Why the lack of respect for Freddie?

[social]

This is a truly great bowler who barely gets a mention when the best are discussed

http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/statsguru/content/player/21600.html

Have a look at this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QrIdBG1yM

Brilliant action

Pace

Outswing

Wickets (world record holder for decades)


The fact that Barnes, who may well be a myth (I'd back myself to get wickets at test level TODAY on matting wickets), is consistently rated above this guy is a massive injustice IMO

 

[Ikki]

Yeh, I've always wondered. Certainly in the top echelon of bowlers.

 

[pasag]

Lol, was just talking about him on MSN.

 

[Richard]

Trueman is without question one of England's greatest seam-bowlers - arguably the best. Only Tate, Statham and Bedser fit to rank with him for my money. Larwood probably woudl too IMO had he got more opportunity at the top level. If domestic cricket only is considered Larwood is ahead of the lot, of course.

I'd place Barnes in a different class, obviously - with Trueman (and the others, in Tate's case to a slightly lesser extent) more a case of known quantities.

One thing he and Barnes have in common is that they both missed crazy amounts of Test cricket because they upset the selectors due to attitudes ahead of their time. Both of them would have smashed all records of their times to smithereens had they played all the Test cricket they could.

 

[Ikki]

What about Tyson?

 

[social]

What about Tyson?

No longevity

 

[bagapath]

he played 47 of his 67 matches in England. his away record is particulary weak compared to his home stats. especially if you remove his four tests in newzealand, he was not great in australia and not good in the west indies. he never played in the sub continent. so his otherwise awesome career records look slightly incomplete with such weak away numbers. more popular fast bowlers like marshall, mcgrath, hadlle and lillee must be possessing more balanced home-away stats.

freddie must be the greatest catcher among out and out fast bowlers though.

 

[Richard]

What about Tyson?

Tyson was faster and more effective than maybe any bowler.

For all of 2-and-a-half years, in which he played 11 Tests against Test-standard teams.

In those 11 Tests he took 56 wickets at 18.42 and produced several sensational performances. However, he himself knew he could not do this for long - he once said something along the lines of "I'll bowl fast or not at all". Tyson was happy to have a short, brilliant career. And this is what he did.

 

[steds]

He were no Statham.

 

[Richard]

he played 47 of his 67 matches in England. his away record is particulary weak compared to his home stats. especially if you remove his four tests in newzealand, he was not great in australia and not good in the west indies. he never played in the sub continent. so his otherwise awesome career records look slightly incomplete with such weak away numbers. more popular fast bowlers like marshall, mcgrath, hadlle and lillee must be possessing more balanced home-away stats.

Indeed, there has (remarkably) never been an England seam-bowler without another major flaw to achieve consistent success outside this country. John Snow had great overseas success, but made just 3 tours (1 of these in which he bowled just once). Bob Willis had a fair amount of success in Australia in 1974/75, India in 1976/77, and New Zealand in 1977/78. Yet Willis' record against West Indies at home in 1976 and 1980 (as well as away in 1974) was awful, enough to set him back and place him below the likes of Tate, Bedser, Statham and Trueman.

Had Willis managed more success against the West Indian batting (and obviously he was far from the only bowler to be collared by Fredericks, Greenidge and co.) he'd be unequivocally England's greatest seam-bowler.

 

[bagapath]

Had Willis managed more success against the West Indian batting (and obviously he was far from the only bowler to be collared by Fredericks, Greenidge and co.) he'd be unequivocally England's greatest bowler.

i dont think so, richard. willis averaged less than four wickets per test. and he never managed a 10 wicket haul in over 90 tests. his strike rate was above 56 and average above 25. he was very good. but not great, leave alone greatest of england.

 

[Richard]

Deduct his record against West Indies and it rivals any of Tate, Bedser, Statham and Trueman. And unlike them, he has long-term overseas performance on his CV.

This, of course, might well have been even more extensive than it was had his knees allowed.

As it is, though, John Snow has very legitimate claim to being the better bowler, and I'd always put Snow too below the aforementioned four.

EDIT: just realised my above post said "bowler" and not "seam-bowler". Of course, before covered wickets spinners (Rhodes, Verity, Wardle, Laker, Underwood, to a lesser extent Blythe, Lock and Illingworth) were generally much better bowlers than seamers in this country. I've never really been totally sure how to be fair on this matter, as obviously none of these fingerspinners would be terribly remarkable in the covered-wickets era, but their achievements in the conditions they were allowed cannot possibly be ignored.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The fact that Barnes, who may well be a myth (I'd back myself to get wickets at test level TODAY on matting wickets), is consistently rated above this guy is a massive injustice IMO

To be fair to SFB he still averages 18.35 even when the SA freebies are removed from his figures. He only played 4 of his 27 tests on matting.

 

[social]

To be fair to SFB he still averages 18.35 even when the SA freebies are removed from his figures. He only played 4 of his 27 tests on matting.

That's great but the quality of opposition is still highly questionable and the conditions highly in the bowlers' favour

Call him a legend - fine

The best? Not enough evidence for mine

 

[Richard]

The point, though, is that the matting wickets barely added to his potency.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's great but the quality of opposition is still highly questionable and the conditions highly in the bowlers' favour

Call him a legend - fine

The best? Not enough evidence for mine

No, I'd probably agree with you there. He's there or thereabouts for me but, unlike with Bradman, I don't think one can truly definitively say he's the best.

 

[SJS]

I am not sure there is such a lack of respect after all Bradman rated him high enough to put him in the all time England team along with Barnes and Bedser; but yes one wonders.

 

[Top_Cat]

Can someone please explain to me why matting supposedly makes bowling so much easier? I always found turf not only easier to bowl on (more movement in the air although less cut) but harder to bat on. Matting bounces more, sure, but the bounce is consistent and the movement predictable, even if it is a bit more.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Trueman is the greatest English fast bowler by a long way and behind only Lillee and Marshall in the list of great fast bowlers, had he not been a "bad boy" he would have got another 150 wickets.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Addressing the topic, Flintoff's legacy will always be hindered by injury. He was picked too young and that has tarnished his overall statistics, but right before he got injured he was easily one of the best three seam bowlers in the world, if not the best. I fear that he will never be consistently fit again, and as such will never be able to establish himself as England's best ever. A very good, often excellent, seam bowler, but not done enough to be called great. Not really his fault though.