Would you trade Bradman for these cricketers?

[smash84]

Holding was probably no quicker than Larwood tho.

Holding was probably significantly quicker. He had access to much better diet and training 50 years later.

 

[Johan]

Holding was probably significantly quicker. He had access to much better diet and training 50 years later.

Don't really think much changed about diet and training, a better argument would be Holding have access to Steroids.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Holding was probably significantly quicker. He had access to much better diet and training 50 years later.

There is no one right now bowling quicker than Thommo 50 years ago. Thommo was a league ahead of Holding or anyone. From footage of Larwood I think they had him bowling 92 ish Mph. No one bar Thommo in 70s was quicker than Larwood by that much of margin if at all.

 

[Johan]

Holding is the most underrated pacer on this site though, elite ATG in Australia and England, one series in India on dead wickets and was masterful, sadly never played against or in Pakistan that leads him down.

Awesome bowler.

 

[sayon basak]

Holding was probably no quicker than Larwood tho.

How fast did Larwood bowl in your opinion? 155+ you'd reckon?

 

[Johan]

with that runup and enough core strength I think 150+ should be easy

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

How fast did Larwood bowl in your opinion? 155+ you'd reckon?

150 at times. Definitely over 145 unquestionably, some odd balls would probably have been over 150. Nobody bowled 155+ except Thommo.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

with that runup and enough core strength I think 150+ should be easy

Very very fast arm speed. Probably the biggest reason he bowled so fast despite being so small guy.

 

[smash84]

There is no one right now bowling quicker than Thommo 50 years ago. Thommo was a league ahead of Holding or anyone. From footage of Larwood I think they had him bowling 92 ish Mph. No one bar Thommo in 70s was quicker than Larwood by that much of margin if at all.

Fair point.

 

[subshakerz]

Holding is the most underrated pacer on this site though, elite ATG in Australia and England, one series in India on dead wickets and was masterful, sadly never played against or in Pakistan that leads him down.

Awesome bowler.

He is better than Garner

 

[Bolo.]

If he bowled exclusively to Bradman he would end up averaging 199.88. Why? Make up random **** and call it context and quality.

Also if Marshall ended up bowling to Bradman in the 1930s he would take 6 weeks to get from the west Indies to Australia. He stubs a toe along the way somewhere really bad and ends up with an infection. Gets no anti biotics and has to get his toe amputated..his career over.

Warne clearly >>> Marshall.

Man enough for a broken toenail to just cost him a series performance. It probably would have cost Marshall a leg. Possibly his first born in a sacrificial ceremony too.

 

[Coronis]

He is better than Garner

Not his batting

 

[DrWolverine]

He is better than Garner

Except the usual culprit(NZ), Holding has a great record. He had ATG series in Aus, Eng, Ind and WI. No signficant flaws in his career and he was express pace

 

[Coronis]

Except the usual culprit(NZ), Holding has a great record. He had ATG series in Aus, Eng, Ind and WI. No signficant flaws in his career and he was express pace

Garner was bigger, bouncier, batter… better

 

[Johan]

He is better than Garner

either way

 

[subshakerz]

Garner was bigger, bouncier, batter… better

Holding was faster and more destructive.

 

[Thala_0710]

Holding was faster and more destructive.

Garner has a higher WPM and lower SR than Holding and a decent avg advantage.
Holding does have more 5fers and 2 10fers though.

 

[Coronis]

Holding was faster and more destructive.

Lee was faster and more destructive than Gillespie. Ditto for Starc and Hazlewood.

 

[subshakerz]

Garner has a higher WPM and lower SR than Holding and a decent avg advantage.
Holding does have more 5fers and 2 10fers though.

They have the same SR. Holding was more capable of destruction when on song and especially if the pitch was flat. He may give more runs though.

 

[subshakerz]

Lee was faster and more destructive than Gillespie. Ditto for Starc and Hazlewood.

Lee wasn't more destructive than Gillespie but anyways nor was Starc notably moreso than Hazelwood.

We are talking about bowlers on the same level. So yeah Holding having sheer pace advantage and being able to tear into lineups on his lonesome are advantages.