Harold Larwood VS Jacques Kallis

[Coronis]

Except Harbhajan didn't have to bowl to Bradman. Larwood's stats excluding bodyline are underwhelming but it is tough bowling to the best batsman ever.

Yeah I forgot Harbhajan didn’t bowl to many good batsmen in that series

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think if you’re trying to compare a bowler with Kallis he’d need to be in the conversation for greatest pace/spin bowler of all time to have a shot. (presuming they’re not an allrounder themselves)

I don't think it's necessarily a comparison between Kallis and Larwood have much merit; but you're punching down on him too much.

 

[a massive zebra]

He would’ve been 30 by the next Ashes tour, not exactly young for an express bowler, especially in that era.

He only played 5 tests inside that series, much smaller sample size, why can’t I use his stats outside of it as an argument?

His record isn’t clearly superior to the others - really its similar at best. Notable examples with clearly better records between the wars:

Bill Voce (bodyline partner) 97 @ 26.04, 41 @ 23.58 vs Australia
Bill Bowes 67 @ 21.58, 30 @ 24.70 vs Australia

Voce's overall record isn't directly comparable as he switched between pace and spin. In the bodyline series Voce bowled pace almost exclusively, but he was overshadowed by Larwood in this series.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah Maurice Tate was the only inter-war pacer with a significantly better Test record, but unlike Larwood he was far from rapid. Bill Bowes had a much better average, but he only played 14 Tests and again was far from Larwood's pace.

At the start of WWII, I think the common consensus was that Tate, Gregory, McDonald, Larwood and Amar Singh were the best pace bowlers of the inter-war period. Gregory, McDonald and Singh all have worse Test bowling records than Larwood.

Yeah, that's what I meant; Maurice Tate wasn't a proper pacer; he was a textbook medium. Also, I would rather think Jack Cowie and Manny Martindale were rated higher than Gregory as pure bowlers; as what I read Gregory was never considered as good as McDonald.

 

[a massive zebra]

Yeah, that's what I meant; Maurice Tate wasn't a proper pacer; he was a textbook medium. Also, I would rather think Jack Cowie and Manny Martindale were rated higher than Gregory as pure bowlers; as what I read Gregory was never considered as good as McDonald.

From what I've read, I don't think Cowie and Martindale were regarded as highly as Gregory as pure bowlers at the time. Some of this could be Anglo-Australian bias, but remember also that Cowie only played 3 Tests in the 1930s and none against Australia. Martindale only played 10 Tests, also never against Australia, and his first class record is no better than a stack of other pace bowlers from this era.

 

[Coronis]

Voce's overall record isn't directly comparable as he switched between pace and spin. In the bodyline series Voce bowled pace almost exclusively, but he was overshadowed by Larwood in this series.

He bowled spin before his test career started. I’ve seen no direct records indicating he bowled spin in test cricket, (the best I can see is he was more medium paced on the matting pitches vs SA in 30-31) and his best series (36-37 Ashes) was 100% where he bowled exclusively pace.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Since when did anyone claim Larwood to be the best fast bowler ever (except possibly aesthetically)?

I'm talking batting