Harold Larwood vs Kapil Dev

[PlayerComparisons]

Two great bowlers that did well against the best opposition

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Leaning towards larwood

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Thought this would be closer

 

[Coronis]

Two great bowlers that did well against the best opposition

lol Larwood is ridiculously overstated as a bowler. Bodyline was no doubt a revolutionary strategy and legal at the time and he was the perfect bowler to play it. Outside of that, he was pretty horrible vs Australia in 3 other series actually.

Reminds me of certain current English batsmen wrt Bazball tbh.

 

[Socerer 01]

whoever voted for Larwood should be ashamed of themselves

 

[Line and Length]

whoever voted for Larwood should be ashamed of themselves

There are obviously a fair number of CW members who rate Larwood ahead of Dev. In the list of fast bowlers, as voted by members, Larwood ranks 25 and Dev 31.

 

[Socerer 01]

There are obviously a fair number of CW members who rate Larwood ahead of Dev. In the list of fast bowlers, as voted by members, Larwood ranks 25 and Dev 31.

then they should also be ashamed of themselves

 

[Line and Length]

I think Kapil Dev is often regarded as an all-rounder and, coming from the same era as Imran, Botham and Hadlee, he often gets overlooked when regarded purely as a bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

lol Larwood is ridiculously overstated as a bowler. Bodyline was no doubt a revolutionary strategy and legal at the time and he was the perfect bowler to play it. Outside of that, he was pretty horrible vs Australia in 3 other series actually.

Reminds me of certain current English batsmen wrt Bazball tbh.

He isn't. He won an away series v Australia against prime Bradman and he won the crucial first test 4 years earlier. Then leading the bowling attack in a high scoring series that his team won 4-1. If anyone is over rated its the English batsmen from his era.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Larwood.No-brainer for me really.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It’s amazing that we have footage of Larwood bowling in his era and none of Kapil’s 175

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Thought Kapil would have won this since longevity is important on this forum

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Thought Kapil would have won this since longevity is important on this forum

Shane Bond didn't play a lot of matches and he's considered a treasure on this forum.

 

[Coronis]

He isn't. He won an away series v Australia against prime Bradman and he won the crucial first test 4 years earlier. Then leading the bowling attack in a high scoring series that his team won 4-1. If anyone is over rated its the English batsmen from his era.

Sorry how was that first test so crucial when England won 4-1? And yes no doubt he dominated that first test, 8/62. The other 4 matches he was 10/662.

imo he was more a bowler capable of great performances than a great bowler.

 

[peterhrt]

Fast bowling in timeless Tests on unforgiving Australian pitches was not easy. 25 wickets in Ashes Tests in Australia 1894-1939:

Voce 41 wickets @ 23
Larwood 51 @ 26
Fielder 26 @ 27
Allen 38 @ 29
Tom Richardson 54 @ 30
Cotter 37 @ 30
Jack Gregory 48 @ 31
Ernest Jones 25 @ 31

 

[Coronis]

Fast bowling in timeless Tests on unforgiving Australian pitches was not easy. 25 wickets in Ashes Tests in Australia 1894-1939:

Voce 41 wickets @ 23
Larwood 51 @ 26
Fielder 26 @ 27
Allen 38 @ 29
Tom Richardson 54 @ 30
Cotter 37 @ 30
Jack Gregory 48 @ 31
Ernest Jones 25 @ 31

Oh I understand that for sure. I just think Larwood gets massively overrated by some people (a minority but quite vocal) based purely on Bodyline. I also think its quite a travesty Larwood was kinda scapegoated and never played tests again. (Voce did as much damage really and played again)

iirc Voce hit the batsmen more in total over the series (I could be mistaken)

ofc though Larwood hit Woodfull over the heart (bowled to a conventional field - though followed that with an entire over of leg theory at him immediately afterwards), and Oldfield in the head (again to a conventional field - Oldfield blamed himself for the incident too)

 

[the big bambino]

Sorry how was that first test so crucial when England won 4-1? And yes no doubt he dominated that first test, 8/62. The other 4 matches he was 10/662.

imo he was more a bowler capable of great performances than a great bowler.

Oh he played a decisive part in winning the decisive final test of 1926 and with it the ashes. Contributed to winning 3/4 premier series in his time.

You should be sorry. Winning the first test of a series generally sets up teams for success. England had a good side in 28/29 but it was over balanced with batting. Which meant Larwood along with Tate, Geary, White and Hammond (who is an all rounder btw) had to play almost every match.

Did you know bowling fast is hard work? That bowling almost continuously from October to the following March on roads that last 7 days just might give you a boowa or two? Honestly I think it’s probably news since you seem to enjoy blowing raspberries at honest toil from the comfort of your pc and over a distance of almost 100 years.

Australia still had to be bowled out for England to win. In the context of the conditions Larwood contributed to that and better than his opponents. Really it’s all you need to do.

Modern players records are massaged by the inclusion of performances against lesser opponents. Whereas Larwood is judged on his record against Australia on roads and Bradman as well. And it’s a bloody good record in comparison. As a contrast if you judged Donald against the same sample (and who didn’t have to contend with the same difficulties) his average would be around 31. Then we could see how stupid someone would be if they said dumb stuff like loool Donald, so over stated.

 

[Coronis]

Oh he played a decisive part in winning the decisive final test of 1926 and with it the ashes. Contributed to winning 3/4 premier series in his time.

You should be sorry. Winning the first test of a series generally sets up teams for success. England had a good side in 28/29 but it was over balanced with batting. Which meant Larwood along with Tate, Geary, White and Hammond (who is an all rounder btw) had to play almost every match.

Did you know bowling fast is hard work? That bowling almost continuously from October to the following March on roads that last 7 days just might give you a boowa or two? Honestly I think it’s probably news since you seem to enjoy blowing raspberries at honest toil from the comfort of your pc and over a distance of almost 100 years.

Australia still had to be bowled out for England to win. In the context of the conditions Larwood contributed to that and better than his opponents. Really it’s all you need to do.

Modern players records are massaged by the inclusion of performances against lesser opponents. Whereas Larwood is judged on his record against Australia on roads and Bradman as well. And it’s a bloody good record in comparison. As a contrast if you judged Donald against the same sample (and who didn’t have to contend with the same difficulties) his average would be around 31. Then we could see how stupid someone would be if they said dumb stuff like loool Donald, so over stated.

Oh no someone had to play all the matches scheduled… (btw I do rightly criticise certain players for resting matches - as far as I’m aware Donald - to use your comparison - wasn’t one of them).

Tours were definitely more intense then, no doubt.

Larwood’s record isn’t bad by any means, and I certainly respect him as a bowler and I’m not trying to bring him down at all tbh, I think he is generally fairly rated here - easily above Kapil in my opinion - similarly to Broad actually.

The original post was mostly directed at the (admittedly small) proportion of people who would rate him as a top 10-15 pacer of all time. More prevelant outside of CW - see him listed in Benaud’s shortlist rather than any Windies pacers.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There are obviously a fair number of CW members who rate Larwood ahead of Dev. In the list of fast bowlers, as voted by members, Larwood ranks 25 and Dev 31.

Should be a much bigger gap. Larwood was an ATG bowler while Kapil was an ATG allrounder.

 

[the big bambino]

Oh no someone had to play all the matches scheduled… (btw I do rightly criticise certain players for resting matches - as far as I’m aware Donald - to use your comparison - wasn’t one of them).

Tours were definitely more intense then, no doubt.

Larwood’s record isn’t bad by any means, and I certainly respect him as a bowler and I’m not trying to bring him down at all tbh, I think he is generally fairly rated here - easily above Kapil in my opinion - similarly to Broad actually.

The original post was mostly directed at the (admittedly small) proportion of people who would rate him as a top 10-15 pacer of all time. More prevelant outside of CW - see him listed in Benaud’s shortlist rather than any Windies pacers.

I think its fair and advisable to rest your fast bowlers. That would have been a grinding tour. England lost Staples before a game and he was meant to bowl the dry overs. Couldn't have been fun playing timeless tests then fronting up for state games.

I'm not a great fan of comparing one bowler to another, though I did here with Donald just to make a point. It's a pity so few tests were played historically but at least the few matches they played were generally played between the era's top teams.