PlayerComparisons
International Debutant
Two ATGs
-
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.
Harold Larwood vs Vernon Philander
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
capt_Luffy
International Regular
capt_Luffy
International Regular
Not really a proper answer.... But anyways, found it hysterical that you think newer players are always better than older players with similar records; but Larwood is still better than Philander, despite having much worse longevity, a much higher average and tbh; one really good series.
contribution to cricket history
capt_Luffy
International Regular
Apparently doesn't work for the first non English cricket superstar.....
That would be Ranji, and no I don’t consider either as they were premodern insofar as they came from an era where test cricket had not established itself as the superior form of the game. That changed by Larwoods t
capt_Luffy
International Regular
Ranji played for England, i.e., English. And Trumper, you call it Test, FC whatever; was clearly the best batsman of a generation. Larwood won't make a Top 100 bowler's list without considering his FC record. He averages 35 outside of Bodyline, which ofcourse, was tailor made for him.
Last edited:
ranji was better than trumper and also, who cares. It’s like saying homo habilis was better the Neanderthal man
capt_Luffy
International Regular
Neanderthal man was better for the record.
6% of Larwood's first-class appearances were in Tests. 78% of Kohli's have been.
In Larwood's day and long after, many so-called Test teams were weaker than the better first-class sides. A number of batsmen developed mysterious ailments when due to play against Larwood in the county championship. They would far rather have faced another country's international bowling.
Bradman's Invincibles of 1948 were so named because they were the first touring team to go through an English first-class season unbeaten. It was a specific goal of Bradman's and had nothing to do with Test cricket.
As late as the 1980s it was believed in New Zealand that Hadlee was more committed to Nottinghamshire than his country. They certainly paid him more.
Reputations of English players in particular, but others as well, were established at least partly by what they did in first-class cricket. Test-only analysis for red ball cricket works fine for the past thirty years or so. Before that it doesn't tell the whole story.
In Larwood's day and long after, many so-called Test teams were weaker than the better first-class sides. A number of batsmen developed mysterious ailments when due to play against Larwood in the county championship. They would far rather have faced another country's international bowling.
Bradman's Invincibles of 1948 were so named because they were the first touring team to go through an English first-class season unbeaten. It was a specific goal of Bradman's and had nothing to do with Test cricket.
As late as the 1980s it was believed in New Zealand that Hadlee was more committed to Nottinghamshire than his country. They certainly paid him more.
Reputations of English players in particular, but others as well, were established at least partly by what they did in first-class cricket. Test-only analysis for red ball cricket works fine for the past thirty years or so. Before that it doesn't tell the whole story.
This would be an interesting comparison.
capt_Luffy
International Regular
Do you know whether there are any question marks over Ranji's FC average of 56; as it seems to good to be true for his era. 12 runs over Trumper and 6 even more than Hobbs himself; sounds a bit....
Ranji and Fry (average 50) played for Sussex. Their home ground at Hove was the best batting pitch in the country.
But that doesn't explain everything. Ranji was a great batsman who excelled in various conditions and was an outstanding player of fast bowling. Fry wasn't in the same class. The Australians had his number for some time. But he knew how to cash in.
Trumper and Hobbs sometimes gave their wickets away. Fry didn't. Ranji also had the appetite for big scores. 19% of his hundreds were doubles. With Hobbs it was only 8%.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Clearly my ass. Hill has almost identical stats in both tests and FC and was better in England and SA
capt_Luffy
International Regular
Oh please..... For the record Mohammad Yousuf and Ricky Ponting have identical stats. Hill never reached the highs of Trumper 1902; neither he had health issues like Vic.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
He had health issues after his test career lol
And that just means he never had the lows Trumper did either.
capt_Luffy
International Regular
Wrong. He pretty much suffered with bad health throughout his career post 1902.