Harold Larwood vs James Anderson

[Coronis]

Welcome to another episode of everybody loves Godfrey.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

How quick was Larwood actually? Jack Fingelton described as twice as quick as anyone out there.

Larwood himself believed he never bowled 90 miles an hour

 

[Johan]

How quick was Larwood actually? Jack Fingelton described as twice as quick as anyone out there.

Larwood himself believed he never bowled 90 miles an hour

Larwood claimed 100mph+ iirc

the truth is probably somewhere in between, probably around the same speed as a Michael Holding.

 

[sayon basak]

Larwood himself believed he never bowled 90 miles an hour

Aww how humble!

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Yeah I know. I did say he’s overrated and over mythologised earlier

He might be but I guess he had the best average in 5 county seasons which none did throughout the 20th Century

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Larwood claimed 100mph+ iirc

the truth is probably somewhere in between, probably around the same speed as a Michael Holding.

did he ? 100 mph is too much.

 

[Johan]

did he ? 100 mph is too much.

I'm pretty sure he did, He probably didn't hit 100mph but frankly I don't see why he'd be any slower than the 70s and 80s pacers

 

[kyear2]

This is 1971. All four judges were in their sixties and Ashes veterans. England v Australia had long been regarded as the pinnacle of the game, with West Indies and South Africa only recently having recorded their first-ever series victories over Australia.

Stats were widely available but, as Fingleton said, folk were not as obsessed with them as they are now. The judges were influenced by what they had seen, which was a lot, in their various professional capacities. Hobbs and Bradman were regarded as batting equals, along with Grace. Sobers had emerged as the greatest all-rounder.

From the fifty years under review, Hammond came next among English batsmen, then Hutton and Compton. Post-war euphoria was within memory, as were uncovered pitches. Miller and Lindwall were still heroes. The recent past was regarded as a period of steep decline in England and Australia, with a lot of negative cricket threatening the very future of the game. Nobody rated Barrington. That only changed much later. The likes of Trueman and Davidson were also saddled with the era they played in. They received one vote between them.

Pre-war cricketers were still venerated, just as those from before 1914 had been.

For some reason the notion that as late as the 60's and even 70's, before we became so stat obsessed and there were people who actually watched these gentlemen, that Hobbs was seen as Bradman's equal, and absolutely no one though Sir Don was twice as good as those guys, still really seems to be lost or ignored by the forum populace.

Context is completely ignored.

And Hobbs and Hutton were seen to be well clear of Mr. Sutcliffe.

And it can't be just blamed on batting slowly, because so did Hutton.

 

[kyear2]

I mean I’m talking about the admiration and excitement aspect.

Like Kobe was more exciting than Duncan. Doesn’t make him better.

You always bring this up.

But I've never seen a serous analyst rate Kobe over Duncan.

Not to add that Duncan makes most if not all 1st all time teams, Kobe doesn't.

Jordan of course, but still.

I have Duncan top 6 while Kobe is borderline top 10.

And that's considerably different to saying that a Viv was better than a Kallis.

Hutton was also a slower scorer, but seen to be tiers ahead of Sutcliffe.as well.

Context.... Era, conditions, opposition, ability to rise to the occasion in big moments.

Similar to why batsmen form the 90's are rated higher than those from the 2000's.

It should never be just about the batting averages.

 

[The Sean]

Thanks for that.

Interesting Tiger didn't give the nod to KR Miller; I was under the impression they were muckers. Maybe they were and I'm reading too much into it.

Tiger was 14 years older than Miller so while I think they got on well enough, they weren’t quite the same generation to be great mates as far as I know.

And while O’Reilly rated Miller highly, he was of the belief that Nugget should have concentrated purely on being a specialist batsman, once saying:

“I thought he should have announced the fact that he was giving up bowling. I reckon Miller playing for the Services team got the best hundreds ever got against me. I thought he was going to be one of the great batsmen of all time, but he never blossomed out as I was certain he would.”

 

[Coronis]

You always bring this up.

But I've never seen a serous analyst rate Kobe over Duncan.

Not to add that Duncan makes most if not all 1st all time teams, Kobe doesn't.

Jordan of course, but still.

I have Duncan top 6 while Kobe is borderline top 10.

And that's considerably different to saying that a Viv was better than a Kallis.

Hutton was also a slower scorer, but seen to be tiers ahead of Sutcliffe.as well.

Context.... Era, conditions, opposition, ability to rise to the occasion in big moments.

Similar to why batsmen form the 90's are rated higher than those from the 2000's.

It should never be just about the batting averages.

Seen it all the time actually. No links or anything off the top of my head but especially when I was really into bball a few years ago the majority of analysts I recall would mention Kobe ahead of Duncan, and many of the online lists published by websites of varying credibility would do so too. I recall there being a huge uproar amongst many when ESPN did their top 100 and Kobe was 14th and Duncan 8th.

 

[Johan]

You always bring this up.

But I've never seen a serous analyst rate Kobe over Duncan.

Not to add that Duncan makes most if not all 1st all time teams, Kobe doesn't.

Jordan of course, but still.

I have Duncan top 6 while Kobe is borderline top 10.

And that's considerably different to saying that a Viv was better than a Kallis.

Hutton was also a slower scorer, but seen to be tiers ahead of Sutcliffe.as well.

Context.... Era, conditions, opposition, ability to rise to the occasion in big moments.

Similar to why batsmen form the 90's are rated higher than those from the 2000's.

It should never be just about the batting averages.

actually, Hutton himself rated Sutcliffe highly enough to want to mimic Sutcliffe's style.

 

[Coronis]

Tiger was 14 years older than Miller so while I think they got on well enough, they weren’t quite the same generation to be great mates as far as I know.

And while O’Reilly rated Miller highly, he was of the belief that Nugget should have concentrated purely on being a specialist batsman, once saying:

“I thought he should have announced the fact that he was giving up bowling. I reckon Miller playing for the Services team got the best hundreds ever got against me. I thought he was going to be one of the great batsmen of all time, but he never blossomed out as I was certain he would.”

Lets blame Bradman imo.

Should’ve pushed Johnston into opening the bowling with Lindwall and let Miller focus on batting.

Johnston opening
16 tests 65 @ 20.84 4 5’fers

Miller not opening
15 tests 38 @ 20.34 2 5’fers

 

[kyear2]

Seen it all the time actually. No links or anything off the top of my head but especially when I was really into bball a few years ago the majority of analysts I recall would mention Kobe ahead of Duncan, and many of the online lists published by websites of varying credibility would do so too. I recall there being a huge uproar amongst many when ESPN did their top 100 and Kobe was 14th and Duncan 8th.

Well, I'll maintain that I've not seen a serous list with Kobe that high.

But if there's only thing we agreed son is that Kobe was seriously overrated.

 

[kyear2]

actually, Hutton himself rated Sutcliffe highly enough to want to mimic Sutcliffe's style.

Has nothing to do with them being rated especially close to each other.