Harold Larwood vs James Anderson

[kyear2]

Post from 2023.
===============================================================================================
In 1971 The Cricketer magazine celebrated its 50th anniversary by asking four eminent senior figures to choose their greatest twenty cricketers since 1921. The four were Ames, Gubby Allen, O'Reilly and Fingleton. Bradman was invited but declined.

All four played most of their cricket during the 1930s, so one might expect a weighting towards that time and towards England and Australia. Ames and Allen later became selectors and administrators, the two Australians respected journalists.

All four judges voted for nine players: Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Headley, Sobers, Lindwall and Tate.

Three votes were given to O'Reilly (was told to vote for himself but refused), Grimmett, Larwood, Bedser, Ponsford and McCabe.

Two nominations: Macartney, May, Worrell, Miller, Evans, Laker.

One: Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Weekes, Harvey, Hassett, Sutcliffe, Woolley, Leyland, Duleepsinhji, Rhodes, Trueman, Statham, Mailey, Freeman.

With 21 cricketers receiving two or more nominations, editor Swanton had to remove one to leave an overall Top 20. He removed Laker on the grounds of meeting "only limited success outside England."

Fingleton's comments were the most interesting, especially when quoting Herbie Collins' opinion that Headley was the most complete batsman he ever saw. Fingleton signed off by saying: "I must stress, finally, that statistics didn't matter a tinker's cuss with me. I estimated capacity and individualism. I looked at the subject in memory's eye."
===============================================================================================

Such a treasure trove of knowledge as usual.

 

[Johan]

So according to that exercise in The Cricketer, the top ten cricketers from 1921-1977 were, chronologically:

Jack Hobbs
Maurice Tate
Walter Hammond
Don Bradman
George Headley
Bill O'Reilly
Len Hutton
Denis Compton
Ray Lindwall
Garry Sobers

LITERALLY HOW

 

[kyear2]

LITERALLY HOW

Assume you're making reference to Compton?

It was till 1971, so guess you're wondering about Trueman?

 

[Johan]

Assume you're making reference to Compton?

It was till 1971, so guess you're wondering about Trueman?

nah I just can't think of a phase in Compton's career where he was number one, Don was always a class apart, Hutton for early 50s makes sense

 

[subshakerz]

only thing that consistently produces ATG pacers is flat home pitches and err, England doesn't have that.

Tell that to SA.

 

[peterhrt]

LITERALLY HOW

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.

 

[DrWolverine]

Loving your posts @peterhrt

 

[The Sean]

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.

This tallies too with everything I’ve read about how England’s post-war batsmen were rated. At the time it seems that virtually everyone was in agreement that Peter May was the finest England batsman to emerge since the war. Barrington was admired for his tenacity and stalwart nature (Wally Grout is famously quoted as saying that it was as though Ken had a Union Jack trailing behind him whenever he came out to bat), but it doesn’t seem he was placed in the top rank of England batsmen until much later.

This was illustrated further when Tom Graveney chose his England post-war XI in 1982 and – amazingly, to modern eyes – didn’t find a place for Barrington, choosing instead a middle order of May-Compton-Cowdrey.

 

[Johan]

I don't get how Compton got rated higher than Sutcliffe

 

[peterhrt]

I don't get how Compton got rated higher than Sutcliffe

Compton was always rated higher than Sutcliffe. He had a hint of genius and was better to watch. We take the sweep shot for granted now, but when Compton invented it there was something of a sensation, especially since virtually everyone else who tried it got out lbw. Before satellite television, cricket survived on gate receipts. Compton could add thousands to the gate. Much as he was admired, nobody turned up just to watch Sutcliffe.

Also, Sutcliffe was a very shrewd individual. He deliberately played up the fact that he was Hobbs' junior partner, allowing the Surrey man to pinch the strike and take most of the credit. He also turned down the Yorkshire captaincy, knowing it was likely to be a poisoned chalice.

Sutcliffe's temperament was unmatched and he made the very most of his ability - although he had more natural ability than he was given credit for. Compton was more mercurial, with plenty of late nights and eccentric running between the wickets. His football career with Arsenal and in wartime internationals was another contributor to his popularity.

 

[Johan]

Compton was always rated higher than Sutcliffe. He had a hint of genius and was better to watch. We take the sweep shot for granted now, but when Compton invented it there was something of a sensation, especially since virtually everyone else who tried it got out lbw. Before satellite television, cricket survived on gate receipts. Compton could add thousands to the gate. Much as he was admired, nobody turned up just to watch Sutcliffe.

This is very interesting, I guess Compton's potential and greatness cannot be summarised in his statistics.

 

[Coronis]

This is very interesting, I guess Compton's potential and greatness cannot be summarised in his statistics.

If you regard those as valid metrics for greatness…

 

[Johan]

If you regard those as valid metrics for greatness…

I think his stats are plenty great though I remove the injury-influenced series so we've a bit of differing opinions on it.

 

[Coronis]

I think his stats are plenty great though I remove the injury-influenced series so we've a bit of differing opinions on it.

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

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

 

[Johan]

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

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

I agree that Compton was not better than Sutcliffe Yeah.

 

[The Sean]

It would have been fascinating if The Cricketer had done an equivalent exercise in 2021 for the next fifty years, but I can't see any record that they did.

 

[Coronis]

It would have been fascinating if The Cricketer had done an equivalent exercise in 2021 for the next fifty years, but I can't see any record that they did.

I wonder who they might’ve chosen. Based on the timing… two cricketers who retired from cricket in the late 90’s/early 00’s, one who retired mid 90’s and one who retired late 80’s

 

[The Sean]

I wonder who they might’ve chosen. Based on the timing… two cricketers who retired from cricket in the late 90’s/early 00’s, one who retired mid 90’s and one who retired late 80’s

They should have asked Neil Harvey, so he could have picked absolutely no one on the grounds that everyone who played cricket after he retired was trash.

 

[BoyBrumby]

All four voted for Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Headley, Sobers, Lindwall and Tate.

All except Ames voted for Bedser, Grimmett, Larwood and McCabe. All except Allen voted for Ponsford. All voted for O'Reilly except himself.

Two votes: Evans (Allen, Fingleton), Laker (Allen, Ames), Macartney (Fingleton, O'Reilly), May (Allen, Ames), Miller (Ames, Fingleton),
Worrell (Ames, O'Reilly).

One vote: Barry Richards (O'Reilly), Graeme Pollock (Fingleton), Weekes (Allen), Harvey (Fingleton), Hassett (O'Reilly), Sutcliffe (Ames),
Woolley (Ames), Leyland (O'Reilly), Duleepsinhji (Ames), Rhodes (Allen), Trueman (Ames), Statham (Allen), Mailey (O'Reilly), Freeman (Ames).

Hassett and Leyland both enjoyed success against O'Reilly. Fingleton considered Oldfield and Tallon, but went for Evans for his ability to stand up to the stumps to Bedser.

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.

 

[peterhrt]

It would have been fascinating if The Cricketer had done an equivalent exercise in 2021 for the next fifty years, but I can't see any record that they did.

For their 70th anniversary in 1991 the magazine asked their president, EW Swanton, to pick his World XI covering the period 1921-1991. He chose the following team, all of whom he had seen:

Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman*, Sobers, Headley, Miller, Davidson, Evans+, Marshall, O'Reilly, Gibbs. 12th man: Constantine.

Swanton's four certainties were Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and O'Reilly. He wanted the left-handed Sobers at number four. He stressed he was looking for attacking potential, bowling variety and fielding prowess (with only O'Reilly under par in that regard).

With the 80th anniversary in 2001, readers were asked to name their five favourite cricketers of the 20th century (not the greatest). The top ten in order was: Botham, Compton, Sobers, Viv Richards, Randall, Evans, Warne, Miller, Bradman and Trueman.

By 2011 the magazine had merged to become The Wisden Cricketer and the anniversary was not marked. It was back as The Cricketer for the 100th anniversary in 2021. Readers were asked to vote for each county's best County Championship XI during the previous hundred years. I haven't seen the results.