George Lohmann vs Tom Richardson

[Johan]

Better bowler?

 

[sayon basak]

Lohmann just.

 

[ataraxia]

Lohmann by an absolute mile.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lohmann by an inch

 

[sayon basak]

1 inch ≈ 1 mile

 

[shortpitched713]

Spofforth was definitely faster than both, at a verifiably estimated 197kph (over 116 mph!).

 

[Coronis]

I’ve learned a fair bit about both throughout my recent exercise. I’d say Richardson was capable of great match winning performances probably at a level a little bit above Lohmann, but Lohmann’s bad days >> Richardson’s.

If you look at their first class stats you’ll see a stark difference too. Richardson had a very good peak but it was short, and outside of that he wasn’t great.

 

[sayon basak]

Spofforth was definitely faster than both, at a verifiably estimated 197kph (over 116 mph!).

Philander was faster. iirc, NASA used Philander to launch Voyager 1.

 

[Johan]

I’ve learned a fair bit about both throughout my recent exercise. I’d say Richardson was capable of great match winning performances probably at a level a little bit above Lohmann, but Lohmann’s bad days >> Richardson’s.

If you look at their first class stats you’ll see a stark difference too. Richardson had a very good peak but it was short, and outside of that he wasn’t great.

Who would be modern day equivalents for both?

 

[Johan]

In Ashes tests (as that's what Richardson played, and that's what matters anyway)

Lohmann: 13.01
Rest of the bowlers: 17.32

Richardson: 25.22
Rest of the bowlers: 28.70

 

[Coronis]

Who would be modern day equivalents for both?

Honestly? Maybe Steyn and McGrath? Could even go Rabada and Bumrah?

 

[peterhrt]

Lohmann's Test record should not be taken too seriously. During his time the batting of opponents Australia and South Africa was still developing and below county standard. Several matches were played on dreadful pitches. The results of Lohmann's Tests against Australia were England winning 12 (five by an innings) and losing 3. This despite Australia having a better wicket-keeper and comparable bowling.

Lohmann needs to be judged in first-class cricket where he was one of the two great bowlers of his generation along with Turner.

Richardson came on the scene as pitches were improving. There was still only one new ball per innings. Run-ups as well as pitches were uncovered. In six consecutive English seasons 1893-98 Richardson took 1340 wickets at 14.91 apiece. That's an average of 223 wickets per season (including 290 in 1895), amazing for a bowler of genuine pace who ran in all day and never consciously slowed down. In addition he made two trips to Australia, bagging a further 127 first-class wickets. In 14 Tests against Australia Richardson claimed 88 wickets.

Several critics rated Richardson as England's greatest fast bowler well into the twentieth century. Cardus and Strudwick still held this opinion in the 1960s. However there were others who thought his Surrey colleague Lockwood at his best was superior.

 

[Coronis]

Lohmann's Test record should not be taken too seriously. During his time the batting of opponents Australia and South Africa was still developing and below county standard. Several matches were played on dreadful pitches. The results of Lohmann's Tests against Australia were England winning 12 (five by an innings) and losing 3. This despite Australia having a better wicket-keeper and comparable bowling.

Lohmann needs to be judged in first-class cricket where he was one of the two great bowlers of his generation along with Turner.

Richardson came on the scene as pitches were improving. There was still only one new ball per innings. Run-ups as well as pitches were uncovered. In six consecutive English seasons 1893-98 Richardson took 1340 wickets at 14.91 apiece. That's an average of 223 wickets per season (including 290 in 1895), amazing for a bowler of genuine pace who ran in all day and never consciously slowed down. In addition he made two trips to Australia, bagging a further 127 first-class wickets. In 14 Tests against Australia Richardson claimed 88 wickets.

Several critics rated Richardson as England's greatest fast bowler well into the twentieth century. Cardus and Strudwick still held this opinion in the 1960s. However there were others who thought his Surrey colleague Lockwood at his best was superior.

As I’ve said though, whilst Richardson’s peak was no doubt excellent, Lohmann was far more consistent over his career. I know which one I generally prefer in a cricketer.

 

[peterhrt]

Who would be modern day equivalents for both?

Wes Hall was sometimes compared to Richardson for willingness and capacity to continue bowling fast for long periods. A more modern equivalent might be Courtney Walsh.

In the 1920s Harry Altham described Lohmann as "on the slow side of what we now call medium." There were also reports of dip and deceptive flight. Nowadays he would probably be classed as a spinner. Christopher Martin-Jenkins thought he might have been around Underwood's pace.

 

[Johan]

Wes Hall was sometimes compared to Richardson for willingness and capacity to continue bowling fast for long periods. A more modern equivalent might be Courtney Walsh.

In the 1920s Harry Altham described Lohmann as "on the slow side of what we now call medium." There were also reports of dip and deceptive flight. Nowadays he would probably be classed as a spinner. Christopher Martin-Jenkins thought he might have been around Underwood's pace.

so like lower end of medium pace for Lohmann in modern terms (100-110km/h) and actual proper pace for Richardson (135-140s km/h).

 

[Johan]

@sayon basak @Coronis @capt_Luffy Larwood or Richardson

 

[capt_Luffy]

Larwood

 

[sayon basak]

@sayon basak @Coronis @capt_Luffy Larwood or Richardson

Larwood>=Lohmann>Richardson.

 

[Coronis]

@sayon basak @Coronis @capt_Luffy Larwood or Richardson

Tough to compare. I’d say Larwood though.