FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Davidson again.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ranking the Bowlers
- Thread starter adharcric
- Start date
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pollock
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Wilfred Rhodes
shortpitched713
International Captain
Grimmett.
a massive zebra
International Captain
Rhodes.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Davidson
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Holding
Beleg
International Regular
He only played 27 matches in a maximum of three countries. His strike-rate is in the high sixties. In comparison with people who maintained a strike-rate in 40's for about thrice the length of his career all around the globe - it just doesn't compare.
Irrelevent and so are about twenty others.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Holding deserves to get in ahead of all those IMO, especially Davidson.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
He played in the 1930s on some of the flattest pitches the world has ever seen, against teams that boasted some of the strongest batting line ups in history, and was either playing a lone hand, or had only Grimmett, as support for most of those matches.Beleg said:
Is it really outrageous to suggest there's a spinner outside of Murali and Warne who belongs in the top 13 bowlers of all time?
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Either there's some massive amount of sarcasm going on, or people are voting for the SLA bowler with an average and five-for amount comparable to Daniel Vettori on non-stickies...Phoenix_Fire said:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
He's being picked on the basis of his first class record, which is 4,000 odd wickets @ 16. Pretty idiotic, IMO.Samuel_Vimes said:
It's one thing to rate a player highly when they had minimal chances to play test cricket but succeeded tremendously in first class cricket, like Barry Richards or Mike Proctor. It's another thing entirely to call someone one of the best bowlers ever based on their first class record when, by the standards of the time, they were fairly average over a lengthy test career. Rhodes played over 50 tests, which at the time was quite a lot, and his record of two wickets a test with an average of around 27 is not even remotely special. He was a good test all-rounder, and that's it. As a specialist test bowler he wouldn't be in the top 100.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Please for your sake tell me that your not challenging me to an argument about how good Wilfred Rhodes was.Samuel_Vimes said:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Rhodes was almost 50 when he played against the Aussies for the last time.
Thats another reason I don't think the old greats were really comparable to modern players. I don't see a 50 year old taking wickets like that in this day and age.
Thats another reason I don't think the old greats were really comparable to modern players. I don't see a 50 year old taking wickets like that in this day and age.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
I'm not really sure how anybody can say that a bowler who took 4204 @ 16.72, striking at 44.19, with an economy rate of 2.27 shouldn't be considered great.