• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Where does George Lohmann rank among the all time great fast bowlers?

Blaze 18

Blaze 18

Banned
George Lohmann | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

These are his test stats :

112 wickets from 36 innings @ 10.75


I asked this question in the Bradman thread, but I think this deserves a thread of its own. By common consensus, Bradman is the best batsman of all time, because he averaged almost twice as much as other all time great batsmen (it is a viewpoint I completely agree with by the way). Using the same standards, does it mean Lohmann is the greatest bowler ever? He averaged less than half of what most other all time great (fast) bowlers average. Is he the second greatest cricketer after Sir Donald Bradman?

Would love to hear the views of CWers on this.
 
Last edited:
Kylez

Kylez

State Vice-Captain
Played in the late 1800's instead of the 21st Century. I'd have him right behind 21st century bowlers like Mohammed Sami and Darren Powell.
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
Replied to this in the other thread but the thread did not proceed in this direction. Will repeat:

Personally, Most ratings I do start from 1910-1920 or so. I even hesitate calling Bradman the greatest batsman ever, just call him the greatest batsman since the beginning of the 20th century. It's because only from that point on do I have a rough idea about cricket history. FC cricket was of very high importance in Lohmann's day and arguably a greater test of consistency and endurance as tests were extremely few in number.

Basically, I know sweet ****all about other great bowlers apart from Lohmann from that era so if I rate him as the greatest and fill the other 19 spots in an AT list with bowlers from much different eras, It'd be like putting Marshall on top in an AT list 100 years later and not considering any other contemporary of Marshall's, who certainly are only negligibly worse than him, if that. It will definitely happen as people will only remember who is recognized to be the very best as long periods of time progress and all the Duleeps, Shrewsburys and heck, even the Garners now are slowly forgotten. It's a human flaw which I will do my best not to fall victim to.
 
Blaze 18

Blaze 18

Banned
Teja. said:
Replied to this in the other thread but the thread did not proceed in this direction. Will repeat:

Personally, Most ratings I do start from 1910-1920 or so. I even hesitate calling Bradman the greatest batsman ever, just call him the greatest batsman since the beginning of the 20th century. It's because only from that point on do I have a rough idea about cricket history. FC cricket was of very high importance in Lohmann's day and arguably a greater test of consistency and endurance as tests were extremely few in number.

Basically, I know sweet ****all about other great bowlers apart from Lohmann from that era so if I rate him as the greatest and fill the other 19 spots in an AT list with bowlers from much different eras, It'd be like putting Marshall on top in an AT list 100 years later and not considering any other contemporary of Marshall's, who certainly are only negligibly worse than him, if that. It will definitely happen as people will only remember who is recognized to be the very best as long periods of time progress and all the Duleeps, Shrewsburys and heck, even the Garners now are slowly forgotten. It's a human flaw which I will do my best not to fall victim to.
Click to expand...
Yeah, saw your reply in the other thread. A fair viewpoint, it must be said. :thumbup1:
 
_Ed_

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, but his stats still look pretty good compared to other bowlers of that era.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Once you normalize for the skewed bat-ball balance, Sydney Barnes beats him, and here is my little proof for that. Still quite sensational, but nowhere near as dominant among bowlers as Bradman was among batsmen. Besides, his sample size at the test level is relatively small. And yes, I find it difficult compare players from the 19th century with those from 20th century onwards when test cricket emerged as the ultimate and uniform standard of cricket worldwide.

As for the question asked in the thread, I might have him in best 20.
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
While I'm very much a novice in cricketing history I would say that first-class records are more indicative of where a cricketer stood back then. As has been mentioned, there were several bowlers at the time with comparable FC averages. So it's not so much a "Bradmanesque" stat as just a very, very good one.
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Lohmann was a medium pacer - his Test record is a bit skewed by some ridiculously cheap wickets against South Africa (30 odd at less than 6 runs each) at a time when the Saffers were barely of First Class let alone Test standard

He still averaged 13 against Australia although the difference between his average and the best of his contemporaries wasn't anything like Bradmanesque

If you use the wickets per match measure at 6.22 he is behind Sydney Barnes (7.00), JJ Ferris and Tom Richardson - Murali at just a fraction over 6 is the only modern bowler who comes out much over 5

He must have been quite a bowler but I doubt he'd hold any terrors for modern batsmen on 21st century wickets
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
How does Lohman compare with Fred Spofforth who also played in 19th century? I get an impression that Spofforth is rated higher but there is wide enough gulf between test stats of the two and I tend to rate Lohmann the greatest bowler of 19th century.
 
Xuhaib

Xuhaib

International Coach
forget Lohman or Bradman its Lillywhite who should be the greatest cricket ever the next best bowler has a FC average of x3.6 to him also made his debut @ 33 and played till 61.

Pure WAG.
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Xuhaib said:
forget Lohman or Bradman its Lillywhite who should be the greatest cricket ever the next best bowler has a FC average of x3.6 to him also made his debut @ 33 and played till 61.

Pure WAG.
Click to expand...
If you want to go that far back John Wisden and Alfred Mynn both have a fractionally better bowling average than Lillywhite and both were much better batsmen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top