Hedley Verity vs Clarrie Grimmett

[TheJediBrah]

The problem with first hand testimony is that you end up getting players rating the guys they found tough higher than the guys who were more generally good. A case in point was the precise lavished upon harmison in Waugh's autobiography.

Grimmett and Verity are close but I'd take Grimmett since it's likely that he would be better in the modern game on unfavourable pitches than Verity.

Yeah best practice IMO would be to take it into account but not consider it the only factor, or even the defining factor.

If we did that you'd get players that had great bursts of form rated ahead of much better players who were more consistently good over a longer period.

just talking generally, I don't have a horse in this Verity/Grimmett race

 

[trundler]

Yeah best practice IMO would be to take it into account but not consider it the only factor, or even the defining factor.

If we did that you'd get players that had great bursts of form rated ahead of much better players who were more consistently good over a longer period.

just talking generally, I don't have a horse in this Verity/Grimmett race

Yeah, good. Anyone who doesn't know of Les Ames is barred from this discussion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What is a Verity anyway

 

[the big bambino]

a truth

 

[Bolo.]

As I stated above, Grimmett bowled a lot more overs than Verity because he had less competition for wickets. Hedley Verity's first class strike rate of 43 is actually much better than Clarrie Grimmett's 52, so Grimmett's higher frequency of 5WI was a product of bowling a lot more, rather than evidence of him being a more threatening prospect.

Playing on batting friendly wickets probably also contributes. I feel like the best bowler is likely pick up a disproportionate number of wickets, whereas in vicious wickets it is a bit of a crapshoot becuause anyone can do the job.