The present wholly justified tributes to Fred Trueman, including on this forum, got me wondering whether there was any way of quantifing his ability enabling him to be compared to similar bowlers in this, his own, and other eras. Much has been made of his strike rate and the fact that he took 307 wickets in only 67 Test matches. It has also been pointed out that he took his wickets relatively cheaply.
So I thought of combining the two measures of strike rate, that is number of balls needed per wicket and economy rate, that is runs conceded per over bowled, by the simple expedient of multiplying them together. The figure obtained is by itself meaningless but it does give a measure of a bowler's ability to take wickets at low cost and enable comparisons to be made between bowlers of similar type.
The figure produced in Trueman's case is 129.53 (rounded up to the second decimal place as are all the following statistics). Where does this place them in comparison with the leading international bowlers who succeeded him. Here are the figures (obviously the lower the number the better the bowler):
This table shows Fred in a very favourable light indeed, bracketing him with the great West Indian bowlers of the 1980s, two of whom had the advantage of great height not given to Fred and all of whom had great support from the other end as well as in the field which Fred didn't always have (the number of times he shared the new ball with Statham is not as great as people imagine). The interesting statistic showss him almost identical with McGrath, a comparison I'm sure he would have appreciated.
The next thing I looked at is how do the successors to Fred in the England side since 1965 compare to him. Again the results are revealing:
Clearly Tyson's statistic is exceptional for any era but his was a very brief career, 50 Tests less than Fred, and most of his figures rest on the Ashes tour in 1954-5 from which Freddie was omitted to accommodate Tyson. Of those bowlers with a reasonably lengthy career only Davidson has a better showing than FST and many might argue that he had a completely different style of bowling and like the West Indians in thhe 1980s was part of a much stronger attack.
Lastly I looked at how Fred might be compared with the great bowlers of his type before his era and again the results are remarkable:
Of course for most of the inter-war period the bat dominated the ball whereas, for Test Matches at least, in the "Golden Age" period prior to the First World War the reverse was usually true. However Fred still looms large in this company with only the "Demon Spoff" and Barnes ahead of him. Barnes' figures are even more remarkable than Tyson's although it is questionable whether he can be included as a "pace" bowler. Like Fred, Barnes opened the England bowling but there the comparison largely ends. However as the only bowler I have found who gets a rating, even on this artificial measure, below 100 it confirms his place among Test bowlers to the one Bradman holds among batsmen.
I thought this might be of some interest although I realise I have only taken two variables- economy rate and strike rate and blended them together artificially. Of course it can be argued that there are manuy other variables to be taken into account in assessing the quality of a bowler- the quality of the opposition, the helpfulness of the pitch and so on. Geoffrey Boycott made much on Saturday as to the fact that Fred could not derive cheap wickets from the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as modern bowlers can (although their figures are still worse than his). However he neglected to mention the fact that he secured many wickets from the likes of India and Pakistan (in England) and New Zealand (home and away) who were far weaker sides than they are today. He also neglected to mention the fact that he never toured India & Pakistan with an England side where conditions would not have favoured him (his two tours of the West Indies in 1954 and 1960 against strong batting lineups produced mixed results, to say the least). Pitch preparation was not the science it has become today either, and uncovered wickets were as likely to favour seam as spin. His two greatest performances, against Australia at Headingley in 1961 and against the West Indies at Edgbaston in 1963, as well as the hatful of wickets he got against the Indians in the two northern Tests in his debut series in 1952, were obtained on surfaces that could be best be described as "uneven". Nevertheless I hope that the calculations I have made, however naive, show "Fiery" as possibly not the greatest fast bowler of all time but certainly as one of them.
I also suggested that Lindwall was probably his superior, and certainly his equal, in English conditions.
Lindwall had the disadvantage of always bowling to English batsmen in their home conditions, and never to Indians or NZ'ers in conditions alien to them, in which he would have mown them down as readily as Trueman so often did.
Trueman was undeniably one of England's best two or three fast bowlers, and arguably one of the top dozen from anywhere. But he was equally undeniably helped by playing a large proportion of games at home, and more often against mediocre opposition than was met by non English bowlers of the time such as Lindwall and Davidson.
On Allan D's suggestion that davidson was more often in a stronger bowling side I would beg to differ.
In his prime, from 1957-63, Davidson and Benaud were often virtually the entire Australian attack, and Benaud damaged his shoulder for the last couple of years in this period.
Elsewhere on the RIP thread I noted that the LG historic ratings would appear to lend weight to my contention that Lindwall and Davidson were even greater than FST.
Possibly, Robby, but it can also be argued that FST was omitted from some of those tours - notably Australia in 54-55 and South Africa two years later - on what English selectors considered to be his merits, at a time when England had unusual pace bowling riches. He did not really establish himself in the side until the English summer of 1957. Once established, he himself, like numerous leading English players, opted out of sub-continental tours. Davidson wanted to do so, too, but was told it would end his career if he did.
FST had an excellent ability to promote himself, and excellent raw materials with which to work. However, merely repeating the claim that he was the best fast bowler who ever drew breath does not make it so. The competing claims of more modest bowlers stack up excellently.
Originally posted by Mister Robby: He was probably the best fast bowler ever in English conditions.
peterg has pointed out that he didn't travel as well as some.
He didn't in actual fact travel often enough to present a reliable view of his ability overseas, and was often left out of the series which would have presented him with the easier challenges because of his lack of popularity with the MCC Brass
Originally posted by peterg: Elsewhere on the RIP thread I noted that the LG historic ratings would appear to lend weight to my contention that Lindwall and Davidson were even greater than FST.
They also suggest that Dennis Lillee was only the 30th greatest bowler of all time when anyone with eyes would have placed him in the top ten at worst!
Originally posted by peterg: FST had an excellent ability to promote himself, and excellent raw materials with which to work. However, merely repeating the claim that he was the best fast bowler who ever drew breath does not make it so. The competing claims of more modest bowlers stack up excellently.
As one of his biggest fans, even I wouldn't say he was the best ever - I'd have to go with Malcolm Marshall for that acolade. However, I'd be comfortable placing him second (joint) and in declaring him the greatest English bowler.
Originally posted by HCC2005: As one of his biggest fans, even I wouldn't say he was the best ever - I'd have to go with Malcolm Marshall for that acolade.
Aye.
Not sure FST was second best, for his comparative weakness in WI and Australia. I think Snow has better records in those countries than did Fred. I'd still call Fred the best ever English quick, though.
I'm happy to give the ultimate accolade to Marshall. However, placing Trueman second amongst all comers cannot, in my opinion, be supported.
In different ways Larwood, Tom Richardson and Snow would offer worthy challenges to FST as the best England quick. Snow had an excellent record in Away Tests, as MR notes. Richardson over a briefer period - I don't think he played past 28 - did some remarkable things, and Larwood was superb in his pomp.
Originally posted by peterg: I'm happy to give the ultimate accolade to Marshall. However, placing Trueman second amongst all comers cannot, in my opinion, be supported.
In different ways Larwood, Tom Richardson and Snow would offer worthy challenges to FST as the best England quick. Snow had an excellent record in Away Tests, as MR notes. Richardson over a briefer period - I don't think he played past 28 - did some remarkable things, and Larwood was superb in his pomp.
Larwood was great for a short period but only had one facet to his bowling, whereas Trueman could bowl everything from lightning pace (though never quite as fast as he himself liked to claim, at least not once he was bowling regularly for Yorkshire) through swing and seam to gentle but perfect off cutters.
I also have some problems with the LG ratings, as many would have. I don't pay much attention to peak ratings, in particular.
Hpwever, the system does attempt to weigh the quality of batsman dismissed, and it has been a consistent argument of mine that FST's bag includes a disproportionate number of victims from notably weak sides, such as the Indian and New Zealand teams of the 50's.
I was therefore interested to note that in the graph of Trueman's ratings over his career, there is less territory lying above the 750 mark than is the case for either Lindwall or Davidson.
I think this reflects the relative ranking of these three great contemporaries.
Originally posted by peterg: I also have some problems with the LG ratings, as many would have. I don't pay much attention to peak ratings, in particular.
Hpwever, the system does attempt to weigh the quality of batsman dismissed, and it has been a consistent argument of mine that FST's bag includes a disproportionate number of victims from notably weak sides, such as the Indian and New Zealand teams of the 50's.
I was therefore interested to note that in the graph of Trueman's ratings over his career, there is less territory lying above the 750 mark than is the case for either Lindwall or Davidson.
I think this reflects the relative ranking of these three great contemporaries.
As you know, we disagree on this; firstly, any bowler can only get out the guys placed in front of them, and there were not that great a number of genuinely poor opponents on FSTs resume. Secondly, one of the flaws of the LG ratings when applied retrospectively is their tendency to give bowlers very little credit for taking wickets on what were perceived to be poorer batting pitches, as *allegedly* proliferated at the time in England.
Almost all of Trueman's haul coming in England, bar 19 wickets @ 14 in New Zealand. Both Australians toured the subcontinent.
It may also be worth noting that Trueman took a (significantly) lower proportion of 1-3 bats and a (slightly) higher proportion of 8-11 bats than either of the others.
----------------------- 'John and Kevin offered to settle their differences in the ring, but were forced to backflip after it became clear no-one wanted to see either of them in boxer shorts'
Gee whiz, that whole PEP factor was really working for me too. A shame you didn't divide their PEP factors by their averages, Allan, you could have proven all bowlers were equal
I'm sorry but i just don't think you can prove too much with stats when comparing true greats of our game. When comparing the likes of Wasim, Marshall, Ambrose and McGrath for example, most of us would have seen them all play a lot of cricket, but could we all agree which order they fell in on stats alone? Never!
Totally agree, as Lord Randolph Churchill once said, there are lies, d****d lies and statistics! At least I prompted a discussion, though. The point made about the number of nos. 8-11 in his wicket haul is very true as well, Boycott said that FST and Ian Botham were the best bowlers he ever saw at sweeping up the tail. Whether you could ever devise a system that took into account quality of the opponent (individual and team), state of the pitch, state of the game, willingness of the umpire to give decisions for or against the bowler etc. etc is arguable and way beyond my poor powers since I don't seem to have worked out that there are 6 balls in an over yet. Nevertheless I agree with most of the points made. Kapil Dev took hundreds of wickets on flat pancakes in a country where Fred never ventured (apart from one charity match in 1968 at the invitation of the Indian PM) and yet hardly rates a mention as a great bowler. Great as Fred was though, the greatest bowler I've seen remains Malcolm Marshall, the greatest bowler I haven't S.F.Barnes.
Originally posted by peterg: The system makes no subjective perception of pitch quality.
I don't think you can support the claim that "there are not that great a number of genuinely poor opponents on FST's resume".
Nearly one quarter of his career Tests were against the two teams I mentioned in the 1950's.
I agree that NZ were poor at that time, but to be fair, everyone had a shot at them and everyone did well - India are a different matter. Whilst not the side that they are now, they were certainly far better than several of the sides currently doing the rounds.
When it comes down to it, you have to look at their overal career records rather than trying to adjust the stats to suit your argument. Trueman took more wickets and quicker than Davidson, the true mark of a strike bowler - whilst there was a negligible difference in their averages and economy rates.
When you factor in Trueman's incredible first class record as well, there can be no reasonable doubt who was the finer bowler.
