Wes Hall vs Tom Richardson

[capt_Luffy]

Two bowlers with a lot in common: tall, fast, high-arming workhorses who were bowled into the ground and naturally declined as a result. Richardson leaned on his off-cutters and nip-backers, while Hall thrived more on his natural outswing. Both could be devastating on a perfect flat wicket, but neither always exploited favourable conditions as effectively as they should have. Richardson, during his short Test career, bowled an average of 200 balls per innings, once sending down 42 overs unchanged and 110 overs in total on a flat wicket! So, who would you say was the better bowler?

 

[ma1978]

Not sure what the case is for Richardson. Sir Wes was arguably the best in an insipid era and in any era an incredible bowler

 

[Starfighter]

Not sure what the case is for Richardson. Sir Wes was arguably the best in an insipid era and in any era an incredible bowler

Hall's figures are a tad underwhelming for someone with such a high reputation. His basically bullied India and Pakistan early on and his series against Australia and England were more decent than outstanding.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not sure what the case is for Richardson. Sir Wes was arguably the best in an insipid era and in any era an incredible bowler

Firstly, Trueman and Davidson had more than half their Test matches after Hall's debut IE 1958, Both leagues better than Hall.

Secondly, Richardson's case would simply be his stats against top competition, He has 88 wickets at an average of 25 against Australia, with a 3.7 WPI while Hall averaged 32 against Australia/England with 1.9 WPI. If you give them all their redball games against Australia/Australians and England/MCC, Richardson comes out with 169 wickets at an average of 22.3 while Hall with 120 wickets at an average of 33. It's Hall who is the underdog here.

 

[Coronis]

Firstly, Trueman and Davidson had more than half their Test matches after Hall's debut IE 1958, Both leagues better than Hall.

Secondly, Richardson's case would simply be his stats against top competition, He has 88 wickets at an average of 25 against Australia, with a 3.7 WPI while Hall averaged 32 against Australia/England with 1.9 WPI. If you give them all their redball games against Australia/Australians and England/MCC, Richardson comes out with 169 wickets at an average of 22.3 while Hall with 120 wickets at an average of 33. It's Hall who is the underdog here.

Was Hall ever even the best pacer? Davidson and Trueman were clearly better and his record post Trueman’s retirement one could argue at best was on par with McKenzie and Snow, let alone Higgs.

 

[sayon basak]

Firstly, Trueman and Davidson had more than half their Test matches after Hall's debut IE 1958, Both leagues better than Hall.

Secondly, Richardson's case would simply be his stats against top competition, He has 88 wickets at an average of 25 against Australia, with a 3.7 WPI while Hall averaged 32 against Australia/England with 1.9 WPI. If you give them all their redball games against Australia/Australians and England/MCC, Richardson comes out with 169 wickets at an average of 22.3 while Hall with 120 wickets at an average of 33. It's Hall who is the underdog here.

Tom Richardson against Australian teams in all Red Ball games:
Matches – 33
Wickets – 183
Average – 23.7049
Strike Rate – 46.3989
WPI – 3.2105
Economy – 3.0654
5 wickets in an innings – 18
10 wickets in a match – 6

Wes Hall against Australian/English teams in all Red Ball games:
Matches – 42
Wickets – 130
Average – 32.7923
Strike Rate – 64.3692
WPI – 1.6883
Economy – 3.0566
5 wickets in an innings – 4
10 wickets in a match – 0

(English teams = England, England XI, MCC
Australian teams = Australia, Australians, Australian XI)

 

[capt_Luffy]

Was Hall ever even the best pacer? Davidson and Trueman were clearly better and his record post Trueman’s retirement one could argue at best was on par with McKenzie and Snow, let alone Higgs.

Tbh, I don't think he was, no.

 

[Starfighter]

Hall did hit the no. 1 ranking for two tests in 1963 and one in 1965. Which is actually as many tests as Trueman, but nowhere near Davidson.

 

[Coronis]

Hall did hit the no. 1 ranking for two tests in 1963 and one in 1965. Which is actually as many tests as Trueman, but nowhere near Davidson.

tbf to Trueman, he’d have copped it in those rankings for the amount of games he missed

 

[shortpitched713]

Was Hall ever even the best pacer? Davidson and Trueman were clearly better and his record post Trueman’s retirement one could argue at best was on par with McKenzie and Snow, let alone Higgs.

He started off great, and for the short period from his 58 debut in to early 60s I think he was definitely the most dangerous in the world. But then he did fall off.

Kind of the story of international pace bowlers. Rarely too many greats operating at the same time as one another due to the terribly attritional nature of the craft.