I think the fact that the vast majority of Test quicks, no matter how quick they were to start off with, always end up settling into that rfm sweet spot of mid-to-high 130s suggests there are fundamental biomechanical reasons for that being the most comfortable speed to bowl at which don't change that much with time so long as your action is a good one.
I wasn't saying O'Reilly shouldn't be rated, was just making a point that the reason Laker isn't rated as highly had nothing to do with the number of tests he played, because Tiger played less and is still rated highly.
The 30's (around 1935ish) is where I also generally believe that the game definely started to look like the one we play today and comps are viable.
I would take it further back, and date the start of modern cricket to around 1890, at least in the English context. It is around then That wicket preparation improves with wider use of marl and the introduction of the heavy roller. Better seeding and mowing also made for smoother outfields. This gave batsmen greater confidence in the surface and required bowlers to develop more inventive techniques. It should be said though, from a statistical perspective, that batting averages and the success of different types of bowlers still depended much on weather trends - whether the summer was wetter or dryer than usual. This is often remarked upon in Wisden summaries in the 1890-1914 period.
Barrington's best performances were away in places in like India which wouldn't help. Fewer of the usual set to see them. But he also had a reputation for disliking fast bowling (and Charlie Griffith in particular, though because Griffith threw).
did you miss the 60 odd pages of a certain thread?
this isn’t strictly true is it? there are more bowlers that can bowl above 140 now than ever and most importantly bowlers can bowl at that sort of speeds for longer on average than before due to the increased fitness standards. the trundlers who frequently lost a yard or two of pace the further they bowled in a spell if anything being magnified more than ever before like Robinson shows how much higher the standards are now
Don't think a single person did that.
Dude, those were the guys that didn't make it and listed by country. Plus the highlighted ones are the ones closer to said consideration.
uh what? the only “editing” i did was cut out the rest of the post because it was big, here it is in full
you’ve listed those players according to tiers and placed Laker in the same as Ashwin, on an individual basis you may rank Laker behind or ahead of Ashwin but its fair to say you see them similarly and you said nobody said that in the other thread when there’s 2 egs of it
