sayon basak
International Debutant
Who do you think is the better batsman?
Edit:- just added Dudley Nourse.
Edit:- just added Dudley Nourse.
Last edited:
In no small part due to utter **** bowling of his own team was.Nourse played in relatively high scoring tests tho. Thought this might have been close.
View attachment 41955
View attachment 41956
View attachment 41957
That's a really great point. I almost forgot about that.In no small part due to utter **** bowling of his own team was.
Might be. But if you look at their bowling line-ups, you can pretty much see that it was mid asf. I mean, thier best bowler was Tufty Mann.....It's not good but I don't think the SA bowling is as bad as the figures claim. They played almost exclusively against Aus and Eng. Their figures would come down if they played a generous proportion of tests against weaker teams of the era.
Well Chubb according to the averages. But I think it was Athol Rowan, who is an interesting player. Fast medium before the war he became an off spinner eventually due to an injury he sustained (in the war I think). He always bowled in pain and sometimes with his leg in a brace (cricinfo). He was good enough to get Hutton frequently, who rated him as highly as Laker. Langton is another whose overall record contradicts the regard many batsmen had for him. Fingleton in particular admired his skill.Might be. But if you look at their bowling line-ups, you can pretty much see that it was mid asf. I mean, thier best bowler was Tufty Mann.....
Fair enough. Rowan was the best bowler and Mann was close, Langton had his moments and Chubby actually has stats. But I would say that attack is definitely below par by Test level, quite much so.Well Chubb according to the averages. But I think it was Athol Rowan, who is an interesting player. Fast medium before the war he became an off spinner eventually due to an injury he sustained (in the war I think). He always bowled in pain and sometimes with his leg in a brace (cricinfo). He was good enough to get Hutton frequently, who rated him as highly as Laker. Langton is another whose overall record contradicts the regard many batsmen had for him. Fingleton in particular admired his skill.
Nonetheless those figures are high but I think they can be mitigated by context.
I don't think the bowlers mentioned had overlapping careers. But if you could pick them altogether you have a pretty good mix. McCarthy fast, Langton and Chubb medium fast, Mann SLA and Rowan, off break. Not fantastic but good variety and I think you could work with it.
Chubb is the only other 40 yo seamer I can recall playing tests other than Anderson. Though Tate may have played one test at that age.Fair enough. Rowan was the best bowler and Mann was close, Langton had his moments and Chubby actually has stats. But I would say that attack is definitely below par by Test level, quite much so.
A few others I found (* means technical/possible bowling allrounder) (min 1 test wicket)Chubb is the only other 40 yo seamer I can recall playing tests other than Anderson. Though Tate may have played one test at that age.
A few others I found (* means technical/possible bowling allrounder) (min 1 test wicket)
Nigel Haig
Tip Snooke*
Gubby Allen*
George Geary
Hines Johnson
Les Jackson
Tom Emmett
Johnny Douglas** (more balanced allrounder)
and of course there’s Barnes.
Les Jackson is an interesting career. 1 test against NZ in 1949, 1 test against Australia in 1961 match figures of 3/72 and 4/83 respectively. 1733 @ 17.36 in county.
Unfortunately he was behind the likes of Statham, Trueman, Bedser, Bailey, Tyson.