Johan
International Vice-Captain
well then don't, because everyone from an era you rate aka 30s agree that pre war Cricket wasn't inferior and Hobbs was just that guy.
-
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.
Fred Trueman vs Joel Garner
- Thread starter sayon basak
- Start date
sayon basak
International Captain
Pretty much sums it up.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
We are allowed to change opinion.
Johan
International Vice-Captain
If it makes sense sure
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Anyways we don't need to argue further take care
sayon basak
International Captain
Johan
International Vice-Captain
fair enough
Coronis
International Coach
True man, Garner is better.
sayon basak
International Captain
For his batting.
kyear2
International Coach
Why are we catching strays?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Actually could argue the last ATG capable cricketer was Bishop in 88 and then Lara.
kyear2
International Coach
That's what you think it is?
Good God be serious, I simply want to be able to at least see some evidence of modern technique, or in Barnes case what the **** he bowled.
Pre WWI is a bridge too far for me, and a hard no. I also prefer post '35 because of the LBW rule, and it's a good a place to start as any. And again, I also want to be able to at least watch some of these guys. But none of this stops me from rating Hammond, Bradman, O'Reilly, Hutton etc.
I have nothing against players of any country and have been accused of being biased for players of various countries.
I'm now a fan of styles, certain types of players and how guys play.
I'm also not a fan of some.
Not a secret I'm not a fan of Sutcliffe. If you're going to be batting in a flat era, at least be assertive with it.
And one other player who I find to be repugnant as a person and has a vastly misrepresented record.
But that's basically it.
And I admire and respect you as a poster, but just because I don't want to go back as far as you do, especially for Grace and Barnes isn't a reason to question motives based on nationality.
Not to mention that I literally rate Hobbs as the 4th greatest cricketer of all time.
Last edited:
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Getting back to the Trueman v Garner title, the poll is running contrary to the results of the 2022 poll (Trueman 8th and Garner 11th) though the 2024 poll, which included spinners and Barnes, was closer (Trueman 14th, Garner 15th). Taking away the spinners and Barnes we would have Trueman 10th and Garner 11th.
Perhaps the difference (between this poll and the other two) is that there are a number of members who ignore the entire Player Comparison thread. At times, I can't blame them - especially when we have particularly ridiculous comparisons (unlike this quite valid one).
Perhaps the difference (between this poll and the other two) is that there are a number of members who ignore the entire Player Comparison thread. At times, I can't blame them - especially when we have particularly ridiculous comparisons (unlike this quite valid one).
Coronis
International Coach
Hutton played the majority of his career in the 30’s and 40’s and was equally not as assertive.
kyear2
International Coach
As I said, I've been accused of being biased of certain players and he's certainly one of them.
Hutton also blossomed in the 50's when the pitches were jacked up to 11 and vs Lindwall and Miller, Ramadhin and Valentine and travelled much more than the others did.
Greatest-ever cricketer opinions varied around the world, especially in the pre-television age. With Barnes it was the Australians who first rated him. During the 1907-08 series they were certain not only that he was world's best bowler, but also that he was the greatest England had ever sent there. These included John Jackson from the 1860s, Alfred Shaw, Lohmann, Richardson and Rhodes. In 1908 the English reckoned Vogler was current number one.
By 1912 Barnes had enjoyed an even better tour of Australia and dominated the Triangular Tournament during a wet English summer. He then demolished the South Africans on their own matting wickets. By 1914, at the age of 41, he was universally acknowledged in all three countries as the greatest-ever bowler. This accolade lasted until the 1930s in Australia when O'Reilly came along, and a lot longer in England and South Africa. Lillee may have dethroned him in England, or Warne. Opinion in South Africa was harder to gauge. During isolation van der Bijl might have featured in discussions about the best-ever bowling within the country.
Barnes never visited New Zealand, the Caribbean or the sub-continent. Many folk there preferred to see things for themselves rather than take too much notice of what was written on the other side of the world. New Zealanders had seen Spofforth wreak havoc in their country in 1878 and may have placed him first for a long time. Until shortly before the Second World War the most highly rated New Zealand bowler had been medium-pacer Charlie Frith who played just 14 first-class matches between 1877 and 1890, taking 63 wickets at 9 runs apiece.
Several English teams visited West Indies over the years but the locals rated their own fast bowlers highest: first Clifford Goodman of Barbados then Learie Constantine. The Indians had Pavri and Baloo, and the Ceylonese Tommy Kelaart, before Maurice Tate toured India and Ceylon with MCC in 1926-27 and captured 116 wickets, setting a high standard to follow. Barnes disliked being compared with Tate, but may have lost out to him reputation-wise in this part of the world.