quote:

Originally posted by Allan D:
Totally agree, as Lord Randolph Churchill once said, there are lies, d****d lies and statistics!

I'll think you'll find that was Disraeli.

While I wouldn't argue with Fred's greatness I do think that players in the fifties had an advantage over players in any other era when it comes to stats. People complain now about Bangladesh and Zimbabwe distorting test match records, but they only comprise 20% of the competition. The fifties was the only period when minnows comprised over 40%.

Fred's record v. minnows (NZ, India, Pak): 115 wickets at 17.37
Fred's record v. others: 192 wickets at 24.10

Davidson's record versus others: 142 wickets at 21.36.

One of the interesting things about John Snow was that he seems to have been a bit lacklustre against those 'lesser' opponents, reserving his best for us and the Windies. One reason why, temperemental as he obviously was, I think he is a worthy rival to Fred for the title of best post-war English quick.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
Davidson's record versus others: 142 wickets at 21.36.

So let me see, Fred still took more wickets at a far superior strike rate?

The SR's were not markedly different in games which were not drawn.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
The SR's were not markedly different in games which were not drawn.

Now you're getting utterly irrelevant. Let me get this straight, you are no longer assessing the two bowlers on their merits, you're trying to assess them based on the success of their teams?

Strike rate isn't the be-all and end-all of bowling quality you know. Chris Cairns had an outstanding strike rate.

It might have more to do with STYLE rather than QUALITY. Trueman had a much higher E/R but a lower S/R.

Going on what people who saw them have said to me, I'm guessing Trueman was more the blast-em-out Waqar-style fast bowler, Davidson more like McGrath.

Just a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
Strike rate isn't the be-all and end-all of bowling quality you know. Chris Cairns had an outstanding strike rate.

It might have more to do with STYLE rather than QUALITY. Trueman had a much higher E/R but a lower S/R.

Going on what people who saw them have said to me, I'm guessing Trueman was more the blast-em-out Waqar-style fast bowler, Davidson more like McGrath.

Just a thought.

A reasonable point, though for opening bowlers I would argue that you'd take an extra run an over for ten balls off the strike rate, no?

Quite aside from which, Fiery's E/R in tests was a more than respectable 2.61. Hardly a leaking drain...

Davo's was a miserly 1.97, and as I mentioned he collared more openers than Trueman while doing it.

They'd have been a lethal combo.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
Strike rate isn't the be-all and end-all of bowling quality you know.

It's a bloody good indicator IMO.

I think s/r is more important than e/r. Fred (Flintoff) used to have a very good e/r but his s/r was so bad that his average went up to 50.

The four England quicks who won the Ashes last year have less than 'great' averages and e/r but excellent s/r, especially SiJo.

I finally get my computer up and running again and the FST vs AKD argument is in full swing again!

Firstly, it was obviously very sad news about Fred's passing. One journalist in the Yorkshire Post even said there should rename Leeds / Bradford Airport after him. Well, if Robin Hood can have an airport...

With regard to LG Ratings, these deduct points for Tests missed. With Fred's constant clashes with authority, as well as being rested for some of the perceived easier tours then this would reduce his rating. Somewhat unfairly in my opinion.

I think the s/r vs economy, batsmen dismissed and minnow arguments have been done to death somewhat. Neithers figures are too shabby in any of these regards.

I think SR's are something of a red herring here. They are currently at historically low levels now, but few would suggest that today's crop of bowlers are among the best ever.

To a large extent there's an inverse relationship between SR and ER.

AKD had a significantly lower ER and correspondingly higher SR than FST. To some extent this reflects the Australian's greater accuracy but I think it's mainly due to the defensive mindset of batsmen of the time, and the fact that AKD suffered greater exposure to them in favourable batting conditions than Trueman had to undergo.

For example, FST met India, Pakistan and SA only at home in conditions then alien to visiting batsmen. He never had to face Hanif or McGlew on their own territory.

Trueman similarly never faced the more defensively minded English batsmen that Davidson had to deal with. Instead he came up against typically freer scoring Australian batsmen who often also had looser techniques. It's significant that when AKD was up against a batting side prepared to play aggressively, Worrell's West Indians, his SR fell dramatically.

Gary has a sound point on LG - Trueman would have been slightly disadvantaged after 1957, when his rating became competitive, by a couple of tours which he declined. But he still played a greater number of Tests than AKD in the same time, and hence had greater opportunity to build his rating, and he had no significant absence from the side in the period from early 1957 to late 1961.

Davidson overtook FST during the Ashes series of 1958-59. and remained well ahead thereafter.
There were 80 rating points between them when Davidson retired, and nearly 50 even after FST's triumph at Leeds in 1961.

Finally on the advantage enjoyed by English bowlers of the time.

Show me a significant English bowler of the 50's and 60's who:

1. Did not have a significant performance gap between home and away Tests.

2. Did not play a significantly greater proportion of home Tests.

I think you'll find that Tyson and Snow are the only exceptions to these two points which, taken together, give arithmetic proof to the argument which HCC refuses to see.

By contrast, Davidson actually did slightly better in Away Tests, and Lindwall only a little worse.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
By contrast, Davidson actually did slightly better in Away Tests

Not in England. While the accuracy was still there, the s/r was 77, compared to Fred's 46 and Lindy's 58.

But Davo has really outstanding stats in WI in terms of average, e/r and s/r.

Davidson's poor SR in England has a couple of mitigating factors.

!953 was his debut season and he was yet to master the in swinger, which meant that the ball going across the right hander could be safely left. In 1956 he scarcely bowled due to injury.

In 1961 he was used extensively as a stock bowler by Benaud who frequently had noone else to turn to. In that series he bowled 15 overs per Test more than Trueman. It is little wonder his SR suffered.

Moreover, two of his opponents figure prominently on the list of the most tenacious batsmen assembled by Z Score. They were Subba Row and Barrington. Hutton whom he bowled to in 1953 was another. The only Australian on the list to whom Trueman bowled was Lawry.

Note that AKD's magnificent record against the Windies was achieved in Australia.

Returning to SR.

Cricket is played against the clock. SR's would be of zero significance if Tests were once again timeless.
Hence it is noteworthy that Trueman took longer to bowl an over than Davidson did. If they each bowled for an hour, Davidson would probably bowl between one and two extra overs.
Thus in terms of wickets per hour, which is what really counts in a game limited in time, the difference between them [which in any case is extensively due to Trueman's home and minnow advantages] effectively disappears.

I agree with much of the above about the difference between Trueman's homme and away performances although on both his tours of the West Indies he faced formidable batting line-ups, England nevertheless still managing to draw the first series in 1954 2-2 and win the second in 1960 1-0. He did decline to tour India and Pakistan in 1961-2 and India in 1963-4 but so did many other senior players including his fellow fast bowlers, Brian Statham and Jack Flavell. He was not selected to tour Australia in 1954-5 with Tyson being preferred instead. Both he and Tony Lock had had parts of the bonuses withheld, in their view unjustly, after the tour of the West Indies the previous winter and Hutton (who captained both tours) may have decided they presented disciplinary problems and neither was selected the following winter (Wardle being preferred to Lock). In view of the outcome of the series the selection of Tyson could hardly be challenged.

Fred was also not selected for the next England tour of South Africa (like India and Pakistan he never toured South Africa with a full England side) in 1956-7. 1956 was an unhappy season for him. He was dropped from the Test side after the Lord's defeat in favour of Statham for what turned out to be "Laker's Match" at Old Trafford and Fred didn't turn out for England again until the following summer (in any case pace bowling did not play a significant role in the series, apart from Miller's match-winning effort at Lord's). He was plagued by sciatica and back trouble throughout the summer in what was, for him, a rare period of injury.

When he toured Australia for the first time with an England side he was part of what was, on paper, one of the strongest attacks England have ever sent to Oz consisting of himself, Tyson, Statham, Bailey, Laker and Lock. In the event Australia won the series 4-0 and afterwards the team which had won 3 consecutive series against Australia was largely broken up. Fred was not that effective on his next, and, what turned out to be his final tour of Australia in 1962-3, which was marked by defensive batting on both sides and slow play, with the series being drawn, although he did gallop past Statham at the head of the all time-wcket takers' list with a plethora of wickets in New Zealand (his only really successful tour abroad) after his Lancashire colleague had returned home.

Both Trueman and Statham were expected to be selected for the winter tour of South Africa in 1964-5 (this was to prove the last such England tour for 31 years as the next planned tour four years later was cancelled because of the D'Oliveira Affair) despite the fact that both were obviously coming to the end of their careers. Statham had last turned out for England against the 1963 West Indians and had largely indicated he wished to retire from the Test scene (although he was persuaded to make a farewell appearance against the South Africans at the Oval in 1965). Fred, however, was eager to continue, although he'd been dropped for the 4th Test at Old Trafford against Australia in 1964- the first time that had happened to him since 1956 (it turned out to be fortunate, though, as Australia made 656 in their only innings)- before being recalled for the Oval Test in which he took his 300th wicket.

In their wisdom (which isn't saying much) the selectors decided to opt for an experimental attack of John Price of Middlesex, Tom Cartwright of Warwickshire (a bowler of Davidson-type proportions in county cricket but who always failed to deliver the goods in his Test appearances), his county colleague David Brown and Ian Thomson of Sussex who had taken all ten wickets in an innings against Warwickshire the previous summer (the feat was not to be repeated in a domestic season again for 30 years).

Fred's fury at his rejection turned to apoplexy when, after Price and Cartwright sustained injuries, rather than summon a replacement from England (as in all winters, Fred had kept himself fit in case a summons should arrive although a more reasonable replacement might have been Jeff Jones, Simon's dad, of Glamorgan) the tour management decided to save on air fares and added Ken Palmer, an aimable trundler from Somerset,who was coaching in South Africa, to the tour party.
Although England did manage to win that series 1-0 the selectors didn't find a replacement for Fred (who was given a couple of consolation Tests against New Zealand the following summer) until the emergence of Thomson's opening partner, John Snow, also in 1965 (although he did not cement his place in the Test side and inherit Fred's mantle as England's leading pace bowler until the West Indian tour of 1968). Here I would also agree that Snow was almost the reverse of Trueman, being more effective abroad than at home, his contributions in the West Indies in 1968 and Australia during the Ashes-winning tour of 1970-1 being particularly decisive.

Would Fred have prospered on the hard wickets of South Africa? Unlikely, as no other English pace bowler of his era did. What he really liked was the seaming green-top wickets peculiar to England (apart from, perhaps, New Zealand), particularly in the north. He may have been a blast-em-out Waqar-type bowler to begin with (particularly against the Indians in 1952) but that was certainly not how he developed. Noone could have bowled at top pace over a thousand overs in first-class cricket every summer, as he did, at top pace as well as cope with the grind of a four-month overseas tour (which was much more cluttered with provincial and up-country matches than they are today) and lived to tell the tale. Fred learnt to reduce his pace, bowl long spells containing free-scoring batsmen and take his wickets as much by guile as by sheer pace. For much of his later Test career he fulfilled much the same role in the England side as Alec Bedser had done.

It must have been obvious well in advance that the Headingley wicket for the 3rd Test against Australia in 1961 was going to favour seam. Having lost (yet again!) at Lord's England needed to take full advantage if they were going to square the series. Statham being, I think, injured, the selectors opted for Les Jackson of Derbyshire, highly regarded on the county circuit but largely overlooked for Test cricket, to partner Fred and take advantage of the conditions. However Fred was not going to take lessons from anyone in how to bowl off-cutters and away-swingers, particularly on his home ground, and proceeded to deliver a masterclass in the arts of seam bowling, compressing all his experience of 13 years' first class cricket and a decade in the top flight, taking 11 wickets in the match, putting Jackson in the shade, and delivering an England victory. I have seen a film of the match and, despite the imperfect camerawork, one can see how, again and again, he deceived the Australian batsmen in both the pace and movement of the ball. It was probably the most comprehensive defeat of Australia by a single bowler since "Laker's Match" at Old Trafford five years before. He was to repeat the feat against the West Indies on a rain-affected wicket at Edgbaston two years later.

Ironically, Fred was to prove the architect of the destruction of his own good work in the following Test at Old Trafford when his footholds provided the purchase for Benaud's legbreaks resulting in the loss of the series 2-1.

quote:

Originally posted by Caveat Lector:

quote:

Originally posted by Allan D:
Totally agree, as Lord Randolph Churchill once said, there are lies, d****d lies and statistics!

I'll think you'll find that was Disraeli

Only according to Mark Twain, I always thought it was used by Churchill during his brief period as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1886-7 although he could well have been quoting it second-hand:

Who said that?

Allan,

Only one point on your long enty above.

Fred was also dropped by England after the Manchester Test of 1961, that great game in which Australia retained the Ashes, having twice appeared to be in a hopeless position on the last day.

Yes, as usual, you're right again, peterg, Tony Lock replaced Fred for the final Test which England were very lucky to escape with a draw, thanks to rain interruptions, having trailed on first innings by 238 despite winning the toss. The match was notable for being Subba Row's last Test (in which he scored a century in his last innings) and Peter May's last appearance (although noone knew that at the time).

You're also right about the Old Trafford Test- although England bowled poorly in the Australian second innings with Fred finishing with 0-92 and even Statham going for over 100 256 was eminently gettable, particularly when England were 150-1 with Dexter and Subba Row set fair. However a combination of Fred's footmarks, brilliant bowling by Benaud (who had had figures of 0-80 in the first innings) and poor shot selection by the England batsmen cost England their best chance of regaining the Ashes for what turned out to be a decade.

quote:

Originally posted by Allan D:

quote:

Originally posted by Caveat Lector:

quote:

Originally posted by Allan D:
Totally agree, as Lord Randolph Churchill once said, there are lies, d****d lies and statistics!

I'll think you'll find that was Disraeli

Only according to Mark Twain, I always thought it was used by Churchill during his brief period as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1886-7 although he could well have been quoting it second-hand:

Who said that?

I realise now to what I owe my misattribution of the above quotation to Churchill, although it sounds more Mark Twain than Disraeli. I was getting confused with Lord Randolph's famous remark, when asked about his experiences at the Treasury, "I never knew what those damned dots meant" (referring to decimal points). No wonder his tenure of office there was brief!

Neither of the Churchills had a particularly happy time at No.11 Downing Street. Winston once said that "experts say that I was the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer there has ever been, with the benefit of hindsight I am inclined to agree with them." Fortunately, Churchill fils proved slightly more successful when he moved next door some years later.

quote:

Originally posted by Allan D:
However a combination of Fred's footmarks, brilliant bowling by Benaud (who had had figures of 0-80 in the first innings) and poor shot selection by the England batsmen cost England their best chance of regaining the Ashes for what turned out to be a decade.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Fred actually operated from the same end as Benaud in that match... that Richie told the media it had been Fred's footmarks in a (successful) attempt to get him dropped?

That was certainly what Fred later claimed.

Accounts of the match suggest, however, that FST did bowl from both ends.

Apart from his magnificent, match winning effort at Leeds, FST had a pretty miserable time in that 1961 series. In his other three Tests he took nine wickets for 441.

Yes, even including his exceptional performance at Headingley he only came third in the England bowling avaerages behind Jackson & Dexter with 20 wkts@26.45. Meanwhile, Davidson who played throughout the series on totally different surfaces claimed 23 wkts@24.87.

Fred had probably a better overall performance in the 1963 series against the West Indies when he played in every Test and topped the England averages with 34 wkts@17.47 (still a record wicket haul for an England bowler in a series against West Indies and only exceeded-by 1-by Malcolm Marshall in 1988). However his average was bettered by Charlie Griffith who took 32 wkts@16.22 and he didn't prevent the Windies winning the series 3-1 although he was instrumental in gaining England's sole victory.