• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Fast bowler survival round 2

Ilovecric

U19 Cricketer
insulting to see a bowler from 1930s who played 17 test matches being rated above micheal holding - a fast bowling legend, revolutionary bowler - bowled express pace but took wickets for little runs.


This thread is a farce...
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
insulting to see a bowler from 1930s who played 17 test matches being rated above micheal holding - a fast bowling legend, revolutionary bowler - bowled express pace but took wickets for little runs.


This thread is a farce...
Because bowling fast was so easy in the 1930s? Or because Larwood didn't bowl express pace? Or because Larwood was so very expensive? Or because he's not a fast bowling legend?

Anyhow ftr Larwood hasn't been rated above Michael Holding, they were in different pools.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
insulting to see a bowler from 1930s who played 17 test matches being rated above micheal holding - a fast bowling legend, revolutionary bowler - bowled express pace but took wickets for little runs.


This thread is a farce...
If Holding is as good as you say that he is (and I agree that he is), he will get his chance again in round 3.

I specifically introduced the wildcard system to accomodate for a couple of bowlers being knocked out who had terrible draws (like Holding).

Bear in mind that Holding, if he gets a wildcard back in, will likely have a better aggregate than a number of other bowlers and will therefore be seeded quite well, thanks to his round one domination.

EDIT: Oh, you haven't even bothered voting in any of the group stages. Do you even know the rules of the contest?
 
Last edited:

Ilovecric

U19 Cricketer
Because bowling fast was so easy in the 1930s? Or because Larwood didn't bowl express pace? Or because Larwood was so very expensive? Or because he's not a fast bowling legend?

Anyhow ftr Larwood hasn't been rated above Michael Holding, they were in different pools.
Kool kool, no problem... I think I was thinking of a different bowler who I saw being rated above holding one early morning, I left the thread upset and didn't return. I checked larwood stats that morning too and thought the number of test matches he played should have made him unqualified for this thread. But I compared holding to him by mistake, ill have to check again and see who holding is clearly better than in his group.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
This thread is interesting as long as everyone stays calm, on track and lets the process do the work. I personally find it insane that Akram is ranked over Holding but that isnt relevant as we are each just a small part of the vote. There will be a lot of votes that each of us disagree with but we need to remember (and I remind myself each time I open the thread) that its about voting and not debating.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Kool kool, no problem... I think I was thinking of a different bowler who I saw being rated above holding one early morning, I left the thread upset and didn't return. I checked larwood stats that morning too and thought the number of test matches he played should have made him unqualified for this thread. But I compared holding to him by mistake, ill have to check again and see who holding is clearly better than in his group.
SF Barnes?

Sydney Barnes | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

The guy universally recognised as the bowler of his century?
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Group C
Sir Richard Hadlee
Allan Donald
Keith Miller
Courtney Walsh

Group D
Waqar Younis
Ray Lindwall
Wes Hall
Harold Larwood
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Hadlee
Donald
Miller
Walsh

Waqar
Lindwall
Larwood
Hall
 
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I would rank Steyn behind Waqar and Lindwall for sure.
At this stage in his career, so would I. I rate Lindwall very highly, given his (relatively) poor average.

However if Steyn keeps up his current form for another 3-4 years there may be a case for him to leapfrog nearly everyone in history.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Kool kool, no problem... I think I was thinking of a different bowler who I saw being rated above holding one early morning, I left the thread upset and didn't return. I checked larwood stats that morning too and thought the number of test matches he played should have made him unqualified for this thread. But I compared holding to him by mistake, ill have to check again and see who holding is clearly better than in his group.
you left upset? Some perspective and practice at dealing with contrary opinions sorely needed here!
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
My votes:

Group C

Hadlee
Donald
Miller
Walsh

Group D

Lindwall
Waqar
Larwood
Hall

Voting has closed for Groups C and D.
 

Top