Greatest English fast bowler ever ?

[archie mac]

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

Broken record time They did not play as much Test cricket before WWII So you have to take much more notice of their perfomance in FC cricket

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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

Bedser wasn't as fast as those two and was able to bowl a consistantly accurate line and length and didn't bowl bouncers. Bob Taylor often stood up when keeping to Mike Hendrick (mainly when playing for Derbyshire), again not express pace but incredibly accurate, his main reason for doing it was to prevent the batsman taking guard outside his crease which is something a few batsman did to try to disrupt Hendrick's length and line.

 

[Josh]

Any votes for Mulally??

 

[Burgey]

Trueman ftw. Didn't go for Barnes as I don't believe he was classified as a fast bowler as such - could be wrong there.

 

[neville cardus]

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

No indeed. I only made that qualification, though, for the purposes of those among us less historically-inclined. I shouldn't want them thinking Bedser a lob-bowler.

 

[neville cardus]

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.

That sounds about right, although, as one with a great penchant for varying them, he was doubtless capable of quicker speeds.

 

[Richard]

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

Broken record time They did not play as much Test cricket before WWII So you have to take much more notice of their perfomance in FC cricket

Would say that they played "enough" Tests from the 1930s onwards TBH - at the very least, the English and Australians did. Perhaps not before then, and certainly not in the 19th-century (another reason I refuse to categorise the two equally).

I'd say you're always foolish if you completely ignore a player's First-Class record when judging them giving priority to Tests. And rather than judging a player on his time, judge him on his number of Tests regardless of playing span (Bob Appleyard, for instance).

 

[Richard]

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?

No-one measured anything accurately until 1998, and I'd be very happy if anyone who made claims about the speed in kph\mph of bowlers pre-speedguns were sued for giving inaccurate information.

 

[Richard]

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

Why does that matter? Extreme pace is not a prerequistite for a top-class seam-bowler, as those two conclusively prove.

Why should they not be considered alongside the Stathams, Truemans et al just because they did not bowl quite so quickly?

 

[Richard]

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.

And the point I'm making is that they shouldn't be: that "the greatest ever" is a pointless question. "Greatest since 1900" would be a far better one.

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

Of course it wasn't. There were 4 very definite book-ends to cricket periods: 1900, 1930, 1939, and (in this country) 1970. Pitches changed markedly in this time, and in the early 20th-century, so did attitudes.

 

[Richard]

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.

WoW. Have never even seen any pictures of KSR, never mind moving footage. Only artist's drawings.

 

[Days of Grace]

No-one measured anything accurately until 1998, and I'd be very happy if anyone who made claims about the speed in kph\mph of bowlers pre-speedguns were sued for giving inaccurate information.

Oh, lark off,

c'mon, FFS, observers say that Bedser wasn't quick, a medium pacer if anything, so naturally I assumed, not claimed FFS, assumed that he bowled about 125 km/h and no more.

So, now we are not allowed to guess the speed of bowlers? But you are allowed to discount any bowler pre-1900 from the reckoning?? Go on, then. That's your way. I'll go mine, and we will find out who still sees the whale at the end.

 

[Days of Grace]

And the point I'm making is that they shouldn't be: that "the greatest ever" is a pointless question. "Greatest since 1900" would be a far better one.

Of course it wasn't. There were 4 very definite book-ends to cricket periods: 1900, 1930, 1939, and (in this country) 1970. Pitches changed markedly in this time, and in the early 20th-century, so did attitudes.

Still the same game. Still the same sport. You are talking as if it changed from a caterpiller into a butterfly: a frog into a prince FFS. It's an evolutionally process and you cannot, repeat cannot, just divide it into exact dates. Sure, maybe WWII, there was a gap of six years, but 1899/1900?? "Hold up, boys: game's all changed: please play this way."

 

[Richard]

Oh, lark off,

c'mon, FFS, observers say that Bedser wasn't quick, a medium pacer if anything, so naturally I assumed, not claimed FFS, assumed that he bowled about 125 km/h and no more.

So, now we are not allowed to guess the speed of bowlers? But you are allowed to discount any bowler pre-1900 from the reckoning?? Go on, then. That's your way. I'll go mine, and we will find out who still sees the whale at the end.

Guessing the speed should only be done to within 10kph! It's utterly silly to say "Bedser was 125kph". Saying "probably in the 130s" or whatever is fair enough.

Even then, we could very easily be wrong. Bowlers sometimes prove slower and faster than had been guessed with the eye.

 

[Richard]

Still the same game. Still the same sport. You are talking as if it changed from a caterpiller into a butterfly: a frog into a prince FFS. It's an evolutionally process and you cannot, repeat cannot, just divide it into exact dates. Sure, maybe WWII, there was a gap of six years, but 1899/1900?? "Hold up, boys: game's all changed: please play this way."

If you don't realise the massive change that happened in pitches in 1900, you're not paying attention. Nor are you paying attention if you think cricket was still, in quite a number of ways, the same sport in 1910 as it had been in 1880.

I'm not talking as if it changed from a caterpillar into a butterfly; I have said many times that a line simply has to be drawn somewhere. 1900 is the best place. If you don't believe me, listen to Matthew Engel who said the exact same thing when he decided when "the year dot" should be in cricketing terms.

 

[Days of Grace]

Matthew Engel can go 'ave it with his schoolmistress for all I care. Was it the same sport in 1910 as it was in 1880? Of course it was! It is called 'cricket'. Were there changes between those years as to how it was played? Yes. Did those changes make it a completely different sport, so much so that if you left England for the Congo in 1880 and returned in 1910 you wouldn't recognise it?? I doubt it.

 

[Richard]

You might very well, actually. Changes were manifest.

Mind, they could change the shape of the ball in football and leave everything else the same, and you could leave for 30 years, return and still recognise it as the same sport.

You could still easily recognise that cricket was cricket in 1850 from now. But mark my words, playing it would be a hell of a different thing.

 

[neville cardus]

WoW. Have never even seen any pictures of KSR, never mind moving footage. Only artist's drawings.

I have two clips of Ranji (one a decidedly poor-quality job at the nets during W.G.'s birthday party and the other of an uneasy stroke through the slips in about 1910, when he was one-eyed, fat and balding) on my computer, and I shall attach them to an email if you like, but I am yet to come by the one to which I referred earlier.

For the time being, though, here is a surprisingly good offering from E. Hawkins & Co's otherwise dire collection of staged, posing photographs. I'll pop in one of George Beldam's beauts at a later stage if you ask nicely.

 

[Richard]

I have two clips of Ranji (one a decidedly poor-quality job at the nets during W.G.'s birthday party and the other of an uneasy stroke through the slips in about 1910, when he was one-eyed, fat and balding) on my computer, and I shall attach them to an email if you like.

I like.

For the time being, though, here is a surprisingly good offering from E. Hawkins & Co's otherwise dire collection of staged, posing photographs. I'll pop in one of George Beldam's beauts at a later stage if you ask nicely.

Consider this a nice ask.

 

[neville cardus]

[...] I'm not talking as if it changed from a caterpillar into a butterfly; I have said many times that a line simply has to be drawn somewhere. 1900 is the best place.

I'd go for 1864. Really, not much changed between then and 1900.