Fred Trueman vs Joel Garner

[DrWolverine]

He was way too exceptional in South Africa as well.

Be honest @capt_Luffy. SA were minnows back then and performances against them don’t mean much.

 

[Johan]

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

why is this team Minnow?

 

[DrWolverine]

Peer ratings and how they performed compared to contemporaries?

I am sure he was exceptional back then and it is not really his fault there was only 2 proper nations playing cricket.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Top 12:-
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Richard Hadlee
Sydney Barnes
Curtly Ambrose
Dale Steyn
Wasim Akram
Imran Khan
Dennis Lillee
Allan Donald
Fred Trueman
Joel Garner

Good? Did I forget someone?

Woakes.

 

[kyear2]

In ESPN profile he is classified as someone who bowled Right arm fast Medium and Right arm Medium. Wikipedia includes Right arm Leg spin.
Guess he really didn't need the Googly...

No one alive knows what he bowled, he and Grace are ranked with the rest of the players from said era.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Be honest @capt_Luffy. SA were minnows back then and performances against them don’t mean much.

49 wickets in 4 matches is Great against anyone. And they were weak, but not 2000s Bangladesh weak.

 

[kyear2]

with this logic Garner is higher than Imran and Steyn because they also have holes in their record while Garner doesn't

The only reason Garner is lowered because he wasn't the man, he benefitted from the man.

 

[sayon basak]

49 wickets in 4 matches is Great against anyone. And they were weak, but not 2000s Bangladesh weak.

(Am I a traitor if I agree?)

 

[Coronis]

It is not fair to compare him with modern day greats. It’s ridiculous to call Barnes the greatest bowler ever. He played one good team and in 2 countries.

Maybe Barnes could have been like the great Dennis Lillee who was extraordinary in England and Australia.

South Africa of Barnes’ time wasn’t that bad. They beat Australia in Australia once. They also won 2 of their home series against England. (obviously, they lost massively in the series Barnes did play in South Africa)

 

[kyear2]

Barnes was considered the greatest bowler to ever walk the Earth for like 100 years until Marshall took the title, and Barnes is still in the conversation, so I reckon he was quite great.

Really think O'Reilly had an argument to be better, so did possibly Lindwall and Lillee before Marshall. But short list.

 

[Johan]

Really think O'Reilly had an argument to be better, so did possibly Lindwall and Lillee before Marshall. But short list.

Problem with Lindwall is that his whole career and all his big serieses came in extremely low scoring games, even moreso than Barnes (Golden Era Aus was pretty alright for batting) and still his numbers don't even come close to Barnes

 

[kyear2]

I would also note Davidson deserves a mention with those others being discussed in this thread.

Agree.

 

[sayon basak]

Behold, the only bowler in the history of the game to have a WPM over 7.

 

[sayon basak]

Problem with Lindwall is that his whole career and all his big serieses came in extremely low scoring games, even moreso than Barnes (Golden Era Aus was pretty alright for batting) and still his numbers don't even come close to Barnes

Because Barnes was that good.

 

[DrWolverine]

I know it’s blasphemy to say this but sometimes I am not really sure about Jack Hobbs as well even though he was the best batsman before Bradman.

How can we even compare to a modern day great like Steven Smith who has proved himself in a professional era in multiple countries against better bowlers?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know it’s blasphemy to say this but sometimes I am not really sure about Jack Hobbs as well even though he was the best batsman before Bradman.

How can we even compare to a modern day great like Steven Smith who has proved himself in a professional era in multiple countries against better bowlers?

Hobbs played in stickies in England, mats in SA and glue pots in Australia. They were largely tougher conditions than whatever Smith faced anywhere ever.

 

[sayon basak]

I know it’s blasphemy to say this but sometimes I am not really sure about Jack Hobbs as well even though he was the best batsman before Bradman.

How can we even compare to a modern day great like Steven Smith who has proved himself in a professional era in multiple countries against better bowlers?

I am certain, if cricket exists after 100 more years, people will look back at Smith and say, "How do we rate this clown amongst the greatest batters?"

 

[capt_Luffy]

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

why is this team Minnow?

Tbf, SA batting was relatively weak. While Herbie Taylor, Aubrey Faulkner and Dave Nourse are nothing to sneeze at; their main strength was really the bowling, with Bert Vogler, Aubrey Faulkner and Reggie Schwarz forming the best bowling attack before Barnes and Foster.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

How can we even compare to a modern day great like Steven Smith who has proved himself in a professional era in multiple countries against better bowlers?

Can't compare skill vs skill, you compare "skill vs contemporaries" vs "skill vs contemporaries". Was Hobbs an even better player in his era compared to Smith in his?

(Hint: he was.)

 

[capt_Luffy]

I am certain, if cricket exists after 100 more years, people will look back at Smith and say, "How do we rate this clown amongst the greatest batters?"

"But he didn't score a single run against Brazil, Myanmar or Mozambique!! How can you call him one of the best?? He has a horrible record against Bangladesh as well!"