SF Barnes

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Richard

I've come to expect this sort of thing on facebook (you're = your for instance) but when top-class CW posters start doing it...

Well spotted Rich - you're on fire today mate

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

I've come to expect this sort of thing on facebook (you're = your for instance) but when top-class CW posters start doing it...

Fred he's right you know. I imagine that, given your previous good character, if you quietly edit your previous post Richard will do the decent thing and edit his to destroy the last shred of evidence. No-one else will ever know.

[fredfertang]

I don't mind coughing to the odd typo Mr Z - after all you don't get banned for it .......... do you?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Fred he's right you know. I imagine that, given your previous good character, if you quietly edit your previous post Richard will do the decent thing and edit his to destroy the last shred of evidence. No-one else will ever know.

Even that is apparently futile in this day-and-age. The ever-more-intrusive, borderline Big Brother Mods can now read posts as they were pre-edit.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

I don't mind coughing to the odd typo Mr Z - after all you don't get banned for it .......... do you?

Only if they conveniently repeatedly avoid the filter.

I would provide examples of how such typos might do such a thing but, well... you know.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

He must have changed his mind then

"Over a full season, under all sorts of conditions, I rank Larwood as the fastest bowler of all"

Don Bradman in "Farewell to Cricket" published in 1950

Lest I be accused of being disingenuous he did preface that by saying the fastest spell he ever faced was from Eddie Gilbert but he does add that wasn't bowling

I was thinking the same thing - and in 1986 Bradman claimed that the three fastest bowlers he ever saw were Larwood, Tyson and Marshall. Clearly he thought Lol among the very fastest of all time, though I would have been very keen to ask him where he ranked Thommo. As lightning quick as Marshall was at his peak, I always had the impression that for pure speed Thommo (and Michael Holding for that matter) were just that fraction quicker. And Bradman would have seen both men close at hand.

Perhaps he just ignored any cricketer who played in WSC.

Bradman also went to great pains to explain that Gilbert's over that dismissed him was as fast as, or faster than, anything he ever faced - but also that Gilbert's fitness, temperament and consistency meant he couldn't ever be considered one of the fastest ever over an extended period of time.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by zaremba

This team is solely about achieving the greater glory of Don Bradman isn't it? Because you look at the team and think "Tallon (Test average of minus 35) at number 6? LIndwall at 7? Lillee 8? Well I suppose you can afford it because Sir Don averaged 99.94 and he's at number 3". And then you see Bedser who was a fine bowler but not worthy of a place in an all-time XI who's clearly got in because he bowled Bradman with a good ball once. And then we have Bradman's mates from the Australian team. Grimmett? Morris? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

It's not even that good - Tallon batting at no.6 with a Test average of less than 35 is nearly excusable, but it's actually less than 20. Completely ridiculous - I remember Bradman saying that Tallon was a better batsman than his Test average indicated and that he had FC centuries for Qld. Behave, Sir Don. Test average of 19 does not an All Time XI no.6 make.

The crazy thing about Sir Don's XI is that he said the presence of Sobers - and his subsequent versatility with the ball - was the key, as it allowed him to play five bowlers. I would think completely the opposite, particularly if you've got a bloke averaging 19 coming in at four wickets down to face history's finest. If Sobers' versatility means he can act as the fifth bowler and that one of the other bowlers (probably Grimmett or Bedser) can be dropped to get 12th Man Hammond into the side, then you have this team:

Richards
Morris
Bradman
Tendulkar
Hammond
Sobers
Tallon
Lindwall
Lillee
Bedser/Grimmett
O'Reilly

Notwithstanding the baffling absence of Hobbs (particularly at the expense of an admittedly brilliant batsman who played in all of four Tests), I think even that one change of Hammond for a bowler makes Bradman's side considerably stronger.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

Perry get's a lot of stick in Australia for making things up and taking advantage of Bradman towards the end of his life - I am sure Archie could give a better perspective - I've never actually read anything Perry has written

This is true, but it's more than that. If it was just his Bradman devotion then I think there'd be less of an issue - The Don was far too shrewd to allow Perry or anyone else to take advantage of him.

The problem with Roland Perry is that he's simply not very good. He clearly likes cricket and enjoys his subject matter, but so do the rest of us and we're not getting paid for it. As a writer he is no better than moderate, as an analyst of the game he is limited. Worst of all, however, is that he is sycophantic to the point of inducing nausea. There doesn't seem to be a critical writing bone in his body, even when there should be and even when, more to the point, the story is enhanced by applying a critical eye. His books invariably seem to be less of a detailed study of the game and its players and more a fawning PR exercise for whoever he is making money from at the time.

Still, his books sell by the truckload and he gets commissioned to write more. Total books commissioned, written and published by The Sean - nil. So what do I know?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Richard

Only if they conveniently repeatedly avoid the filter.

I would provide examples of how such typos might do such a thing but, well... you know.

Demonstration not required Richard - Mr Z seems to be well versed in filter avoidance!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by The Sean

I was thinking the same thing - and in 1986 Bradman claimed that the three fastest bowlers he ever saw were Larwood, Tyson and Marshall. Clearly he thought Lol among the very fastest of all time, though I would have been very keen to ask him where he ranked Thommo. As lightning quick as Marshall was at his peak, I always had the impression that for pure speed Thommo (and Michael Holding for that matter) were just that fraction quicker. And Bradman would have seen both men close at hand.

Perhaps he just ignored any cricketer who played in WSC.

Bradman also went to great pains to explain that Gilbert's over that dismissed him was as fast as, or faster than, anything he ever faced - but also that Gilbert's fitness, temperament and consistency meant he couldn't ever be considered one of the fastest ever over an extended period of time.

I wonder what an "extended period of time" is TBH. Tyson himself acknowledged that he could only bowl the sheer lightning speed - perhaps the fastest ever - that he managed for perhaps a couple of years. And so he did. He retired early, and I'm pretty sure he uttered the words "I'll bowl fast or not at all". If not, someone paraphrased it for him.

Likewise, Holding has always said (as have those who faced him) that he was merely "fast" after his injury in '77, having been probably as quick as anything except Tyson for the couple of years before it. Ditto, of course, Thomson after his own injury in '76/77.

Almost all of those who have pushed speed to the very boundaries of plausibility have been able to do it only for a few years, at best. Shoaib Akhtar and Shaun Tait's injury problems illustrate this perfectly.

[The Sean]

I think what Bradman was getting at was that it was difficult for Gilbert to maintain that kind of speed for any more than a few overs at a time, let alone a few seasons.

And I think dear Mr Boycott would argue that Holding was still as fast as ever in 1981...

[Richard]

As good as ever, beyond all question.

As fast as ever? Well, we won't ever really know. For starters, Boycs was absent as Holding was running amok in '76.

Peter Willey would perhaps be a better man to consult on Holding's relative speed, but as I say - he himself has always maintained he lost the ability to bowl fast beyond fast after that injury he suffered which allowed Garner in in '77.

[The Sean]

That's interesting Rich, I didn't realise Holding had said that - I'd always been under the impression that his pace in the early 80s was a blistering as ever. Would be good to get some accounts from the likes of Willey, as you say.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by The Sean

It's not even that good - Tallon batting at no.6 with a Test average of less than 35 is nearly excusable, but it's actually less than 20.

Sorry - my attempt at a joke - I meant minus as in it's so low as to actually register as a negative.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by The Sean

That's interesting Rich, I didn't realise Holding had said that - I'd always been under the impression that his pace in the early 80s was a blistering as ever. Would be good to get some accounts from the likes of Willey, as you say.

I'm not sure he's on record saying it anywhere, but I've definately heard him mention it once or twice during stints on Sky Sports.

There's a really good mini-biography of him on CricInfo somewhere as well... well, available on CricInfo... and I think there might be some mention of his speeds in that.

Certainly makes it plain that his Test career should've started and finished at home in, respectably, '76 and '86. Had it done so, well... look at the averages yourself, if you don't know 'em already. Amazing how much of a difference that series in Australia and that one-off Test in New Zealand makes.