View Single Post
Old 14-02-2009, 04:11 AM   #34 (permalink)
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
 
chaminda_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Murali CG
Posts: 16,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by pasag View Post
Yeah, these are the exact points I had in mind being raised in the thread discussion, that's why the OP is a series of questions, not a statement of fact. I'd also like to know from some of the older members whether they thought there were worse number #1s in years gone by and how the current #1 relates to them.
Having a closer look at things Peter Pollock was pretty raw around 1966 when Trueman retired and missed most of that year due to injuries. Wes Hall was still around at that time but was past his peak. Higgs had a brillant season but was as raw Steyn. McKenzie I always thought was average similar to Brett Lee.

Wes Hall was probably the No 1 quick around that era still. If that was the case then there is one era where there was a worse quick and in the early 70s after he and McKenzie retired, Pollock stop playing Test and the young quicks coming through didn't bowl as well as Steyn until the mid 70s. John Snow would have been the best quick in the early 70s.

From 1966 to about 1975 the best seamers in the would were worse then Steyn. The 30s were as poor as well imo. It is easy to say he is worst quick when comparing the best from the mids 70 on. But there are plenty of eras with worse best seamers.
__________________
The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)

Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)

RIP WCC and CW Cricket

Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS

Last edited by chaminda_00; 14-02-2009 at 04:16 AM.
chaminda_00 is offline   Reply With Quote