Fred Trueman vs. Alan Davidson

[fredfertang]

Fred did have some "help yourself" series in England (India in 52/59, NZ in 58 and Pak in 62) which will have skewed his strike rate but he also missed some tests while at his peak when he was not selected, mainly, it would seem for being his "exuberant" self in the West Indies in 53/54

 

[Matt79]

Went for Freddy, but it was pretty close. Obviously Davidson being a near allrounder probably made him an overall more valuable player, but I did this purely as a bowler.

My impression from my reading - not having seen much footage of either of them playing, was that Freddy was a more complete bowler who had a good variety of deliveries and quite a bit of pace in his youth. He also seemed to have missed a lot of cricket when he was in his peak - making his final record all the more remarkable.

Davidson may very well have a claim as the best left-arm quick of them all - I think Wasim has him covered, but after Wasim and Davo there's a hell of a lot of daylight to number 3. My impression from what I've read was that he wasn't super quick but generated a lot of late swing - but perhaps wasn't more than just "good" if the ball wasn't swinging.

Given they've both got exceptional records, Fiery's extra bit of zip and variety, and his more prototypical fast bowler's attitude, just give him the nod for mine.

Richard - take note, I'm voting for an English player over an Aussie.

 

[SJS]

LOL, TBH I am the exact opposite - not much attention placed on detail otherwise I would have rounded them off but I just let the figures stay exact. Was Excel's fault .

I know I know.

But tell me how did you get the runs conceded to five places of decimal

 

[Richard]

Richard - take note, I'm voting for an English player over an Aussie.

TBH, I'm sorely tempted to vote for an Australian player over an English one. Not really sure, however.

In any case, I obviously never said "every Australian will vote for every Australian player ahead of any other" (I know sideshowtim will, but he's an exception). And of course you know that.

Trueman has more than fair claim on being England's best seam-bowler ever; Davidson has more than fair claim on having no Australian seam-bowler better than him. The way Davidson has always suffered, in my view, is the same way Jacques Kallis has - his natural reticence. Davidson was one of the most uncharismatic cricketers ever; Trueman one of the most.

The one thing that's always held Davidson back in my view is the fact that his career was a short one. He played well for only 32 Tests over little more than 4 years. He was 26 on debut, 29 by the time he became established in the side (previously he'd played just 12 Tests out of 24 and averaged 34) and retired aged just 33. This is much shorter than most of the best bowlers, and only his phenomenal record in that time (averaging 19.25) puts him in contention. Only very few have ever managed such a good average even over the relatively short period of 32 games.

Trueman, on the other hand, did almost all his best work in England and missed countless Tests for mundane reasons - ie, because he'd upset someone or other. However, this work was for the most part phenomenal, spanned a large number of years, and every single team he came accross - none of them managed to conquer him on home ground.

Perhaps purely for the fact he's a Yorkshireman, I'll have to vote Trueman.

 

[nightprowler10]

Very close, very very close. Going for Fred for some of the reasons Matt's mentioned, but there isn't a lot between them.

 

[Prince EWS]

I know I know.

But tell me how did you get the runs conceded to five places of decimal

He standardised them across venues.

In attempt to even this I've given Trueman the same proportion of away balls/games as Davidson.

 

[Spinksy]

Fred Trueman is probably the better bowler out of the two but stats wise I think that Alan Davidson is the best, so Alan Davidson for me.

 

[Jakester1288]

Fred Trueman is probably the better bowler out of the two but stats wise I think that Alan Davidson is the best, so Alan Davidson for me.

Stats aren't everything.

 

[Burgey]

On the away form, I think (but am not sure) that Davo's series in Pakistan may have been played on matting wickets.
The thought of facing anyone worthy of taking a new ball at test level on mats scares the living **** out of me.

 

[Top_Cat]

On the away form, I think (but am not sure) that Davo's series in Pakistan may have been played on matting wickets.
The thought of facing anyone worthy of taking a new ball at test level on mats scares the living **** out of me.

See, I've never understood this and no-one's been able to explain to me why batting against bowlers on mats would be that much harder. The bowlers might get a little more cut and a little more bounce but it's the unpredictability of bounce/cut/seam that makes batting on turf tougher. Once you got used to the pace and bounce, I'd have thought batting on turf would be far easier. Against bowlers of roughly the same standard, I've certainly scored more on matting than turf when I played. And I suck with the bat.

Seriously, can anyone explain why batting on matting is supposedly so much more difficult?

 

[archie mac]

See, I've never understood this and no-one's been able to explain to me why batting against bowlers on mats would be that much harder. The bowlers might get a little more cut and a little more bounce but it's the unpredictability of bounce/cut/seam that makes batting on turf tougher. Once you got used to the pace and bounce, I'd have thought batting on turf would be far easier. Against bowlers of roughly the same standard, I've certainly scored more on matting than turf when I played. And I suck with the bat.

Seriously, can anyone explain why batting on matting is supposedly so much more difficult?

Late movement, is the thing, and there are also many different types of matting and what they are laid over can or so make a big difference, also if the matting is layed loose or tight makes a big difference

 

[Top_Cat]

Late movement, is the thing, and there are also many different types of matting and what they are laid over can or so make a big difference, also if the matting is layed loose or tight makes a big difference

Good points all. Was just under the assumption that Test teams would ensure mats free of debris underneath, laid tightly, etc. Definitely do remember in junior cricket buggers who'd lay the matting tight one week when they'd bat and put woodchips underneath loose mats the next week.

 

[Burgey]

Good points all. Was just under the assumption that Test teams would ensure mats free of debris underneath, laid tightly, etc. Definitely do remember in junior cricket buggers who'd lay the matting tight one week when they'd bat and put woodchips underneath loose mats the next week.

Yeah, or you'd have some really old mats with holes in them, or really flat in some spots where the ball's hit them a thousand times, then really lively if the ball it pitched shorter.

And wasn't it fun when the ball hit the leaterh on the ends of the mats?

 

[Spikey]

Davidson. Mainly cause I know more about him then I do about Trueman.

 

[Ikki]

I know I know.

But tell me how did you get the runs conceded to five places of decimal

For example if Davidson had bowled 40% of his balls away, I give the same proportion to Trueman and this might not be an exact number. The 5 decimal places is Excel's doing .

 

[Top_Cat]

For example if Davidson had bowled 40% of his balls away, I give the same proportion to Trueman and this might not be an exact number. The 5 decimal places is Excel's doing .

Poor form, Kaz. Hand in your amateur stats card.

 

[Days of Grace]

This may be interesting for some, particularly those who underrate Davidson:

In his first ten matches, up to the end of the Ashes in England in 1956, he only took 13 wickets at an average of 37.53

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/4902.html?class=1;spanmax1=15+Sep+1956;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling;view=match

In his remaining 34 matches, he took 173 wickets (5.09 a match) @ 19.25

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/4902.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1963;spanmin1=15+Sep+1956;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling;view=match

 

[Richard]

Already mentioned that TBH.

 

[gwo]

nah richie...

You said 32 ^_^

 

[Richard]

I said 34 actually - DoG added 2 games to the "good" sequence that I put on the "bad" sequence.

In those 2 games he took 2-15 and 1-42. OK, but almost invariably Davidson's good start is considered to be in South Africa in 1957/58. Same time as Richie Benaud.