I know you're just 'mirin, but honestly this is bull****.Like more than half the bowlers who even got to play a test for England in the 50s have legend status. It's nuts
Not much thought put into it but 90s batting is very overrated imo. Sachin, Lara, Waugh were phenomenal but loads of teams had mediocre lineups. Bunch of teams had crappy openers too.
I know you're just 'mirin, but honestly this is bull****.
You could probably reel off half a dozen England bowlers of the time with 'legend status', sure, but players like Tattershall, Loader, Brown and Bailey who were just good make up just as many, and this whole exercise completely ignores the players who didn't make it as Test cricketers. Unless you're saying blokes with a handful of tests and a bowling average north of 50 are legends.
I'm not having a go at you, it just ****s me when people hold up the best of the best from previous eras and decide that's all there was, while not giving modern cricket the same luxury.
Adcock, Heine, Goddard, Tayfied wasn't too bad an attack in the 50s tooI based mine purely on how many CW considered ATG batters and bowlers fell in each decade
90s had a crapton of legendary bats and bowlers
30s had Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, Headley, enough said
50s had Davidson/Miller/Lindwall, Trueman/Tyson/Statham/Laker/Bedser/Lock/Wardle etc Ramadhin/Valentine and Fazal Mahmood. Gutpe too
Like more than half the bowlers who even got to play a test for England in the 50s have legend status. It's nuts