Greatest English fast bowler ever ?

[neville cardus]

They're on their way.

 

[Richard]

I'd go for 1864. Really, not much changed between then and 1900.

Between 1864 and 1900 - sure. As of 1900 - something certainly changed. The way one S Pardon put it, there was an "appalling" number of dropped catches too in the summer of 1900, but that was soon rectified. More significant was the change in pitch preparation - along with the fact that the gradual change in attitudes to the game was pretty well complete by then. Of course, there was also a massive change in 1890 (at least in this country) when a formal County Championship was finally organised, though this added little to the actual competetiveness of the games of course.

But around about 1900, they went from playing essentially on dirt where 25 was a good average to playing on pitches where some genuine, serious preparation went in and players could suddenly average 35 or even 40 if they were really good. This was a significant change in my mind. This was as significant a change as covered wickets 70 years later.

 

[Perm]

Broken record time They did not play as much Test cricket before WWII So you have to take much more notice of their perfomance in FC cricket

If I sound like a broken record, it's just because I'm having to put the same point across. Yes it's true they didn't play as many Tests, but they still played enough for me to judge Tom Richardson in comparison with the likes of Fred Trueman. If you consider that FC and Test cricket are equal, then I've got no problem with you claiming Richardson is the greatest. I place greater value upon Test cricket and that makes Trueman the greatest, IMO.

EDIT: Though I did vote for Barnes, due to a combination of forgetting he wasn't a 'fast' bowler, and not reading the title correctly.

 

[archie mac]

If I sound like a broken record, it's just because I'm having to put the same point across. Yes it's true they didn't play as many Tests, but they still played enough for me to judge Tom Richardson in comparison with the likes of Fred Trueman. If you consider that FC and Test cricket are equal, then I've got no problem with you claiming Richardson is the greatest. I place greater value upon Test cricket and that makes Trueman the greatest, IMO.

EDIT: Though I did vote for Barnes, due to a combination of forgetting he wasn't a 'fast' bowler, and not reading the title correctly.

Tbf I was suggesting I was sounding like a broken record

 

[neville cardus]

Between 1864 and 1900 - sure. As of 1900 - something certainly changed. The way one S Pardon put it, there was an "appalling" number of dropped catches too in the summer of 1900, but that was soon rectified. More significant was the change in pitch preparation - along with the fact that the gradual change in attitudes to the game was pretty well complete by then. Of course, there was also a massive change in 1890 (at least in this country) when a formal County Championship was finally organised, though this added little to the actual competetiveness of the games of course.
But around about 1900, they went from playing essentially on dirt where 25 was a good average to playing on pitches where some genuine, serious preparation went in and players could suddenly average 35 or even 40 if they were really good. This was a significant change in my mind. This was as significant a change as covered wickets 70 years later.

But how does any of this preclude us from comparing fast bowlers from either side of the 1900 dividing line? We may by all means take into account the changes that you have stipulated, but I fail to see how they could be regarded as so drastic as to make impossible an informed, objective decision.

If you were to move that dividing line down to 1864, however, you would have a case. The difference between the periods 1864-1900 and 1900-2007 is only really about the conditions in which the game was played; the difference between the pre- and post-1864 eras concerns the game itself.

Now tell me: did you get your email?

 

[Richard]

Ain't checked me email for a coupla days TBH, and probably won't until tomorrow now. Never yet failed to get one sent to me though.

I think the pitches make a huge, huge difference TBH. I often wonder whether a superman bowler like Lohmann would have been aught more than a decent one post-1900 (and Lohmann is just the most obvious example).

While the likes of Kortwright, Spofforth etc. would almost obviously be brilliant performers at any time, there are many where it doesn't work this way.

I feel simply happiest drawing a line at the 20th-century and saying I want everything else before then treated slightly differently. I don't feel comparison as if the two were the exact same thing is wise.

You just need to look at basic "best averages" for Tests (given a simple 2000-deliveries qualification) and see the amount of 19th-century bowlers in there.

Any question asked by me will always concern 1900-onwards, and I feel happiest answering only questions about the game from 1900 onwards. I do not feel my knowledge of the previous time is sufficient, for one thing. Does that mean I'm overtly self-centred to say everyone should only ask the same? Some will feel so (some who aren't worth bothering about of course) and some will not.

 

[archie mac]

But how does any of this preclude us from comparing fast bowlers from either side of the 1900 dividing line? We may by all means take into account the changes that you have stipulated, but I fail to see how they could be regarded as so drastic as to make impossible an informed, objective decision.

If you were to move that dividing line down to 1864, however, you would have a case. The difference between the periods 1864-1900 and 1900-2007 is only really about the conditions in which the game was played; the difference between the pre- and post-1864 eras concerns the game itself.

Now tell me: did you get your email?

How I wish you had been on here when C_C was going on and on and on

He once told me that everything had improved, and I said what about writing? And he then told me that writing had also improved out of sight I gave up

 

[Richard]

The "anything pre-professionals" spirit is not yet dead Sean - we still have social.

 

[neville cardus]

Ain't checked me email for a coupla days TBH, and probably won't until tomorrow now. Never yet failed to get one sent to me though.

Do let me know, though, if it fails you this time. My attachments have lately served me somewhat poorly.

I think the pitches make a huge, huge difference TBH. I often wonder whether a superman bowler like Lohmann would have been aught more than a decent one post-1900 (and Lohmann is just the most obvious example).

The answer to that oft-peddled question is not really all that difficult: bowling as he most frequently did in his era, one replete with sticky dogs and more conducive than any other to break-backs, Lohmann would never have had the same degree of success in this age of covered wickets, where sticky dogs and break-backs are utterly non-existent.

There is no disputing, however, that, in his time and clime, he truly was a great bowler, and one does not become a truly great bowler without that pivotal facet called adaptability.

That Lohmann (his record-shattering feats in England aside) also met with considerable success on the harder wickets of Australia and the matting of South Africa is more than enough, for me, at least, to show that, had he played in the modern era, with its vastly different conditions, he would soon enough have adjusted his game and made hay with similar (but relative) effect.

While the likes of Kortwright, Spofforth etc. would almost obviously be brilliant performers at any time, there are many where it doesn't work this way.

Which is why your contention is a little useless on this platform.

I feel simply happiest drawing a line at the 20th-century and saying I want everything else before then treated slightly differently. I don't feel comparison as if the two were the exact same thing is wise.

I am totally with you there, except for my feeling that, rather than employ apartheid on the two eras, we ought simply to take into account their differences. Your method plucks much of the fun from this pursuit.

[...] Any question asked by me will always concern 1900-onwards, and I feel happiest answering only questions about the game from 1900 onwards.

You're missing out. There is, for me, no more fascinating period in cricket history than that just prior to the Golden Age.

I do not feel my knowledge of the previous time is sufficient, for one thing. Does that mean I'm overtly self-centred to say everyone should only ask the same? Some will feel so (some who aren't worth bothering about of course) and some will not.

Although not of the Richard-is-self-centred school, I do believe that he could make more of an effort.

 

[Richard]

Do let me know, though, if it fails you this time. My attachments have lately served me somewhat poorly.

Shall certainly do so.

The answer to that oft-peddled question is not really all that difficult: bowling as he most frequently did in his era, one replete with sticky dogs and more conducive than any other to break-backs, Lohmann would never have had the same degree of success in this age of covered wickets, where sticky dogs and break-backs are utterly non-existent.

There is no disputing, however, that, in his time and clime, he truly was a great bowler, and one does not become a truly great bowler if one lacks in one's game that pivotal facet known as adaptability.

That Lohmann (his record-shattering feats in England aside) also met with considerable success on the harder wickets of Australia and the matting of South Africa is more than enough, for me, to prove that, had he played in the modern era, with its vastly different conditions, he would soon enough adjust his game and make hay with similar (but relative) effect.

Oh, very much so; my intention was not to suggest Lohmann - or anyone of his ilk - was neccessarily substandard, more that one type or style of bowling (rather than bowler specifically) which was previously lethal would be rendered something close to obselete.

You're missing out. There is, for me, no more fascinating period in cricket history than that just prior to the Golden Age.

I don't doubt that my knowledge of said era (fuelled by the desire to hear of it) shall expand as I have more and more time to read. For the last 3 years or so, though, the period of cricket history that has fascinated me most is the 1970s and 80s. That doubtless will continue to change.

 

[neville cardus]

[...] Oh, very much so; my intention was not to suggest Lohmann - or anyone of his ilk - was neccessarily substandard, more that one type or style of bowling (rather than bowler specifically) which was previously lethal would be rendered something close to obselete.

But he obtained a number of wickets in conditions not dissimilar to those we have today. I am not so sure about "obselete" as I am about "not as effective", which is, anyway, the case with all types of bowling, barring lobs.

 

[Richard]

Obselete was indeed a poor choice of word (similar to those who blunderingly use "archaic" in English exams when what they mean is "dated"), and "less effective" was indeed far closer to my meaning.

 

[archie mac]

Anyway a long time ago we (NC and myself) were discussing the back foot no-ball rule and how to stop 'Drag' (I can't remember the thread so thought I would post it here), Bradman had the umpires in Aust placing a marker down behind the crease and telling the bowler he had to take off from that point if he did not he would call no-ball. It seems it was working quite well in this country before the front foot rule was introduced

 

[neville cardus]

Are you in favour of its reinstatement?

 

[archie mac]

Are you in favour of its reinstatement?

Yes, I don't think the oringinal law makers had any intention of bowlers being so harshly judged by having their foot a CM out

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, I don't think the oringinal law makers had any intention of bowlers being so harshly judged by having their foot a CM out

The original law makers also didn't envisage that bowlers would abuse the back foot law.

 

[archie mac]

The original law makers also didn't envisage that bowlers would abuse the back foot law.

True, but you could say that of any number of laws

 

[neville cardus]

It simply gave the umpires too much to do -- more so, certainly, than under the present laws. It's tough enough as it is to make split-second decisions about the deeds of a little orb of leather flying about at 140kph, but first to have to swivel the head around (as they did under the old ruling) and make another difficult split-second decision renders it almost impossible. The rule was rightly changed and is best left as it is.