The greatest-ever left-arm finger-spinner

[The Sean]

I thought Monty was the traditionally humorous final option.

He is. Still disturbed by the votes for him though.

 

[Perm]

He is. Still disturbed by the votes for him though.

No votes for Tufnell as of yet. CW contains some sanity afterall.

 

[neville cardus]

Nonetheless, I'm led to believe that, basically, when a wicket (and with it the rest of the field) got wet it totally took the seam-bowler out of the equation, because he could not keep his footing (as his run-up and followthrough was sodden). This is an idea I hate, frankly. If it rains, seam-bowlers' run-ups should be covered.

Agreed. As far back as 1882, Barlow was whining about exactly the same thing.

 

[neville cardus]

Havent read the whole page...must play BF 2 soon >_< ...but
*gasp*
No Colin Blythe, Neville? I am shocked, absolutely and utterly shocked!

And you've every right to be. Alas, it was probably a subconsciously deliberate error on my part: I was recently trumpeting to all and sundry on another forum that I thought Blythe a naff little pansy who didn't have what it took. Sorry about that; we'll have to try this again some time.

(the man was arguably better than Wilfred)

Neya.

 

[JBH001]

Really? Interesting...

19 tests and a 100 wkts (iirc) is surely nothing to scoff at, no?

From what I have read I thought Blythe was as good as Rhodes on helpful surfaces and perhaps better on surfaces that were not. I take it you think otherwise?

 

[iamdavid]

The real contenders for this title all played so long ago and their records are so similarly brilliant that its all but impossible to split them really.

On the basis of his stats and what I've read aswell as his success against Bradman I go for Verity

 

[Craig]

I went for Verity, dismissed Bradman 8 times in his career, more then what anybody else ever achieved! What I would give to have been able to see cricket in the 1930's.

 

[Craig]

The real contenders for this title all played so long ago and their records are so similarly brilliant that its all but impossible to split them really.

On the basis of his stats and what I've read aswell as his success against Bradman I go for Verity

I went for Verity, dismissed Bradman 8 times in his career, more then what anybody else ever achieved! What I would give to have been able to see cricket in the 1930's.

Great minds think alike then, considered we posted at the same time of each other.

 

[neville cardus]

Really?

Yep.

19 tests and a 100 wkts (iirc) is surely nothing to scoff at, no?

It most certainly isn't.

From what I have read I thought Blythe was as good as Rhodes on helpful surfaces and perhaps better on surfaces that were not. I take it you think otherwise?

Blythe was the incubus of the sweaty nightmares of every Edwardian batsman -- especially when preparing to face him on a difficult track. In natural ability, I've no doubt that he was better than Rhodes; in resoluteness and élan of spirit, however (particularly in the pressure-cookers), Blythe was scarcely a patch on Wilfred.

There was (and still is) a widely-held belief that Blythe suffered epilepsy, and it often struck him down in the big, tension-filled matches. It is an indisputable fact that he retired from Test cricket because he couldn't take the heat. By my reckoning, at least, that alone places him way behind a number of the other worthy contenders in this field.

 

[Richard]

The real contenders for this title all played so long ago and their records are so similarly brilliant that its all but impossible to split them really.

On the basis of his stats and what I've read aswell as his success against Bradman I go for Verity

I went for Verity, dismissed Bradman 8 times in his career, more then what anybody else ever achieved! What I would give to have been able to see cricket in the 1930's.

Great minds think alike then, considered we posted at the same time of each other.

The old clan is reunited.

(Except me of course - I voted Wilfred)

 

[Richard]

Australia in Australia not good enough?

The first pitch offered plenty of turn, and he cashed-in until Gilchrist came.

The other two demonstrated his ineffectiveness, but it was only 2 Tests and he didn't bowl that much in them, so they didn't impact a great deal on most people's thinking regarding him. Especially as some tried to come-up with nonsense excuses like "he was used as a defensive bowler when he's an attacking one".

 

[The Baconator]

No votes for Tufnell as of yet. CW contains some sanity afterall.

Just for you.

 

[Richard]

Was expecting a "deplore the lack of a Giles option" from you TBH. Greatly disappointed.

 

[The Baconator]

Figured it'd be one of those "leave Bradman out" type things.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Has anyone mentioned Phil Edmonds? Didn't turn the ball much but his wife has turned a few stomachs.

 

[Perm]

Just for you.

I knew somebody wouldn't be able to resist. Surprised it took so long though.

 

[neville cardus]

Has anyone mentioned Phil Edmonds? Didn't turn the ball much but his wife has turned a few stomachs.

You've read Cricket XXXX Cricket, then?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You've read Cricket XXXX Cricket, then?

No, I've met his wife though.

 

[neville cardus]

No, I've met his wife though.

Poor lamb.

 

[JBH001]

Blythe was the incubus of the sweaty nightmares of every Edwardian batsman -- especially when preparing to face him on a difficult track. In natural ability, I've no doubt that he was better than Rhodes; in resoluteness and élan of spirit, however (particularly in the pressure-cookers), Blythe was scarcely a patch on Wilfred.

There was (and still is) a widely-held belief that Blythe suffered epilepsy, and it often struck him down in the big, tension-filled matches. It is an indisputable fact that he retired from Test cricket because he couldn't take the heat. By my reckoning, at least, that alone places him way behind a number of the other worthy contenders in this field.

Thanks for the info Neville. I never knew that about Blythe.

(Btw, I voted for Verity)