kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
It's crazy that everything you've said there can be equally applied to the other guy in the poll as well.
-
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.
Harold Larwood vs Barry Richards
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
yeah, that's why I made the topic duh
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Snippy much.
But still Barry though, he was actually at his best vs the very best.
He elevated his game when the spotlight was on.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
The best after the Don? That's a toughie
Introducing the next theme in our series: the second-finest batsman ever (after you know who)
www-espncricinfo-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Nothing definitive, but an idea of the reverence in which Barry is held.
The problem with Larwood's test career is more that it was mediocre.
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
was fine outside of one series where he was suffering with health issues.
It was poor overall outside of one series, which used tactics that were banned after that series.
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
take out the series where he was ill and bodyline and it is too short for us to conclude anything from his Test Career (12 Tests), though there's no reason to just gloss over Bodyline as he got majority of his wickets bowled or LBW.
capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
Average of Larwood in all the Series he played:
28, 19, 40, 23, 73, 19
You can remove the Bodyline, but also remove the 1930 Ashes then. That leaves him with 3 Good to very good Series and a single poor one
Coronis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Oh goody we’re picking and choosing series now.
Anyway even his overall averages don’t tell the story as I’ve said before. Outside of Bodyline, which yes, great series and all, he had trouble ever stringing multiple decent games together in a series.
He was one of those blokes who might have a great game but then be mediocre the rest of the series. 28/29 Ashes is the other best example of this (only other time outside Bodyline when he played a full series btw) where he took 8/62 in the first test, and 10 wickets total in the remaining 4 tests. We can also look against the Windies, 5 wickets in one test, 1 wicket in the other. 5 wickets against SA, 3 wickets in the other two tests.
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
a lot of bowlers have that issue of inconsistency at the start of their careers, finding consistency of hitting the right line and lengths consistently is very much what you need to learn on overseas tours, If we ignore Bodyline on the account of field settings and ignore 1930 Ashes on account of Larwood's health problems, we would have just 12 Tests in for the man, including a first tour of Australia on roads and that is simply too little for us to conclude anything. Like, what can we really deduce from just 12 Tests and last Test at the age of 26?
Another thing to notice, when Larwood played his first Test he had two years of First Class Cricket experience and was 22 Years Old, while when Barry played his first Test, he had been a proper first class Cricket for 5-6 years and was nearly 24-25 year old, he played at home too, it's just such a stretch to judge either by their Test Records. Barry played 4 home games, after 8 home games, Larwood was averaging 22, there is so little to know from their Test careers.
If we are including Bodyline, that is above what Barry did on the international stage and we can move onto comparing their First Class careers.
Another thing to notice, when Larwood played his first Test he had two years of First Class Cricket experience and was 22 Years Old, while when Barry played his first Test, he had been a proper first class Cricket for 5-6 years and was nearly 24-25 year old, he played at home too, it's just such a stretch to judge either by their Test Records. Barry played 4 home games, after 8 home games, Larwood was averaging 22, there is so little to know from their Test careers.
If we are including Bodyline, that is above what Barry did on the international stage and we can move onto comparing their First Class careers.
Last edited:
capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
Accounting for everything even, not including Bodyline is just wrong
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
I know the general opinion is that Larwood was bowling Bodyline all the time and that's how he got his wickets in Australia but it's untrue, in the game at Sydney when Larwood got 10 wickets for 128 runs, two five wicket hauls, one of the critics was of this opinion "Larwood opened with an orthodox field and although later this was changed and he bowled outside the leg stump, it was legitimate fast bowling as far as he was concerned. Voce's half-pitched slingers on the body-line provided about the poorest attempt at what should be Test bowling it is possible to conceive. Even Larwood bowled ten on the leg to one on the wicket, and Voce did not bowl half a dozen balls on the wicket in 24 overs." his first three wickets were bowled, LBW and then one caught too. It seems like in the first game at the very least he didn't get his wickets by Bodyline.
In the second game, he got 3 of 4 wickets bowled, don't think I need to explain much here.
even from his four dismissals of Bradman, only one dismissal was when Bradman fell into the leg trap, and without footage you can never tell what type of catch it was, it could've been a catch that could've been taken by just about anyone on leg side. One dismissal was to deep point, other two bowled.
In general, 17 of the 33 wickets were bowled/LBW, multiple slip catches, conventional fall to a short leg and so forth are also a thing, Definitely a valid series and probably up there with Ambrose 1993 and Bumrah 2025 as the greatest tours of Australia.
In the second game, he got 3 of 4 wickets bowled, don't think I need to explain much here.
even from his four dismissals of Bradman, only one dismissal was when Bradman fell into the leg trap, and without footage you can never tell what type of catch it was, it could've been a catch that could've been taken by just about anyone on leg side. One dismissal was to deep point, other two bowled.
In general, 17 of the 33 wickets were bowled/LBW, multiple slip catches, conventional fall to a short leg and so forth are also a thing, Definitely a valid series and probably up there with Ambrose 1993 and Bumrah 2025 as the greatest tours of Australia.
Last edited:
Even including bodyline, his record is just okay. I don't think bodyline should be entirely ignored, but we do need to recognize the unique advantage it offered and disproportionate impact it had on his career. About 40% of his wickets came from a strategy that was only ever going to be allowed in one series. The longer his career was, the closer he would be expected to come to a career record matching what he did outside bodyline. And that record was genuinely poor. I'm sure he would have been better than genuinely poor with a full career, but poor is not a confidence inspiring starting point.
Your bolded just says that Larwood was bowling over 90% bodyline, which is true even if Voce was bowling more than 90%
In modern cricket at least, it's not the balls at the body that get a pile of wickets. They generate wickets by pushing the bat back and unnerving them, allowing them to get wickets more easily from conventional balls. I'm not sure the extent this was true in bodyline.
Your bolded just says that Larwood was bowling over 90% bodyline, which is true even if Voce was bowling more than 90%
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
What he did outside Bodyline has zero validity though, because as Luffy said, outside of one series where he was genuinely ill and almost broke down and retired due to it IE the 1930 Ashes, and the bodyline series, he was an exactly conventional young pacer trying to find his way in a batting era. if those two are ignored he has the home average of 24 and 23 wickets to his name in 12 innings bowled at home and one albeit poor series in Australia with a match winning performance but faded at the end of the series after being subjugated to high workload. Regardless, it's just 12 Tests and nothing can really be extrapolated from them, especially since Barry played just 4 Tests all at home, if he was burdened with an international task as difficult as touring Australia as a pacer in the 1920s, we'd have a better idea where both stand.
Bowling on the leg is not the same as bowling Bodyline as that quote shows, Voce was bowling half pitched (short) and at the bodyline IE Torso, bowling intentionally at the body with an intent to hurt is Bodyline, hoping they'd block and give a catch to someone on the leg. Larwood was getting majority of his wickets Bowled/LBW, likely two in slips, one on deep point and one to the keeper, I've only been able to verify two wickets he got the leg trap IE Bradman and McCabe at Adeliade and even those only warrant an asterisk rather than removal. Basically, I don't really think Bodyline is some guaranteed path to success and enhanced stats than normal, wasn't true for either Voce or Allen so not sure why it would uniquely be true for Larwood.
At the end of the day, Barry played all his Test games at home where before the 1930 Ashes, the illness series, Larwood was averaging 24, even if he failed in one series overseas, it doesn't really affect Barry vs Larwood and then there's the matter of Larwood having a genuine overseas ATG series – Regardless, I think any extrapolation made on either's Test record is completely worthless given the lack of genuine sample one way or the other, remove Bodyline and I'm removing the illness-induced Ashes, we are down to 12 Tests, with Larwood having the home average of 24 (22 after the first Test of 1930) and away of 40, with Barry not having any away duties and half Larwood's home sample size.
Test comparison also just doesn't go Barry's way.
Last edited:
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Was wondering why you were going on and on, but then decided to take a peek at the poll results and understood.
It is possible to make you case for Larwood without bringing 4 tests every couple of sentences.
Johan
Hall of Fame Member
Apologies but You are the last person who can talk about someone going on and on, especially since my discussion with Bolo is technical about the career of one of the individuals in this thread.
My point is both their Test careers are more or less worthless in comparison to their First Class careers, because Larwood with adjustments has 12 Tests and Barry 4, nothing can be extrapolated from such small and frankly irrelevant sample size both ends.
sayon basak
International Coach
I'm sorry, but this is hilarious.