06-10-2012, 07:24 AM
Join Date: Jul 2011
Originally Posted by Eds
And we don't agree, hence the posts arguing as such. It's definitely not "dissing him" to suggest he shouldn't be in someone's top five - he has 78 Test wickets @ 28.35.
To be one of the greatest bowlers of all-time you need to dominate all levels. Larwood was extremely effective during the bodyline series, but at the end of the day, the likes of Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Donald, Holding, Garner etc. were all better at taking more wickets for less runs. And that's what cricket's about.
You could argue his stats are tainted by a number of factors (Bradman, for one), but looking at other bowlers from the same timeframe, such as Gubby Allen (81 @ 29.37), Ken Farnes (60 @ 28.65), Bill Bowes (68 @ 22.33) and George Geary (46 @ 29.41) - they've all got extremely familiar records. Why do we not consider Bowes an ATG? Or Farnes?
I'm not arguing against the impact Larwood/Jardine/bodyline had on the game, and I rate the aforementioned duo higher than most, I'm just speechless you could even consider him as one of the best bowlers ever. Just doesn't sit well with me.
All a bit too much romatacism imho.
Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards | Tendulkar | Sobers | Gilchrist | Khan | Marshall | Warne | McGrath
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar | Headley | Chappell | Lara | Kallis | Miller | Knott | Ambrose | Lillee | Muralitharan
Greenidge | Morris | Ponting | Pollock | Hammond | Worrell | Ames | Hadlee | Holding | Trueman | O'Reilly
Richards | Simpson | Sangakkara | Weekes | Border | Walcott | Botham | Lindwall | Laker | Garner | Barnes