Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

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

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,456

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

    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 by Blaze 18; 10-04-2011 at 01:15 AM.

  2. #2
    State Vice-Captain Kylez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Shire
    Posts
    1,414
    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.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,295
    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.
    Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? – Douglas Adams



    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    The reason people don't cheer for India is nothing to do with them being number one

    It's because Teja is a ****, FTR

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    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.
    Yeah, saw your reply in the other thread. A fair viewpoint, it must be said.


  5. #5
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,805
    Weren't conditions ridiculously favoured towards bowlers when he played
    Mark Waugh
    "He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
    RIP Craigos

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member _Ed_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Auckland, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,856
    Yeah, but his stats still look pretty good compared to other bowlers of that era.

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year Adamc's Avatar
    Chicken Champion! Battle Pong Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    in the wind, so to speak
    Posts
    9,129
    There were certainly plenty of others in that era that had similar or better FC bowling records though (Lohmann's FC average was 13.73). Records | First-class matches | Bowling records | Best career bowling average | ESPN Cricinfo It's not as though Bradman had a dozen or so contemporaries averaging 90+ in FC cricket.
    "Under the spreading chestnut tree,
    I sold you and you sold me."

  8. #8
    International Captain ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad India
    Posts
    5,923
    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.

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,002
    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.
    And we still haven't walked in the glow of each other's majestic presence.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,827
    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

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,002
    In Tangy we trust

  12. #12
    International Captain ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad India
    Posts
    5,923
    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.

  13. #13
    Cricketer Of The Year Xuhaib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Karachi
    Posts
    9,506
    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.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Xuhaib View Post
    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.
    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

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,456
    Cheers for the replies guys!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 08:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •