Print

[FattusCattus]

Prompted by the comment quoted on here of Anderson and Broad 'best ever', I wondered how various fantasy bowling attacks from various eras of English cricket might fare against each other. There are many ways to rate a bowler; average, strike rate, total wickets taken etc - I went for the remarkably unscientific 'how many wickets per test'.

I then cobbled together 3 x attacks from 3 very loose era's, and i am using a fantasy pitch that is covered, but is a bit like Edgbaston, doing a bit on the first couple of days, but flat enough to score runs on if you stick at it, and then breaking up slowly over the last 4 sessions.

**** Please remember, these are just my whimsical musings, and I'm sure many people will have a counter-suggestion ****

These are each of my attacks, with their wickets per test - who do we think would've meed the most deadly?

ANCIENTS TO 1940's

SF Barnes -   7.00
H Larwood -  3.71
M Tate -        3.97
G Lohmann - 6.22
H Verity -      3.60


1940's to 1980's

Truman -      4.58
Snow -         4.12
Botham -      3.75
Bedser -       4.62
Laker -         4.19


90's ONWARDS

Anderson -    3.95
Broad -         3.53
Gough -        3.94
Caddick -      3.77
Swann -       4.25

[alexhilly1492]

pure stats would suggest the ancients however with better pitches now i would say the moderns would get the nod for me

however if your deciding between attacks id go even smaller date ranges and say the ashes 05 was the best all round attack ive seen (botham and willis' may be better)

[roco]

Agree with above 05 attack had pace accuracy bounce and both swings

True man
Snow
Willis
Botham
Underwood


Anderson
Harmison
Flintoff
Jones
Swann

My picks

Nice to have cricket debate mr cat

[jamielsn15]

Great post.

So difficult to compare yesteryears bowlers with today. Whereas you have to consider decades gone batsman with greater respect these guys bowled on uncovered pitches, undoubtedly an advantage and their figures reflect it.

However, reports describe how much they swung the ball and how versatile they were. Swing, fast, medium, spin. These guys could do it all. Barnes and Verity seem to be talked about as the best of the generation and by most accounts they'd be a nightmare to face.

Truman was lightning. Bedser apparently superb, according to those who saw him. My five man attack would be

Barnes (a nod to a player no one alive today has seen live in action, but he had awesome figures that i think mean he would be great today)
Truman (first to 300 wickets and rapid)
Underwood (almost 300 wickets with spin at under 26, six ten fers...)
Botham (at his peak better than flintoff and stokes)
Anderson (longevity, control of the ball)

Pace swing, seam and spin bowling at almost medium pace speed.

Bedser, Swann and Flintoff in the mix...

[FattusCattus]

I would truly love to have seen Barnes, Lohmann and Tate bowl. They seem to be some kind of freaks with many commentators of the time being unable to describe their bowling.

all were deemed to be slow/medium, yet Barnes could apparently be genuinely quick if he wanted to, Tate apparently 'rushed off the pitch' at you whilst bowling mediums? and Lohmann did all sorts in the air.

Their figures don;t lie, uncovered pitches or not, they were (like the Don) simply streets ahead of their peers.

Oh for that time-machine!!!

[ppccopener]

SF Barnes need some looking into

step forward any members old enough to have seen him bowl,there must be one

[jamielsn15]

https://youtu.be/1NJGLkiioiQ

https://youtu.be/Zf9nsdFMguw

Best i could find with a quick search. Boycott's assessment is interesting

[FattusCattus]

SF Barnes need some looking into

step forward any members old enough to have seen him bowl,there must be one

I would imagine Seniorplayer played with him!

[Seniorplayer]

How about Larwood or Tyson Truman was no faster than Jimmy just looked quicker due to his smooth  side on gliding action

[ppccopener]

senior(alan) in your vast experience, what difference could be allowed for the old bowlers playing on uncovered wickets?

we have seen Underwood be unplayable with a keeper standing up but that was on sticky dog wickets....no doubt he was as superb bowler

the wicket nowadays generally are more batsman friendly

isn't this a good thread?

[jamielsn15]

Loving this thread! V interested to hear opinions on how yesterday's bowlers would fare today...

[FattusCattus]

Tyson took his wickets at a respectable 4.47 per test. I guess I overlooked him because he only played 17 tests and took 76 wickets.

[Manormanic]

For me, the serious contenders are:

New Ball:
Trueman, Statham, Anderson, Harmison (with honourable mentions for Hoggard, who took more top order wickets than anyone, and Sidebottom, whose prime was cut short)

Change Bowlers:
Barnes, Bedser, Bowes

All Rounders:
Botham, Flintoff, Hurst

Spinners:
Underwood, Verity, Laker

Who would I go for?  At this second, Trueman, Anderson, Barnes, Flintoff, Verity  but if you ask me in ten minutes it might easily be Trueman, Botham, Barnes, Verity, Laker or even Trueman, Harmison, Botham, Bowes, Laker

[Seniorplayer]

senior(alan) in your vast experience, what difference could be allowed for the old bowlers playing on uncovered wickets?

we have seen Underwood be unplayable with a keeper standing up but that was on sticky dog wickets....no doubt he was as superb bowler

the wicket nowadays generally are more batsman friendly

isn't this a good thread?

Carlo
Having watched cricket before wickets were covered the
Answer would be on uncovered pitches batters and bowlers were better than the modern player they had to be bowlers like Deadly Derek learnt how to utilise the conditions to there advantage wrist spinners were  a nightmare batsman  had no choice but to learn how to play them in the conditions.

[JTtaylor145]

The 50's was a bit of a golden era for English bowling with Tyson, Truman, Statham, Bedser, Laker (not that they all played at the same time). Anderson is a very, very skillful bowler and deserves to be up there with the best of all time for England. I think (in general) terms bowlers from the past probably use cutters more often on uncovered pitches whereas today they may use slower balls more. Great debate @FattusCattus, I'm sure there is a cricket nerd out there that could recreate a match on Cricket Captain and tell us the result!