Greatest English fast bowler ever ?

[Fiery]

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.

Yeah I know. Batting has come a long way since then though

 

[Richard]

So has a hell of a lot else - not everything for the best.

 

[Fiery]

So has a hell of a lot else - not everything for the best.

Rather ambiguous post, Richard

 

[Richard]

Ambiguity is my speciality. WARNING: I sense the *spam* danger.

 

[Fiery]

Ambiguity is my speciality. WARNING: I sense the *spam* danger.

This isn't spam...it's conversation

 

[archie mac]

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

Yes, but I don't think them fast bowlers, Evans stood up to the stumps for Bedser, says it all for mine

 

[archie mac]

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.

:

great stuff, I really enjoyed it, I have read a lot about that game, where the players are walking past the camera, during WGs BD match

 

[Days of Grace]

It's common knowledge.

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.

If you haven't noticed, the thread asks us to name the greatest English fast bowler ever. Now, that would mean that 19th century bowlers are up for consideration, no matter what your views on the subject.

So, 20th century cricket was all the same was it? 1910 no different from 1995?

 

[neville cardus]

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

It's a comparison made fairly frequently, but I reckon Barnes was a touch more varied and, relatively speaking, faster than O'Reilly.

 

[neville cardus]

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?

There is some footage (in Australia, I believe) of Ranji at the nets during the 1897/98 Ashes. Certainly, it's the oldest of which I've ever heard.

 

[neville cardus]

Thanks Rich, marvellous. Grace looks so dire

W.W.W.G. Grace, apparently.

 

[neville cardus]

Yes, but I don't think them fast bowlers, Evans stood up to the stumps for Bedser, says it all for mine

That was really only because Bedser, like Tate before him, preferred it that way. There was something about the instantaneous thwack of the leather into the gloves that fired and encouraged him, and he never felt quite the same with Evans standing back.

 

[neville cardus]

If you haven't noticed, the thread asks us to name the greatest English fast bowler ever. Now, that would mean that 19th century bowlers are up for consideration, no matter what your views on the subject.
So, 20th century cricket was all the same was it? 1910 no different from 1995?

Thankfully, the Nineteenth Century wasn't really known for its English fast bowlers -- at least not at Test level (which, I presume, is a must, or the widow-making likes of Kortright, Crossland, Tarrant and Freeman would be shoo-ins for that list).

 

[archie mac]

That was really only because Bedser, like Tate before him, preferred it that way. There was something about the instantaneous thwack of the leather into the gloves that fired and encouraged him, and he never felt quite the same with Evans standing back.

Yes, but you still can't see Gilly being able to take Lee or Ames being able to take Lol standing up to the stumps

 

[Days of Grace]

I have read a book which says that Bedser was hardly above 125 km/h, which would explain why Evans stood up to the stumps.

 

[archie mac]

I have read a book which says that Bedser was hardly above 125 km/h, which would explain why Evans stood up to the stumps.

Did the book say how they measured it?

 

[Perm]

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 claim Fred Trueman to be over-rated, yet Harold Larwood only has one real claim to fame that severaly distorts people's judgements on him. The 1932/33 Bodyline series was the only real notable acheivement of Larwood's career, with the rest of it being nothing spectacular. If you're seriously trying to argue that 78 wickets at 28.35 is a better career than 307 wickets at 21.58 then there isn't any point arguing with your severly twisted logic.

 

[Hoggy31]

Chris Silverwood.

 

[archie mac]

You claim Fred Trueman to be over-rated, yet Harold Larwood only has one real claim to fame that severaly distorts people's judgements on him. The 1932/33 Bodyline series was the only real notable acheivement of Larwood's career, with the rest of it being nothing spectacular. If you're seriously trying to argue that 78 wickets at 28.35 is a better career than 307 wickets at 21.58 then there isn't any point arguing with your severly twisted logic.

I though the poll was for best English fast bowler not the best English Test fast bowler?

 

[Perm]

I though the poll was for best English fast bowler not the best English Test fast bowler?

Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game, and performances in that arena count for more than in FC cricket.