England's best ever bowler

[cnerd123]

No love for Sydney Barnes huh?

 

[viriya]

No love for Sydney Barnes huh?

Most bowlers of the pre 1970s bowled at relatively low average batsmen. Aside from a short Bradman era.

 

[Red]

Most bowlers of the pre 1970s bowled at relatively low average batsmen. Aside from a short Bradman era.

The era from Hobbs saw a significant rise in batting averages. I've always assumed this was to do with better wickets.

 

[JBMAC]

Benaud rated Tyson the fastest and could not split Barnes and Trueman overall

 

[kyear2]

Benaud rated Barnes as the grestest English bowler and second best quick of all behind only Lillee. I believe he rated Trueman next in line followed by Larwood. He rated them all in his top 6 along with Lillee, McGrath and Lindwall.

 

[Dan]

Why are people even taking this seriously? It's so obviously tongue-in-cheek clickbait that isn't actually claiming Hoggard is England's best ever bowler -- it's an interesting statistical exercise with no relevance beyond itself, and they pretty clearly recognise that.


The correct answer is Larwood, ftr.

 

[watson]

Why are people even taking this seriously? It's so obviously tongue-in-cheek clickbait that isn't actually claiming Hoggard is England's best ever bowler -- it's an interesting statistical exercise with no relevance beyond itself, and they pretty clearly recognise that.


The correct answer is Larwood, ftr.

Not the Beeb at it again? Snow.

 

[Dan]

Snow.

Wrong. Larwood.

I will go to my grave proclaiming Larwood as England's best ever bowler, and, in all likelihood, the greatest bowler of all time. So I'm not exactly objective.

 

[Jono]

Shaun Udal for sheer "get around him"ness.

 

[Burgey]

English cricket is senseless.From what I've seen their best bowler has been Anderson.He has been good in SC as well.He has got Sachin out most no.of times than any other bowler

Oh well then, that's it then.

Dunno why Derek Underwood doesn't rate a bigger mention tbh. Not saying he's the best, just he probably belongs in the argument somewhere.

 

[Athlai]

I'm a big fan of batsman and the overall quality of cricket being better in the modern era, but Hoggard? Tell him he's dreamin

 

[OverratedSanity]

Atleast we know who England's best ever batsman is

350 in 138 is pretty decent

 

[fredfertang]

Put him in the first team!

 

[Daemon]

I'm terrible with these things but the formula seems flawed. If bowler A and B have got 10 wickets of a batsman averaging 50 each they'll have the same rating. If A goes on to take an additional wicket of some tailender his rating suffers. Can't see any logic there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm terrible with these things but the formula seems flawed. If bowler A and B have got 10 wickets of a batsman averaging 50 each they'll have the same rating. If A goes on to take an additional wicket of some tailender his rating suffers. Can't see any logic there.

If that's what the article does, then yep it's stupid. Essentially punishes a bowler for being better at taking wickets.

It's the same with stats like %age of centuries in winning causes. Batsman A has 15 out of his 45 in wins. Batsman B has 15 out of 16 in wins. Therefore, Batsman B is a better match winner and a better batsman. Makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it

 

[Red]

Wrong. Larwood.

I will go to my grave proclaiming Larwood as England's best ever bowler, and, in all likelihood, the greatest bowler of all time. So I'm not exactly objective.

Have you read Duncan Hamilton's bio? One of the greatest cricket books of all time.

Larwood was a tremendous bowler. And at the end of the book I almost liked Jardine.

 

[Coronis]

If that's what the article does, then yep it's stupid. Essentially punishes a bowler for being better at taking wickets.

It's the same with stats like %age of centuries in winning causes. Batsman A has 15 out of his 45 in wins. Batsman B has 15 out of 16 in wins. Therefore, Batsman B is a better match winner and a better batsman. Makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it

Depends on length of batsmen's career

 

[ImpatientLime]

wrong thread!

 

[Dan]

Have you read Duncan Hamilton's bio? One of the greatest cricket books of all time.

Larwood was a tremendous bowler. And at the end of the book I almost liked Jardine.

Only a couple of times. Probably due a re-read, now that you mention it. Absolutely brilliant book.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Test Match Special
‏@bbctms
During the interval we will be chatting to the man who has been rated as England's best ever bowler - Who is England's best-ever bowler? - BBC Sport … #bbccricket

​

​

​

oh ffs