Greatest English fast bowler ever ?

[Matt79]

Trueman. Barnes not a fast bowler IMO.

 

[Days of Grace]

'Fast' is a very arbitrary word IMO. What constitutes 'fast'? 140 km/h plus? Did Trueman ever consistently bowl 140 km/h plus?

 

[JBH001]

Basically a 140 - 145kph (at least)bowler, no?

From what I have heard, certainly in his prime, he did.

 

[Matt79]

Absent anything more specific in a question or OP, I generally interpret 'fast' in a general sense to mean a bowler who is fast-medium or fast - maybe medium fast. So consistently 130kph at a minimum.

Barnes was either a medium paced, or quickish spin bowler, depending on who you ask. Either way, I wouldn't count him as a 'fast' bowler by my above definition, hence going for Trueman, who was genuinely quick.

 

[bond21]

Larwood.

Trueman is over-rated. It would be like pairing McGrath with Thomson. McGrath holds down one end for 5 runs off 30 overs and Thomson gets all the wickets.

Larwood however was their best bowler by a mile, he did all the work and won the bodyline series. If they didnt have Larwood the tactic wouldntve worked.

Trueman was lucky to have a world class bowler at one end who couldnt get any wickets, so he got them trying to score runs off him and getting out.

 

[neville cardus]

CB Fry always thought that Lockwood was the better of the Surrey two.

Plum went the same way, but he and C.B. were exceptions to the rule.

 

[neville cardus]

Trueman was lucky to have a world class bowler at one end who couldnt get any wickets, so he got them trying to score runs off him and getting out.

A world-class bowler who couldn't get any wickets? Rather contradictory, that.

 

[Matt79]

Larwood.

Trueman is over-rated. It would be like pairing McGrath with Thomson. McGrath holds down one end for 5 runs off 30 overs and Thomson gets all the wickets.

Larwood however was their best bowler by a mile, he did all the work and won the bodyline series. If they didnt have Larwood the tactic wouldntve worked.

Trueman was lucky to have a world class bowler at one end who couldnt get any wickets, so he got them trying to score runs off him and getting out.

Because McGrath never got any wickets. Trueman was a very good bowler according to everything I've ever read by anyone qualified to judge.

 

[silentstriker]

Didn't vote for Barnes as I don't consider him a 'fast bowler'. If it was the best 'bowler', it would be Barnes.

 

[silentstriker]

Larwood.

Trueman is over-rated. It would be like pairing McGrath with Thomson. McGrath holds down one end for 5 runs off 30 overs and Thomson gets all the wickets.

Larwood however was their best bowler by a mile, he did all the work and won the bodyline series. If they didnt have Larwood the tactic wouldntve worked.

Trueman was lucky to have a world class bowler at one end who couldnt get any wickets, so he got them trying to score runs off him and getting out.

You realize that McGrath got wickets at a slightly quicker rate compared to Thompson, but got them for a lot cheaper?

Well, obviously you don't.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ist paragraph: you speak as if you saw him play? Name your sources please.

It's actually sort of alluded to in his obituary on his cricinfo profile page (link), whilst his profile calls him a Right-arm fast-medium, Right-arm medium bowler there's also this passage:

Sir Donald Bradman argued that W.J. O'Reilly must have been a greater bowler than Barnes because he commanded every ball developed in Barnes's day -- plus the googly. I told Barnes of Bradman's remark. "It's quite true," he said, "I never bowled the `googly.'" Then with a glint in his eye, he added, "I never needed it."

 

[Richard]

I don't think Barnes or Bedser or Tate should be on lists like this

Why not Bedser or Tate? Both were very much among England's best seamers.

 

[Richard]

Ist paragraph: you speak as if you saw him play? Name your sources please.

It's common knowledge.

2nd paragraph: I for one am getting sick and tired of you going on like a broken record about this. Fact: cricket was played before 1900. So, you don't count 1899 then? You speak as if it were too different sports, and FFS EVERY single time we have a thread about this, you bring up this point. You sound like a parrot FFS.

FFS, stop misinterpreting and stop telling me not to bring-up something which never ceases to be relevant. Cricket was obviously played before 1900 but there was very obviously a huge change in the game around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. A line must be drawn somewhere and 1900 is as good as anywhere.

It's downright foolish to treat 1880 and 1910 or 1924 as the same thing. Of course there's little difference between 1899 and 1901. But there was a bit of one, same as there was between 1989 and 1991.

There's no sense comparing cricket in the 19th-century to that in the 20th and 21st AFAIC. None whatsoever. What it took to be a great seam-bowler in the 19th-century and what it took in the 20th-century was most certainly different, different enough to make it foolhardy to blur the two times together.

 

[Richard]

Interesting assesment on him, have you ever got the chance to see any footage of him to make this judgement or did you just derive that based on what you have read?. Because personally i have never really been sure how to judge him, but forced to rate him highly based on his bradman-esque bowling record.

That Barnes was a fast wristspinner is fairly common knowledge. AFAIK there's little to no footage of him, I've certainly never come across any.

Don't agree with that rating at all. For me Trueman hands down has just got to be the best fast bowler to come out of this country closely followed by Statham then then you could have Snow, Willis, Larwood even Botham before we got those medium pace type bowlers like Bedser & Barnes TBH.

Bedser may have been slower than the likes of Larwood etc. but his performances were markedly superior.

 

[aussie]

That Barnes was a fast wristspinner is fairly common knowledge. AFAIK there's little to no footage of him, I've certainly never come across any.

Fast wrist-spinner in the bill-o'reilly mould?

Bedser may have been slower than the likes of Larwood etc. but his performances were markedly superior.

Fair enough on Larwood given other than the bodyline series he didn't do much, but not the others..

 

[Fiery]

AFAIK there's little to no footage of him, I've certainly never come across any.
.

Speaking of which, something I've been wondering....what would be the earliest footage of test cricket anyone has ever come across on the internet and if it's possible to provide a link?

 

[Richard]

Fast wrist-spinner in the bill-o'reilly mould?

Even faster, most seem to reckon. And they were probably right, but there were no speedguns and we've seen before that batsmen and spectators are not always good judges of bowling speed.

Fair enough on Larwood given other than the bodyline series he didn't do much, but not the others..

Nah, Bedser's performance over those few years was better than pretty well anyone else. Willis may have gone on for longer; Botham had ability with the bat (and played a few more Tests during his good period); Snow have performed in the days of colour TV and had 2 sensational overseas series; but none are in Bedser's class for mine. Statham and Trueman you can certainly make a case for - my rating of Bedser as the best has everything to do with him having lost his best years to the war, and the supposition that had he not he would have had many, many more fine years than he ended-up doing.

 

[Richard]

Speaking of which, something I've been wondering....what would be the earliest footage of test cricket anyone has ever come across on the internet and if it's possible to provide a link?

The first moving images of an Australian team in England are the first of the 20th-century, 1902. EDIT: no they're not, they're of 1905. UIMM there's nothing before this; there is something of WG Grace in the very late 1890s playing a few demo shots and walking to a Gentlemen v Players match.

The 1905 stuff isn't on the internet anywhere I can find using Google videos but while trying to find some Grace footage I found this which contains it and several other interesting things (including the first known photograph of any cricket match, in 1862, something I'd never seen before just now) and is presented by that inimitable purr of John Arlott.

While finding this I also found this which is quite amusing.

 

[Fiery]

The 1902 stuff isn't on the internet anywhere I can find using Google videos but while trying to find some Grace footage I found this which contains it and several other interesting things (including the first known photograph of any cricket match, in 1862, something I'd never seen before just now) and is presented by that inimitable purr of John Arlott.

Thanks Rich, marvellous. Grace looks so dire

 

[Richard]

Yes, but don't forget, this is pure demo stuff and batting was done completely differently back then - it needed to be.

Also let's not forget he was already nearly 20 years past his best.