Originally Posted by fredfertang
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
I'm interested in your opinion on this Fred, as you seem knowledgable about England's cricket history.
Larwood played a limited number of tests, and in them had less statistical success than contemporaries Gubby Allen and Bill Voce. In FC cricket however, Larwood's stats stand out more (although they are still comparable to the other two mentioned). Gubby Allen, for instance, has very good FC stats as well, slightly inferior to Larwood's but somewhat similar.
Also, some have been suggesting that Larwood "revolutionised" quick bowling. I'm not sure that's the case. Australia had Jack Gregory bowling very quick a few years prior to Larwood's career, and Gregory had very similar stats in both tests and FC cricket to Larwood. Ted McDonald was another quick Australian pre-Larwood with a very refined quick bowler's action. McDonald, like Larwood, played few tests for what seems ordinary averages and stats, but a lot of FC games for excellent numbers.