Fred Trueman vs Joel Garner

[capt_Luffy]

Spofforth. Lohmann. Barnes. Hobbs. Sutcliffe.

Just impossible to know how they would do against modern attacks and can’t be compared.

If Sutcliffe is there, why not Hammond??

 

[DrWolverine]

The same thing is true for Barnes, innit?

One has to give credit to Barnes for being the best bowler in the first 50 years of Test cricket thought I wouldn’t argue if someone says it’s Spofforth or Lohmann

 

[Johan]

Hey 30s India played a Grand total of 2 series, one away. Merchant, Nayudu, Amar Singh, Nissar; it was an alright team for the era. Had England quite by the collar in the first match they played as well.

Yeah, looks like it's the modern batters who get their averages inflated by 1-2 point because of minnow bashing mostly, 5 points for Sangakkara tho

 

[sayon basak]

This video has some footage of Barnes bowling leg breaks at the age of 80.

 

[sayon basak]

One has to give credit to Barnes for being the best bowler in the first 50 years of Test cricket thought I wouldn’t argue if someone says it’s Spofforth or Lohmann

Nobody would say that. It's not close.

 

[DrWolverine]

India was minnows till the 1960s

 

[capt_Luffy]

India was minnows till the 1960s

In the 30s they certainly weren't. Arguably had the best pair of pacers in the World.

 

[sayon basak]

This video has some footage of Barnes bowling leg breaks at the age of 80.

Had a good action even at the age of 80.

 

[Johan]

Yeah Luffy is right, Amar Singh and Nissar are good bowlers.

 

[DrWolverine]

In the 30s they certainly weren't. Arguably had the best pair of pacers in the World.

Andy Flower had an average of 50+ but that doesn’t Zimbabwe were not minnows

 

[Johan]

Lala amaranth wasn't a horrible bowler either

 

[sayon basak]

Andy Flower had an average of 50+ but that doesn’t Zimbabwe were not minnows

Zimbabwe for a short time was pretty good tbh.

 

[Johan]

I don't think anyone considers 90s Zimbabwe minnows, certainly a weak team but Streak/Flower made it better, 00 Zimbabwe is minnow though

 

[DrWolverine]

Maybe I should have been more clear

What is the difference between weak & minnows?

 

[sayon basak]

This video has some footage of Barnes bowling leg breaks at the age of 80.

@capt_Luffy should I rate Barnes even higher? Isn't being able to bowl leg breaks with such action at the age of 80 too good?

 

[sayon basak]

Maybe I should have been more clear

What is the difference between weak & minnows?

Weak= you are comparatively weaker than other teams, but not below test standard and could challenge them at time.

Minnow= you are basically below test standard.

This definition should do.

 

[kyear2]

You will be wrong to that, as SA won the previous two home series vs England. While they were a weak team battingwise, they as well were far from minnows. And his Australia numbers are Great as well, since he played in his fair share of high scorers there. And like, he played his fair share with Hobbs. He isn't ancient like Grace.

The west indies aren't below minnow level, but their batting surely is. Same scenario.

He wasn't ancient as Grace, but that era where we can't even swear to what he bowled, and only 2 teams to begin with and the Australia numbers don't even jump off the screen.

I can't compare him to modern guys.

Even when Hadlee had SL or Murali Bang and Zim, it was severely offset by other competition. There's none of that here.

He's Ambrose if he only got to face Australia and Bang.

Just my opinion though, and again why I just rate him with players from that era.

 

[Johan]

Maybe I should have been more clear

What is the difference between weak & minnows?

Weak = current Pakistan

Minnow = 2000s Bangladesh

 

[sayon basak]

The west indies aren't below minnow level, but their batting surely is. Same scenario.

He wasn't ancient as Grace, but that era where we can't even swear to what he bowled, and only 2 teams to begin with and the Australia numbers don't even jump off the screen.

I can't compare him to modern guys.

Even when Hadlee had SL or Murali Bang and Zim, it was severely offset by other competition. There's none of that here.

He's Ambrose if he only got to face Australia and Bang.

Just my opinion though, and again why I just rate him with players from that era.

Do you rate Hobbs alongside Modern day greats?

If you do, HOW?

 

[capt_Luffy]

The west indies aren't below minnow level, but their batting surely is. Same scenario.

He wasn't ancient as Grace, but that era where we can't even swear to what he bowled, and only 2 teams to begin with and the Australia numbers don't even jump off the screen.

I can't compare him to modern guys.

Even when Hadlee had SL or Murali Bang and Zim, it was severely offset by other competition. There's none of that here.

He's Ambrose if he only got to face Australia and Bang.

Just my opinion though, and again why I just rate him with players from that era.

SA batting wasn't minnow as well. Herbie Taylor, Aubrey Faulkner, Dave Nourse, Gordon White, it was a respectable line-up.