Originally Posted by kyear2
I agree that he is over rated, but why does Benaud ect rate him so highly based purely on his first class record. I acknowledge that I largely do the same with Richards and Procter, but what Test Cricket they did play they excelled in and they also proved themselves in WSC. Larwood struggled in test cricket, which is, pardon the pun, the greatest test for a cricketer.
No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there
If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one