Harold Larwood vs William Voce

[Johan]

Better bowler? Larwood has 78 @ 28.36 before the second world war, Voce has 97 @ 26.04 before the second war

 

[Coronis]

Better bowler? Larwood has 78 @ 28.36 before the second world war, Voce has 97 @ 26.04 before the second war

I think Larwood was a better bowler but Voce had the better career.

Just looking at their Nottinghamshire stats (Voce of course played after the war fairly unsuccessfully which affects his stats - to what degree I don’t know)

Voce 345 matches 1312 @ 22.26 74 5’fers 17 10’fers
Larwood 300 matches 1247 @ 16.24 89 5’fers 19 10’fers

iirc Voce was much more consistent outside of Bodyline at test level compared to Larwood.

 

[Johan]

I think Larwood was a better bowler but Voce had the better career.

Just looking at their Nottinghamshire stats (Voce of course played after the war fairly unsuccessfully which affects his stats - to what degree I don’t know)

Voce 345 matches 1312 @ 22.26 74 5’fers 17 10’fers
Larwood 300 matches 1247 @ 16.24 89 5’fers 19 10’fers

iirc Voce was much more consistent outside of Bodyline at test level compared to Larwood.

Do you have Bowes as the best of them all? pretty sure that he's the one with the best FC record, his test record isn't inferior either.

 

[The Sean]

Bowes was a very, very good bowler. That collection of England quicks in the 1930s - Tate (albeit late career by then), Larwood, Voce, Allen, Bowes, Farnes - were all largely excellent.

 

[Coronis]

Bowes was a very, very good bowler. That collection of England quicks in the 1930s - Tate (albeit late career by then), Larwood, Voce, Allen, Bowes, Farnes - were all largely excellent.

Yeah if Australia didn’t have Bradman that would have been a dominant era of English cricket.

 

[Coronis]

Do you have Bowes as the best of them all? pretty sure that he's the one with the best FC record, his test record isn't inferior either.

He could very well have been. Unfortunately he only played one match in Australia and didn’t do well.

Funny thing about all these English fast bowlers, aside from Tate none were really mainstays. And even Tate was left out of a series or two iirc.

 

[Coronis]

Looking at 1930’s bowlers - amount of possible tests they played in the 30’s (from their test debut to their last test in the 30’s - this may even help guys like Voce)

(bowling average below 30, batting below 25, min 10 matches played

O’Reilly 26/26 (100%)
Martindale 10/10 (100%)
Grimmett 28/30 (93.33%)
McCormick 12/13 (92.31%)
Constantine 15/19 (78.95%)
Verity 40/53 (75.47%)
Ironmonger 12/20 (60%)
Farnes 15/34 (44.12%)
Voce 24/58 (41.38%)
Bowes 15/50 (30%)
Tate 13/48 (27.08%)


Even Larwood 9/27 (33.33%)

Only Verity was really a mainstay, the rest of the attack would chop and change. We also see this in the 50’s with guys like Trueman, Laker, Wardle, Lock, Statham

Part of this is a function of England’s high amount of tests, part because English selectors suck, especially with bowlers.

 

[the big bambino]

Looking at 1930’s bowlers - amount of possible tests they played in the 30’s (from their test debut to their last test in the 30’s - this may even help guys like Voce)

(bowling average below 30, batting below 25, min 10 matches played

O’Reilly 26/26 (100%)
Martindale 10/10 (100%)
Grimmett 28/30 (93.33%)
McCormick 12/13 (92.31%)
Constantine 15/19 (78.95%)
Verity 40/53 (75.47%)
Ironmonger 12/20 (60%)
Farnes 15/34 (44.12%)
Voce 24/58 (41.38%)
Bowes 15/50 (30%)
Tate 13/48 (27.08%)


Even Larwood 9/27 (33.33%)

Only Verity was really a mainstay, the rest of the attack would chop and change. We also see this in the 50’s with guys like Trueman, Laker, Wardle, Lock, Statham

Part of this is a function of England’s high amount of tests, part because English selectors suck, especially with bowlers.

There's a number of reasons for this relating to the nature of English county cricket which prevented any sort of consistency in selection. Even during Ashes series in Eng. Other factors included the unavailability of Amateurs (Farnes and Allen particularly affected) and county jealousies that blocking players from selection when their county wanted them or wanted them to rest.

You get the best idea of who selectors rated in the tour squad for Ashes in Australia. That occasion seemed to assuage all the usual objections to availability and seemed to unite English cricket in a common cause. It's probably not coincidental that England seemed to perform their best in Australia at that time.

 

[Johan]

Voce's record before the war is underrated.

24 matches, 97 wickets @ 26.04, 3 fifers and 2 tenfers. 2.10 Wickets-per-inning

mostly played away though

20 matches, 86 wickets @ 25.27, 3 fifers and 2 tenfers. 2.26 Wickets-per-inning

In Australia: 9 matches, 41 wickets @ 23.58. 2.41 Wickets-per-inning.

In South Africa: 5 matches, 23 wickets @ 24.39, 2.55 Wickets-per-inning.

a little middling in the West Indies, but that was his debut series and he singlehandedly won a game there too so not all wrong.

Honestly, pretty excellent given the wickets he had at the time.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah if Australia didn’t have Bradman that would have been a dominant era of English cricket.

Still had O'Reilly and Grimmett though

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Voce v Bowes v Cowie v Martindale would be interesting

 

[capt_Luffy]

Voce v Bowes v Cowie v Martindale would be interesting

Constantine and Herman Griffith>Martindale

 

[Coronis]

Still had O'Reilly and Grimmett though

Yeah but England had a ridiculous batting lineup (dominating Australia’s if they had anyone bar Bradman) plus those pacers and Verity. Without Bradman they lose most if not all of those 30’s Ashes series I think.