Ashwin v Laker v Verity v Grimmett

[OverratedSanity]

Verity definitely got overrated a bit in that thread. He's still better than grimmett imo,whose bowling just doesn't pass the modern eye test imo. Of course, players from older eras are going to look worse/different sometimes because it was different conditions and different techniques. But Grimmett's bowling action seems to completely lack the powerful surge through delivery even other bowlers from his era had. I can see quicks like Lindwall, Miller, Farnes etc. being successful in any era with a bit of adjustment unlike Grimmett who looks really floaty to me and doesn't look like the revs are there.

The above could be nonsense and admittedly players shouldn't be judged on how they hypothetically might do in an imaginary era but I don't think his actual numbers are overwhelmingly great enough to compensate for that.

 

[Coronis]

Verity definitely got overrated a bit in that thread. He's still better than grimmett imo,whose bowling just doesn't pass the modern eye test imo. Of course, players from older eras are going to look worse/different sometimes because it was different conditions and different techniques. But Grimmett's bowling action seems to completely lack the powerful surge through delivery even other bowlers from his era had. I can see quicks like Lindwall, Miller, Farnes etc. being successful in any era with a bit of adjustment unlike Grimmett who looks really floaty to me and doesn't look like the revs are there.

The above could be nonsense and admittedly players shouldn't be judged on how they hypothetically might do in an imaginary era but I don't think his actual numbers are overwhelmingly great enough to compensate for that.

iirc I’ve read that he didn’t turn it greatly but got most of his wickets with unerring accuracy.

Could be misremembering tho

 

[cnerd123]

So O’Reilly is basically an Ashwin level bowler but only one of them is rated as ATG

Nah, O'Reilly is definitely an ATG too

 

[cnerd123]

Verity definitely got overrated a bit in that thread. He's still better than grimmett imo,whose bowling just doesn't pass the modern eye test imo. Of course, players from older eras are going to look worse/different sometimes because it was different conditions and different techniques. But Grimmett's bowling action seems to completely lack the powerful surge through delivery even other bowlers from his era had. I can see quicks like Lindwall, Miller, Farnes etc. being successful in any era with a bit of adjustment unlike Grimmett who looks really floaty to me and doesn't look like the revs are there.

The above could be nonsense and admittedly players shouldn't be judged on how they hypothetically might do in an imaginary era but I don't think his actual numbers are overwhelmingly great enough to compensate for that.

Grimmet was very much a product of his era. Getting the ball to hang in the air and drop on a good length repeatedly with enough control and nous to deceive batters. Modern day bats, power hitting and pitches probably nerf him but not fair to hold that against him. He's not going to develop a bowling style to counter batters who don't exist.

 

[Prince EWS]

Underwood criminally underrated.

Straight to jail?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Someone as obsessed as Grum towards spin bowling would have been great regardless of the era.

 

[shortpitched713]

Having watched replay footage is not a criteria. What if Ashwin was from 1900 and Verity from 2000?

You're missing the point.

When we pick guys like this from a lo g ago time, we are essentially ceding that we abstract our appreciation of the sport to just hard numbers on a stats sheet.

And I'll admit I'm very guilty of it too, but there's so much more that goes into evaluating cricketers than appreciating the mathematics of big number vs small number. All of us would have been able to appreciate exponentially more of the skill and destructiveness of Ashwin as compared to Verity (except maybe L&L OR JBMAC or some others). When you add the fact that most of us understand that the level of the game wasn't quite the same almost 100 years ago, as compared to now, the choice to elevate Verity over Ashwin, when they have very similar statistical records (and Ashwin's has way more volume and breadth), seems farcical.

 

[peterhrt]

On good pitches Verity was a defensive bowler, lacking the flight and variation of Rhodes.

During the 1936-37 series in Australia, it was reported that England's weakness was in spin bowling. Verity was considered ineffective compared with Australia's spinners. Even on the couple of occasions when rain damaged the pitch, it was Voce who took advantage.

Verity is another cricketer whose reputation grew after he stopped playing. At the time he was not rated as highly as Grimmett in England, Australia or South Africa.

 

[capt_Luffy]

On good pitches Verity was a defensive bowler, lacking the flight and variation of Rhodes.

During the 1936-37 series in Australia, it was reported that England's weakness was in spin bowling. Verity was considered ineffective compared with Australia's spinners. Even on the couple of occasions when rain damaged the pitch, it was Voce who took advantage.

Verity is another cricketer whose reputation grew after he stopped playing. At the time he was not rated as highly as Grimmett in England, Australia or South Africa.

Was Rhodes considered an equal bowler to Verity??

 

[peterhrt]

Was Rhodes considered an equal bowler to Verity??

Rhodes was considered superior.

For a long time England's top bowlers were judged largely on what they did in Australia. The all-time England XI selected by Arlott, Swanton and Frith in 1977 included five bowlers. Four had taken 30 wickets or more in a single series in Australia: Rhodes, Barnes, Tate and Larwood. The fifth bowler, Laker, was chosen last to balance the attack. It was made clear that Rhodes had not been picked as an all-rounder, but as the best left-arm spinner on all wickets.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

You're missing the point.

When we pick guys like this from a lo g ago time, we are essentially ceding that we abstract our appreciation of the sport to just hard numbers on a stats sheet.

And I'll admit I'm very guilty of it too, but there's so much more that goes into evaluating cricketers than appreciating the mathematics of big number vs small number. All of us would have been able to appreciate exponentially more of the skill and destructiveness of Ashwin as compared to Verity (except maybe L&L OR JBMAC or some others). When you add the fact that most of us understand that the level of the game wasn't quite the same almost 100 years ago, as compared to now, the choice to elevate Verity over Ashwin, when they have very similar statistical records (and Ashwin's has way more volume and breadth), seems farcical.

thats a problematic viewpoint. clearly theres a flaw in that