Bill O'Reilly vs Curtly Ambrose

[Sliferxxxx]

Anyways, on point @Sliferxxxx , I thought you were comparing George to Wally, as yk, there's no point in a Bradman comparison. And Wally did played both Amar and Nissar. And ofcourse what rubbed me the wrong way was your dismissal of them with words like "not anything special" and "two bowlers with so called reputation", where you could had just said you don't know enough of them.

I admit I dont know enough. No shame in admitting that.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I admit I dont know enough. No shame in admitting that.

And I admit my reply was being an asshole, which was just wrong to do. Sorry.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

And I admit my reply was being an asshole, which was just wrong to do. Sorry.

No worries.

 

[the big bambino]

Headley didn't face his opponent's best attacks - it's true. Particularly at home. He faced some of the leading English bowlers at home, but only very early or late in their careers. The most notable being Voce, Rhodes and Farnes, but even the latter missed two games due to injury. Hollies was a good bowler and a 30 ave isn't too bad for a spinner. But he wasn't ever amongst Eng's best slow bowlers and his selection for 1935 appears to be experimental.

He was more likely to face better bowling away from home but even in 1933 the entire English bodyline bowling squad missed that home series for one reason or another. I think of them Allen played a single game (and got Headley twice). Only in 1939 and v Aus did he face his opposition's best attacks. Even then in 1939 only one of Eng's 2 best bowlers played a single test while Bowes and Copson missed the last test.

Australia played their best attack and Headley averaged 37. But he scored two centuries, and looked to be dominating as the series went on. In that regard he reminds me of Viv Richards on his first tour of Australia. I think Headley's career would've followed the same way and he would have dominated opposing attacks even if the best were consistently available.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Headley didn't face his opponent's best attacks - it's true. Particularly at home. He faced some of the leading English bowlers at home, but only very early or late in their careers. The most notable being Voce, Rhodes and Farnes, but even the latter missed two games due to injury. Hollies was a good bowler and a 30 ave isn't too bad for a spinner. But he wasn't ever amongst Eng's best slow bowlers and his selection for 1935 appears to be experimental.

He was more likely to face better bowling away from home but even in 1933 the entire English bodyline bowling squad missed that home series for one reason or another. I think of them Allen played a single game (and got Headley twice). Only in 1939 and v Aus did he face his opposition's best attacks. Even then in 1939 only one of Eng's 2 best bowlers played a single test while Bowes and Copson missed the last test.

Australia played their best attack and Headley averaged 37. But he scored two centuries, and looked to be dominating as the series went on. In that regard he reminds me of Viv Richards on his first tour of Australia. I think Headley's career would've followed the same way and he would have dominated opposing attacks even if the best were consistently available.

The only notable English bowler Headley didn't face from that era was Larwood and that's because by 1933 he was retired; not Headleys fault. The downplaying of who Headley faced needs to stop. Headley is in no way shape or form in the same rung as his great contemporary but Bradman faced horrible attacks from RSA and India and the ones he faced vs England weren't that dissimilar from what Headley faced in England. Im not the most versed with teams from that time, so if you highlight all the great Eng attacks Headley missed I'm all ears.

 

[sayon basak]

And I admit my reply was being an asshole, which was just wrong to do. Sorry.

This is not enough. Shave your head and shove your head into the toilet.

 

[the big bambino]

The only notable English bowler Headley didn't face from that era was Larwood and that's because by 1933 he was retired; not Headleys fault. The downplaying of who Headley faced needs to stop. Headley is in no way shape or form in the same rung as his great contemporary but Bradman faced horrible attacks from RSA and India and the ones he faced vs England weren't that dissimilar from what Headley faced in England. Im not the most versed with teams from that time, so if you highlight all the great Eng attacks Headley missed I'm all ears.

Larwood did not retire in 1933. He was considered for the 34 series. MCC tried to convince him to tour in 36/37. But he wouldn't agree to their conditions that would have ensured selection on either occasion. There is no way Headley faced the best English bowlers, either at home or away. He occasionally faced one or maybe two of them intermittently. But never four consistently. The SA team Bradman dominated, recently beat an almost full strength English team and subsequently went on to beat England afterwards. The belief the SA team of the era was minnow level is one of the most enduring fantasies on CW.

 

[Coronis]

The only notable English bowler Headley didn't face from that era was Larwood and that's because by 1933 he was retired; not Headleys fault. The downplaying of who Headley faced needs to stop. Headley is in no way shape or form in the same rung as his great contemporary but Bradman faced horrible attacks from RSA and India and the ones he faced vs England weren't that dissimilar from what Headley faced in England. Im not the most versed with teams from that time, so if you highlight all the great Eng attacks Headley missed I'm all ears.

I mean you’re literally ignoring the fact that he played against teams missing multiple bowlers which has been stated multiple times.

He never played against Larwood or Tate, and at home played against weakened English sides.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Larwood did not retire in 1933. He was considered for the 34 series. MCC tried to convince him to tour in 36/37. But he wouldn't agree to their conditions that would have ensured selection on either occasion. There is no way Headley faced the best English bowlers, either at home or away. He occasionally faced one or maybe two of them intermittently. But never four consistently. The SA team Bradman dominated, recently beat an almost full strength English team and subsequently went on to beat England afterwards. The belief the SA team of the era was minnow level is one of the most enduring fantasies on CW.

Did Larwood play any tests after 1933? No. He retired. Whether he was considered or not is irrelevant his last test was in 1933. And I never said RSA or India were minnows, I said the English attacks Headley faced particularly England were no worse than what Don faced vs those two teams.

 

[Coronis]

Did Larwood play any tests after 1933? No. He retired. Whether he was considered or not is irrelevant his last test was in 1933. And I never said RSA or India were minnows, I said the English attacks Headley faced particularly England were no worse than what Don faced vs those two teams.

Which is categorically false

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I mean you’re literally ignoring the fact that he played against teams missing multiple bowlers which has been stated multiple times.

He never played against Larwood or Tate, and at home played against weakened English sides.

I didn't ignore anything I acknowledge that he didn't play England's first choice teams and attacks especially when they toured the Caribbean. You lot are ignoring the fact that none of those attacks were particularly weaker than what Bradman faced vs RSA and India. And in England bowlers may have been missing for one reason or another (not George's fault) but those were full strength English teams. And he played Australia's full strength teams as well.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Which is categorically false

Based on...your opinion? If you can prove otherwise with facts, I'm all ears.

 

[ataraxia]

Did Larwood play any tests after 1933? No. He retired. Whether he was considered or not is irrelevant his last test was in 1933. And I never said RSA or India were minnows, I said the English attacks Headley faced particularly England were no worse than what Don faced vs those two teams.

That's not was that word means lol. Sam Robson hasn't been retired the last 10 years.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

That's not was that word means lol. Sam Robson hasn't been retired the last 10 years.

You're right my mistake. He was eligible for selection but played his last test in 1933. Therefore he retired from tests...when exactly??

 

[Coronis]

I didn't ignore anything I acknowledge that he didn't play England's first choice teams and attacks especially when they toured the Caribbean. You lot are ignoring the fact that none of those attacks were particularly weaker than what Bradman faced vs RSA and India. And in England bowlers may have been missing for one reason or another (not George's fault) but those were full strength English teams. And he played Australia's full strength teams as well.

Because literally nobody except you is talking about South Africa or India? We’re literally comparing the English attacks they faced (where Bradman did much better against again, easily better attacks)… so what does RSA or India have to do with anything? Fun fact: South Africa had beaten England a year earlier, and would go on to win their next two series in New Zealand and England before Australia smashed them again. Also a fun fact; in that series Bradman played, many quality Aussie batsmen including Kippax, McCabe and Ponsford. They were in no way a shabby team.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Because literally nobody except you is talking about South Africa or India? We’re literally comparing the English attacks they faced (where Bradman did much better against again, easily better attacks)… so what does RSA or India have to do with anything? Fun fact: South Africa had beaten England a year earlier, and would go on to win their next two series in New Zealand and England before Australia smashed them again. Also a fun fact; in that series Bradman played, many quality Aussie batsmen including Kippax, McCabe and Ponsford. They were in no way a shabby team.

Listen, if you have an issue with what I posted you can just ignore me and move on, won't bother me one bit. Headley played quality attacks in England and full strength teams. Gotta an issue with my take good for you.

 

[the big bambino]

Did Larwood play any tests after 1933? No. He retired. Whether he was considered or not is irrelevant his last test was in 1933. And I never said RSA or India were minnows, I said the English attacks Headley faced particularly England were no worse than what Don faced vs those two teams.

I mean this is the kind of thing I find exasperating. He didn't retire. That is when you stop playing the game. That occurred for Larwood in 1938, not 1933. He was still available for tests as long as the conditions demanded by the MCC (most notably an apology for Bodyline) were acceptable to him. They were not, and as neither party compromised he wasn't selected. It is correct to say he played his last test in 1933 but he had not retired.

I'm 50/50 on your next point. SA as a team was superior to the teams Headley faced. India's post war team was inferior imo.

EDIT - I've just read subsequent posts. I kind of agree Headley faced full strength English attacks in 1933 and 1939. Kind of. The majority of their best bowlers were, in the main absent, in both seasons for one reason or the other. Let's take 1933 for example. Larwood was injured. Voce was out of form until August when the tests were basically done. He seemed "hungover" from the bodyline tour. I can only assume Yorkshire prevented Bowes and Verity from playing (though I think they may have grudgingly let Verity play one test). Tate didn't play any and Allen played one game then missed the rest of season probably because as an amateur he had to work. Farnes, who almost made the bodyline tour, had a full season with his University.

In 1939 Verity only played one test, Farnes, as an amateur, only played fc cricket in August during the holidays (he was a school master). Bowes and Copson missed the last test.

It would be fair to say Headley faced the best available in 1933 and 1939. Frankly if Australia won a series in England now with most of their best bowlers missing I wouldn't care less and take the win without another thought. as the saying goes you can only play what's in front of you.

 

[Johan]

It would be fair to say Headley faced the best available in 1933 and 1939. Frankly if Australia won a series in England now with most of their best bowlers missing I wouldn't care less and take the win without another thought. as the saying goes you can only play what's in front of you.

Heh, as if that would ever happen

 

[subshakerz]

Heh, as if that would ever happen

Much more likely than the reverse.

 

[Johan]

Much more likely than the reverse.

Both are significantly more likely than Pakistan winning a series in either that's for sure.