Because bowling fast was so easy in the 1930s? Or because Larwood didn't bowl express pace? Or because Larwood was so very expensive? Or because he's not a fast bowling legend?insulting to see a bowler from 1930s who played 17 test matches being rated above micheal holding - a fast bowling legend, revolutionary bowler - bowled express pace but took wickets for little runs.
This thread is a farce...
If Holding is as good as you say that he is (and I agree that he is), he will get his chance again in round 3.insulting to see a bowler from 1930s who played 17 test matches being rated above micheal holding - a fast bowling legend, revolutionary bowler - bowled express pace but took wickets for little runs.
This thread is a farce...
Kool kool, no problem... I think I was thinking of a different bowler who I saw being rated above holding one early morning, I left the thread upset and didn't return. I checked larwood stats that morning too and thought the number of test matches he played should have made him unqualified for this thread. But I compared holding to him by mistake, ill have to check again and see who holding is clearly better than in his group.Because bowling fast was so easy in the 1930s? Or because Larwood didn't bowl express pace? Or because Larwood was so very expensive? Or because he's not a fast bowling legend?
Anyhow ftr Larwood hasn't been rated above Michael Holding, they were in different pools.
SF Barnes?Kool kool, no problem... I think I was thinking of a different bowler who I saw being rated above holding one early morning, I left the thread upset and didn't return. I checked larwood stats that morning too and thought the number of test matches he played should have made him unqualified for this thread. But I compared holding to him by mistake, ill have to check again and see who holding is clearly better than in his group.
I would rank Steyn behind Waqar and Lindwall for sure.Well, relative to the others, yes.
I'd probably rank Steyn 2nd in it and definitely Holding 2nd in it.
At this stage in his career, so would I. I rate Lindwall very highly, given his (relatively) poor average.I would rank Steyn behind Waqar and Lindwall for sure.
you left upset? Some perspective and practice at dealing with contrary opinions sorely needed here!Kool kool, no problem... I think I was thinking of a different bowler who I saw being rated above holding one early morning, I left the thread upset and didn't return. I checked larwood stats that morning too and thought the number of test matches he played should have made him unqualified for this thread. But I compared holding to him by mistake, ill have to check again and see who holding is clearly better than in his group.
As aboveKhan
Garner
Davidson
Statham
Ambrose
Marshall
Pollock
Spofforth
This.Khan
Garner
Davidson
Statham
Marshall
Ambrose
Pollock
Spofforth