Hutton* | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2
Reckon he's like McGrath in the late 90's, right at the point where people switch from rating him as the best of his era to wondering how he compares to other acknowledged greats. His last few series' haven't been as destructive as the couple of years beforehand so you'd imagine he'll have to adjust to keep taking wickets at a similar rate, oppo batters seem to be getting better at responding to that ridiculously dangerous outie of his. How he responds to that will probably be the pivot point for whether he'd regarded as an all-time-great or the best of his time.
Personally, I prefer him already over Donald.
Is he even the best South African ahead of Donald and Pollock?
If Steyn is regarded best in the era because rest is poor (and as the worst best fast bowler), Larwood has more claims for it, being surrounded by even a piss poorer bunch than Steyn. Steyn at least have Morkel, Philander and Anderson around him.
Diuretics are used to look good at TV shows
I played for 20 years in the Lankan team, I did not have any problems as a Tamil - Muralidaran
if there is one complain you can have against Steyn his presence is surely one of the last the bloke even had it when he wan an erratic upstart.
Larwood was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries - far better than Voce, twice the bowler Allen was, clearly better than anyone the Australians could uncover and was a class above Martindale and Constantine, two men who troubled the fearsome English batting line-up to no end.
He was genuinely quick, took wickets aplenty in an era in which spin was relied upon heavily (Verity, O'Reilly and Grimmett being the preeminent spin bowlers of the day) and tamed Don ****ing Bradman. Which, I might add, was something nobody else did for a period of 20 years.
As good a captain as Jardine was, Bodyline would have been nothing without Larwood. He won England the 1932 Ashes, end of.
I challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.
He caused fear simply by someone uttering his name. He averaged 17 in First Class cricket on unhelpful pitches. He topped the averages 5 times, something nobody else has done. EVER. He bowled with more pace and more accuracy than anybody before him.
He was better than anybody who came before him, and is better than anyone who has come since. In my opinion, only Marshall's name should be uttered in the same breath.
More realistically though, he was an all-time great bowler. He may not, objectively speaking, be the best. But he damn sure wasn't a mediocre head of a poor era. He was far, far better than that.
Despite him being English, taming 'our Don' and playing a role in Bodyline, he's my biggest cricketing hero.
yeah saying Steyn has no presence is just being deceived by nostalgia imo. I don't exactly know what more Steyn could do to gain an aura, if he doesn't already have it. His on field attitude is about as aggressive as you can get, he doesn't mind have a stare down or a word with the batsmen, he likes to talk himself and the team up, and he isn't afraid to bounce the opposition out. I mean, what more do you need? Maybe a sex scandal would do the trick .
Lets's not get carried away here....
Bradman considered Lindwall a better bowler than Larwood. The Australian could generate pace and accuracy more consistently than the Englishman. Lindwall had a grip on more variarations than Larwood, demonstrating these with a prodigious late out-swinger early in his career, an in-swinger mid-career, the capacity to change pace, a fearful bouncer, and perhaps the best Yorker of them all. While statistics, if taken out of context, may be misleading, the numbers here seem to suggest Lindwall’s superiority. In 21 Tests, Larwood took 78 wickets at 28.35. Remove his Bodyline figures and his returns of 45 wickets at 37.26 for three quarters of his Test career give a more realistic reflection of his effectiveness. In 61 Tests Lindwall took 228 wickets at 23.03.
(Roland Perry - 'Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams', page161)
Barnes in this match revealed himself once more as one of the most remarkable bowlers that this country has ever produced. He has a positively wonderful command of the leg break.... His great height makes it difficult for the batsman to follow the flight of the ball. He is useful on every kind of wicket, whereas few bowlers of his pace are able to bowl on a sticky wicket. - JACK HOBBS, 'My Cricket Memories' (1924)
Yeah a bit OTT for mine.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | PM me for my list of CW posters you shouldn't talk cricket with in Cricket ChatCome and Paint Turtle
Marshall, Ambrose, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillie, Fred Trueman, Allan Donald, Waqar Younus, Wasim Akram, Shoaib Akthar, Holding, Garner, Roberts and Hadlee are "few" that I could thionk. Bah!challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.
And McGrath, Walsh, Kapil and Pollock had similar success being a yard shorter than Larwood.
Last edited by Migara; 21-08-2012 at 07:26 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)