australia's main problem during the period was Kippax and Richardson not even coming vaguely close to reflecting their domestic levels in Tests.
In my opinion, Australia had the wood for the very early portion of the period, when their batting was still good and Hobbs had his injury then the appendicitis which nearly killed him. England took over and had somewhat better batting for a bit then considerably better batting for the brief period Hammond and Hobbs overlapped.
Around 1930 England lost Hobbs and Bradman got good, with the addition of McCabe also significant. Imo these factors led to parity again here, and then briefly supremacy for the 1934 Ashes when England had to have a relatively mediocre batsman captaining again post-Jardine and Sutcliffe was clearly in terminal decline. Woodfull and Ponsford swiftly retired though, and England probably had slight supremacy for the next couple of years, though im not sure. The English sides could seem a bit threadbare in the mid 30-s too. This obviously changed with the arrival of Hutton and Compton, plus the reinstatement, and unexpected success, of Paynter meant that England had clear supremacy again immediately pre WW2.
Overall I do think England had, on average a better batting line-up during the inter-war years but i don't think there's much in it. Kippax averaging the mid-high 40s he probably should've would be enough to make it parity imo, given how ridiculous Bradman was.