Botham vs Snow - Who was a better bowler?

[smash84]

That's because there aren't any, sorry. Quick cut and paste job. You can understand each column though, right?

Can you just cut and paste the column headings too. Would make things much easier to read. I don't understand each column actually.

Would be good if you can reupload. Thanks

 

[archie mac]

Possibly, but not as memorable as his Ashes winning performance in 70/71 - was effectively a lone spearhead as well

I thought both series were fine efforts but would also just give it to the Ashes series. Simply as Snow never bowled England to a win in the WI series, hardly taking a wicket in the one match England won.

 

[Teja.]

I was thinking about it a few days ago - Is James Anderson now unanimously considered England's best quick since Willis?

 

[watson]

Botham began 28th July 1977 and rapidly increased his performance so that his ICC Rating peaked less than 3 years later on 15th Feb 1980 with 911 points. After that it was all down hill till he retired in 1992.

John Snow began 17th June 1965 and slowly increased his performance so that his ICC Rating peaked 6 years later on 21st January 1971 with 834 points. Snow retired in 1976.

Therefore, while Botham's peak rating was higher than Snow's (911 V 834) he was able to improve his performance for double amount of time (3 years V 6 years).

Botham was the better bowler, but Snow was the better bowler for longer - if that makes sense.

 

[fredfertang]

Yes, it was more memorable because it was the Ashes, but the West Indian batting lineup was much stronger than the Australians of 70/71 who were going through a period of transition.

That's a bit harsh - the Aussie bowling in 70/71 was pretty ordinary I grant you, but they had a very good batting line up

 

[fredfertang]

I was thinking about it a few days ago - Is James Anderson now unanimously considered England's best quick since Willis?

Nah - that's Steve Harmison, only at his peak, obviously

 

[GIMH]

I was thinking about it a few days ago - Is James Anderson now unanimously considered England's best quick since Willis?

Not unanimously because Freddie

 

[Furball]

I was thinking about it a few days ago - Is James Anderson now unanimously considered England's best quick since Willis?

He should be.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I was thinking about it a few days ago - Is James Anderson now unanimously considered England's best quick since Willis?

I would say so, Fraser before his injury was probably our best but it was such a short time it is hard to give it him.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Gough very underrated now days.

Probably because he's such a monumental tit, but he could bowl.

 

[Howe_zat]

Why don't you stop being trolling?

so angry he can't spake

 

[Goughy]

I was thinking about it a few days ago - Is James Anderson now unanimously considered England's best quick since Willis?

You could make the argument that he is though I wouldnt necessarily agree. He has had the longest career for what that is worth.

Fraser, Gough and Caddick all have strong cases hurt by the fact they played in England teams with weaker batting lineups and inconsistent selection policies. In the games they played in which they won, all three averaged under 20 as they had to blow away the opposition for England to win. Something Anderson hasnt had to do as he has had more runs to defend.

Personally, I would take a grumpy Caddick who was in the mood to destroy as the bowler with the highest ceiling.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Personally, I would take a grumpy Caddick who was in the mood to destroy as the bowler with the highest ceiling.

Easily, get an early wicket and he was a totally different animal.

For those who didn't see much of him he was like an on a roll Broad but better and had spells like that more often.

 

[Howe_zat]

For those who didn't see much of him he was like an on a roll Broad but better and had spells like that more often.

Their records are remarkably similar

	Matches	Inn	Balls	Runs	Wickets	BB	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	4w	5w	10wm
Broad  	74	134	15515	7894	264	7/44	11/121	29.90	3.05	58.7	8	12	2
Caddick	62	105	13558	6999	234	7/46	10/215	29.91	3.09	57.9	9	13	1

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, I reckon the answer to my question for me will be Broad in half a decade time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gough the best for me. If in doubt, go for the one with the ***iest action

 

[Teja.]

Just looked up the away records of all English quicks post-1985 as all of them generally do quite well at home. Knew Fraser was very good away but didn't know Gough was excellent as well.


Fraser - 87 @ 25.4
Gough - 105 @ 26.9

Caddick - 106 @ 29.7
Hoggard - 130 @ 30.2
Flintoff - 110 @ 30.6

Broad - 91 @ 34.8
Anderson - 130 @ 36.1
Harminson - 89 @ 37.1

 

[Howe_zat]

Just looked up the away records of all English quicks post-1985 as all of them generally do quite well at home. Knew Fraser was very good away but didn't know Gough was excellent as well.


Fraser - 87 @ 25.4
Gough - 105 @ 26.9

Caddick - 106 @ 29.7
Hoggard - 130 @ 30.2
Flintoff - 110 @ 30.6

Broad - 91 @ 34.8
Anderson - 130 @ 36.1
Harminson - 89 @ 37.1

Is this not a part of the general raising of batting averages post 2000? Especially considering the rise of flat tracks in Australia and India had a lot to do with it.

 

[Teja.]

Is this not a part of the general raising of batting averages post 2000? Especially considering the rise of flat tracks in Australia and India had a lot to do with it.

Primarily, it is but not by enough. Further, Hoggard and Flintoff actually bowled in the 00s which were worse for bowling than either decade and Australia had an absolutely dominant batting lineup. Flintoff doesn't have a great home record though iirc.

 

[GIMH]

He had to bat as well. Knock 15 off his average for that IMO. Easily the best