• 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.

You Need Speed (Part One)

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You Need Speed (Part One)


Australians believe their fast bowlers are going to be decisive in the coming Ashes series. In the first part of a two part feature Archie looks back at some famous pace bowling combinations who have dominated past encounters.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I find it interesting that reference is often made to England’s post-WWI Ashes teams being war ravaged compared with those following WWII. I’d have thought England was at a far greater comparative disadvantage following the latter than the former.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
I think they were better off after WWII. They had a core of seriously good batsmen as well Bedser, Wright and Laker. Don't think they had that potential immediately after WWI.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That is an interesting point of contention. I'd say that both sides are actually quite even in their weaknesses and strengths.

I'd have said the post WWII team was a bit stronger in batting. Amongst batsmen from each era you'd have Hobbs, Hendren and Woolley against Hutton, Washbrook, Edrich and Compton, so I'd say that the latter is a little stronger.

As far as bowling goes both sides were extremely weak. As far as the most successful bowlers you had Fender and Parkin who took fewer wickets but at a better average than Bedser and Wright.

Both sides had very similar records, going 0-5, 0-3, 1-4 and 1-0 after WWI and 0-3, 0-4, 1-4 and 1-0 after WWII. Both third series were dominated by one English bowler (Tate and Bedser) with another (Kilner and Brown) in distant support, while the earlier series had two performing batsmen vs one for the later.

And both teams had lost their potential best bowlers during the war, with Farnes being killed and Foster's motorcycle accident ending his career.

It's an interesting one, and I certainly wouldn't describe one as being markedly weaker than the other.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Point I was making is the impact on England post WWI compared with Australia. Both nations suffered massive losses in WWI (Australia had the highest casualty rate of any allied country on the western front), but Australia far less so in WW2.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The comparative difference between the wars is quite similar. The percentage deaths for Australia's population was about 1.2% for WWI and 0.6 for WWII. For the UK it was about 2% and 1%. So both suffered about half the losses from WWII, and Australia's were about half the UK's in both wars.

I must admit I found that surprising.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
The comparative difference between the wars is quite similar. The percentage deaths for Australia's population was about 1.2% for WWI and 0.6 for WWII. For the UK it was about 2% and 1%. So both suffered about half the losses from WWII, and Australia's were about half the UK's in both wars.

I must admit I found that surprising.
98000 Kiwis served in WWI and 18,000 of them died.
Armistice Day tomorrow
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Usually I see the same praises to the aesthetics of Lillee's action right though his career, like smooth and flowing. I personally think that early on it was ragged, jerky and violent.
 

Top