Black and white era bowlers - Spinners vs Seamers?

[Coronis]

Noted. Although my bigger point is that if Hall is clearly that damn good, and in my eyes, every bit a modern pace bowler, then why aren't all of him and his top seam bowling contemporaries given the proper respect for their accomplishments? It can't be just "technical reasons", for the reason that the very best of them had no issues with technique or athleticism.

They aren’t given “proper respect” as you term it because they weren’t that good, since you tried to compare Hall and Ambrose…

Probably about 5% of cricket fans at most are going to be rewatching any black and white tapes of old cricketers. Hall was an intimidating fast bowler, because of his height and bounce, yes. He wasn’t that great and I think he is rated appropriately here. You’re obviously going to hear about him and others less in traditional media and from a casual cricket fan than any modern player, unless you find someone who played with/against him.

Trueman, Lindwall, Davidson and Miller are all ATG pacers from earlier or concurrent times as him and are all given their dues here. Perhaps they’re talked about less in the wider cricket community but that’s natural. Unless they have really outstanding records e.g Bradman, Barnes the media and fans in general will focus on modern players.

We have far more discussions here about top players in their discipline than others. How often has Jason Gillespie been discussed here recently? Probably about as much as Wes. Which is deserved.

 

[Starfighter]

Funny thing is anything Hall is usually overrated. While WI pitches were tougher in his days he averaged 30 right through the sixties.

The past being forgotten is not a new thing. WG Grace considered George Freeman to be one of the best, if not the best fast bowlers he faced. George Tarrant and 'Foghorn' Jackson were two other very highly rated fast bowlers, apparently very intimidating and prone to hitting batsmen.

By the time we pass WWI almost everyone who saw them play was dead and they were forgotten in favour of players from Spofforth onwards.

 

[peterhrt]

People generally tend to exclude fast bowlers who played before WW1(1921).Though I would regard spinners like Rhodes, Blythe, Trumble in Top (15-25).

Before 1910 the run-up area was left uncovered as well as the pitch. When a match started in wet conditions, or the weather forecast was poor, a fast bowler might not even play. If he did, he would not bowl until he could run up properly.

Uncovered pitches were not phased out in England until the 1960s. Rain-affected wickets could give finger-spinners a huge advantage and make batting very difficult. As a result, English spinners were often judged on how well they bowled when the pitch didn't help them. In this regard, some rated Rhodes and Blythe ahead of Verity, who was more of a defensive bowler on good pitches, as was Laker.

 

[shortpitched713]

Well, the difference is, we will always have the recorded footage of these players. So, while human bias will always favor the most recent, for the ones willing to take the proper effort and look back they will have to acknowledge the athleticism and ability of certain players that were recorded before giving their opinion. Seeing is believing, and that's a benefit that Freeman, Tarrant, Jackson, Spofforth, etc. will never have.

 

[peterhrt]

The past being forgotten is not a new thing. WG Grace considered George Freeman to be one of the best, if not the best fast bowlers he faced. George Tarrant and 'Foghorn' Jackson were two other very highly rated fast bowlers, apparently very intimidating and prone to hitting batsmen.

By the time we pass WWI almost everyone who saw them play was dead and they were forgotten in favour of players from Spofforth onwards.

A couple of All-Time World XIs from 1919, one each from England and Australia.

Pelham Warner: Grace, Hobbs, Ranjitsinhji, Trumper, Hill, Noble (capt), Woolley, Lockwood, Blackham (wk), Barnes, Spofforth.

Frank Iredale: Grace, Trumper, Ranjitsinhji, Jackson, Hill, Noble (capt), Peel, Lohmann, Blackham (wk), Richardson, Spofforth.

 

[Starfighter]

There was definitely an advance in pace bowling during the 70s as well. I'm a 'judge them on the context of their era' guy but looking back it seems there was an audible clunk then where the art of quick bowling found something and advanced in objective quality, leading to an explosion in numbers of good quicks around.

Perhaps it was a reaction to the draws of the previous era, that bowlers were forced to be better.

Ah, maybe you'd like to delve into these supposed changes. While the out-and-out medium pacer gradually died with covered pitches, I struggle to see this supposed tremendous advance. The b-grade Australia bowlers in the seventies wren't exactly lighting (Walker and Dymock anyone? Heck, Wayne Clarke) - or the eighties (go on Lawrie Colliver's channel and watch a few Mercantile Mutual Cup matches). I'd argue England actually went backwards compared to the sixties. I'd put the biggest changes in the fifties.

 

[CricAddict]

A couple of All-Time World XIs from 1919, one each from England and Australia.

Pelham Warner: Grace, Hobbs, Ranjitsinhji, Trumper, Hill, Noble (capt), Woolley, Lockwood, Blackham (wk), Barnes, Spofforth.

Frank Iredale: Grace, Trumper, Ranjitsinhji, Jackson, Hill, Noble (capt), Peel, Lohmann, Blackham (wk), Richardson, Spofforth.

While I understand DuleepSinghji played only a few years after these XIs were made, why is Ranjitsinghji rated ahead of him in general currently?

 

[shortpitched713]

Funny thing is anything Hall is usually overrated. While WI pitches were tougher in his days he averaged 30 right through the sixties.

This seems an innacurate characterization of his career. He was a two stages of career player, with a clear devastating peak, from 1958-63, in which he averaged 23.26 .

His latter part of his career from 1965-69 was marked by injuries from "non-stop cricket" according to Wikipedia, which is understandable given there was likely not enough experience in that era of the need to protect fast bowlers, and over-bowling was a likely problem as well. He averaged 33.25 at that time, 37.05 if you exclude his first Test match in 1965, which was the first match for the West Indies since a break that extended from the latter part of 63 to early 65.

So for me he's a Bothamesque player who you really need to break down his career to get the correct impression. The 5 year peak period was a great fast bowling run, after which his latter career he persisted in a clear, relatively washed up state.

 

[trundler]

While I understand DuleepSinghji played only a few years after these XIs were made, why is Ranjitsinghji rated ahead of him in general currently?

Ranji had the highest FC average at the time and was seen as a revolutionary player in terms of stroke-play on the onside. Duleep was just a good player by contrast.

 

[Starfighter]

This seems an innacurate characterization of his career. He was a two stages of career player, with a clear devastating peak, from 1958-63, in which he averaged 23.26 .

His latter part of his career from 1965-69 was marked by injuries from "non-stop cricket" according to Wikipedia, which is understandable given there was likely not enough experience in that era of the need to protect fast bowlers, and over-bowling was a likely problem as well. He averaged 33.25 at that time, 37.05 if you exclude his first Test match in 1965, which was the first match for the West Indies since a break that extended from the latter part of 63 to early 65.

So for me he's a Bothamesque player who you really need to break down his career to get the correct impression. The 5 year peak period was a great fast bowling run, after which his latter career he persisted in a clear, relatively washed up state.

That's a poor analysis though. If you actually look closely, you'll see he has three sub-18 series, two of which were in the fifties, and the next best is over 28. Hall never played county cricket and the timing of test tours doesn't really vary. I doubt he had close to the workload of an English player.

 

[peterhrt]

Ranji had the highest FC average at the time and was seen as a revolutionary player in terms of stroke-play on the onside. Duleep was just a good player by contrast.

Yes, Ranji was placed in the top tier for a long time. Only minor criticism was that he couldn't pick the googly and never mastered it. But that was late in his career when he no longer played Test cricket.

Underrated subsequently because English writers tended to regard him as Indian, while Indian historians (correctly) treated him as English in a cricketing context.

Duleep, his nephew, was very talented but suffered from poor health which curtailed his career.

 

[peterhrt]

So for me he's a Bothamesque player who you really need to break down his career to get the correct impression. The 5 year peak period was a great fast bowling run, after which his latter career he persisted in a clear, relatively washed up state.

Wes Hall was the fastest bowler of the 1960s with a great action. He had formidable stamina, loved bowling long spells, and could also swing the ball, unlike partner Griffith.

He didn't possess the control of some of his successors and could go for runs.

Part of the reason for Hall's high reputation at the time was that he was a tremendously popular character, not least in Australia where he took 76 wickets in 17 matches for Queensland.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Yes, Ranji was placed in the top tier for a long time. Only minor criticism was that he couldn't pick the googly and never mastered it. But that was late in his career when he no longer played Test cricket.

Underrated subsequently because English writers tended to regard him as Indian, while Indian historians (correctly) treated him as English in a cricketing context.

Duleep, his nephew, was very talented but suffered from poor health which curtailed his career.

Ranji was the inventor of the leg glance stroke wasn't he ?

 

[peterhrt]

Ranji was the inventor of the leg glance stroke wasn't he ?

Yes that's right. Liked to play it against the fast bowlers. He was considered the best player of fast bowling at the time.

 

[Line and Length]

How quick were Trueman, Lindwall, Davidson, Statham, and Miller?

Trueman and Lindwall definitely troubled most batsmen with real pace. Davidson, being left arm, troubled many off his economical 15 pace run and was, perhaps, fast medium. Statham, while not swinging the ball, was accurate and fast with the ball seaming off a good length his chief weapon. Miller was an enigma. His pace was often dependent on two factors - how his troublesome back (injured in a crash landing) was and his mood. At his top he was quick.

The fastest of all from that era was, undoubtedly Frank Tyson.

IMO opinion, all would be bowling in the 140s with the possible exception of Davo. Tyson would have easily hit 150+ in his prime.

Having said all that, there wasn't the depth (particularly pace wise) in the fast bowling ranks as there has been more recently.

 

[Starfighter]

My own opinions tally slightly slower. I did actually manage to get an opinion out of a fellow who's been watching since the early sixties on Graham McKenzie's pace - mid 130s, which was what I'd concluded.

I personally suspect Trueman and Statham were probably high 130s type bowlers for most of their careers, sometimes higher. About Darren Gough kind of pace.
Neither was considered exceptionally fast throughout most of their careers. Benaud was pretty clear on Trueman: 'he was a craftsman rather than a speed merchant'. If you read opinions of others in that era Trueman seems to have been the only person to consider himself express except in 1952 when allegedly he was quicker than any subsequent year.
Both Lindwall and Hall were considered faster and to be express at their best but neither was considered the fastest ever (nor was Larwood by many contemporary writers).
Davidson allegedly could be very quick when riled but is often considered fast-medium.

Tellingly, regardless of Flem274*'s opinion, no-one considered Lillee the fastest of all time when he was at his peak in 1972, even though he was considered to be exceptionally quick.

 

[Line and Length]

My own opinions tally slightly slower. I did actually manage to get an opinion out of a fellow who's been watching since the early sixties on Graham McKenzie's pace - mid 130s, which was what I'd concluded.

McKenzie was one of those rare bowlers who, although not express, gave the impression that he accelerated off the pitch (physically impossible but he certainly hurried batsmen). Quick enough to break Boycott's arm in a tour match in 71/72.

 

[Starfighter]

McKenzie was one of those rare bowlers who, although not express, gave the impression that he accelerated off the pitch (physically impossible but he certainly hurried batsmen). Quick enough to break Boycott's arm in a tour match in 71/72.

That impression of McKenzie is almost certainly due to his very leisurely looking run and action. Though of nowhere near the same pace (I'm rubbish) I've encountered a few similarly deceptive bowlers.

Not sure one incident is a good indicator. Brendon Julian once broke Sanath Jayasuriya's arm.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Any info on how fast Gary Barlett really was? Many say NZ's fastest ever.

 

[Starfighter]

Any info on how fast Gary Barlett really was? Many say NZ's fastest ever.

No