I think if I were looking for someone to take a wicket in the space of one over, I'd go for Fred as the one more likely to produce something unplayable.

But you could say the same about Shoaib Akhtar v McGrath... the former is clearly a better 'strike' bowler, more likely to pluck out a wicket at any moment. Fair enough. I think most of us would concede that about Trueman v Davidson. It doesn't tell us who the better bowler is though.

quote:

Originally posted by HCC2005:
Ah but were there more blades of grass on Trueman's end of the pitch than Davidson's? And what about the percentage of tosses won by each man's side? And didn't someone provide Fiery with special brylcream to shine the ball with?

Yeah, I remember talking about one of Mick's tons down under and a certain someone started going on about "how the sun came out, so it was significantly easier to bat, or else he wouldn't hhave gotten a sniff" or something along those lines.

Really?

I tended to think that Davo was more likely to bowl the jaffa. A bit like Wasim.

Well, my understanding from reading/listening was that he was fast-medium, accurate and excellent... but not much like Wasim and certainly not express.

Anyone who saw him... care to comment?

My understanding was he could swing it like Wasim.

Yes he certainly wasn't express, but you don't need to be.

Of course a lot of my opinions is based on reading about his Ashes winning feats where he bowled a Wasim like spell. Was it in '61?

Davo delivered a few Wasim like spells. I recall one in SA in 1957, another in Melbourne in 1958, another in Sydney four years later.

He was actually of similar height and build to Trueman. He would never have been as fast as Fred was in his youth, but by 1962 there can't have much in it for pace.

By then - probably before then - Fred had slowed, whereas Davo was pretty much the same. I'd guess that they would each have been around the high 130's, occasionally faster, and Fred's fastest probably faster.

My impressiopn, to some extent supported by the stats [although there are other possible explanations] is that AKD, like Statham and Lindwall, was the more accurate bowler, and also the more consistent from Test to Test, although he also had days when he seemed to lack dynamism.

Each was a master of swing. In a typical Davidson new ball over, maybe three balls would comprehensively beat the bat. Trueman wasn't far different.
I know that I breathed a sigh of relief whe he took his jumper.

I think - as Leo and lardbucket have each suggested - my vigorous defence of Davidson is motivated by a sense that he's been unjustifiably overlooked. He was a modest man, like Statham. As an allrounder, his exceptional bowling record has tended to be almost forgotten. And Miller eclipses him as an allrounder, but not because he was the better bowler.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
I think if I were looking for someone to take a wicket in the space of one over, I'd go for Fred as the one more likely to produce something unplayable.

But you could say the same about Shoaib Akhtar v McGrath... the former is clearly a better 'strike' bowler, more likely to pluck out a wicket at any moment. Fair enough. I think most of us would concede that about Trueman v Davidson. It doesn't tell us who the better bowler is though.

Not entirely sure I'd agree with the second half of that - one of the things that I respect most about McGrath is the way he manages to get into a batsman's head, inventing pressure that isn't really there; in such circumstances you never quite know what Shoaib will do and he is on balance as likely to bowl tripe, whereas McGrath will bowl six excellent balls most times.

I think some of the correspondants here are greatly under-estimating the value of strike rate. Its not simply about taking twenty opposition wickets in 5 days (though this is often a factor).

When the oppositions best batsmen are starting their innings, the match is entering a tight finish or its a seminal moment in the match, time after time the captain will give the ball to his strike bowler and say get me a wicket. Strike bowlers win Tests, they are the most valuable weapon a captain has at his disposal.

Just look at how Flintoff was utilised against Gilchrist as an example. If Flintoff had bowled a probing spell, 5-2-8-0 say, it would have done little to win England the match, but 4-0-20-1 was just what they needed. Some of the best passages of cricket are such instances, Donald vs Atherton in 1998 springs to mind. Everyone knew that was a pivotal session.

The McGrath vs Shoaib argument is a little misleading. As McGrath has an excellent strike rate and his pronounced leg cutters that have caused Lara, Atherton, etc so many problems are testament to this.

Just out of interest the best post WW1 bowlers for strike rate (100 wickets) are:

1) Waqar
2) Shoaib
3) Marshall
4) Donald
5) Croft
6) Trueman
7) Garner
8) Hadlee
9) Holding
10) MacGill

(McGrath is just off the radar in 12th)

As a measure it gives you 8 bona fide greats. The more aggressive approach of modern batsmen perhaps accounting for Shoaib and MacGill's prominance. Although to be fair to Shoaib no-one's ever doubted his potency, just his durability.

I would argue for the most part these are the type of bowlers who win you Test matches, strike rate is very important. Any comments?

quote:

Originally posted by Gary_86:
I think some of the correspondants here are greatly under-estimating the value of strike rate.

Let's take a hypothetical Ashes test in England where Fred and Davo both worked hard and bowled 40 overs.

At the end of the match, based on their local e/r and s/r, the stats will be:

Davo 3.1 wickets for 78
Fred 5.3 wickets for 120.

Davo's performance in England is therefore not overall that of a strike bowler, but of a very good stock bowler such as the mature Shaun Pollock.

Fred however, is not really leaking runs, and blowing the batters away.

I think you'll find that all good bowlers have very penetrative SR's in Tests which they win.
For the most part they are notably less penetrative in lost or drawn games.

Given that, weather apart, most Test matches which are not pre-destined draws do reach a decision, I tend to think that SR can be exaggerated. In any case, the mere statistical probability that a better SR will lead to a crucial wicket is no guarantee that it will happen in any given instance.

I also think it's fair to all bowlers who did not play 70% of their games at home that Trueman's SR in the four overseas series he played in against the West Indies and Australia were, respectively,

1953-54: 88.89
1958-59: 77.33
1959-60: 63.00
1962-63: 63.35

I think that places matters in some perspective.

quote:
Originally posted by ten years after:
______________________________________________________________________
If i was trying to prove that McCabe was over-rated I might say "apart from at Nottingham ,McCabe had a pretty miserable time in 1938" or "apart from the 1st Sydney test, McCabe had a pretty misreable time in 1932/33". But i wouldn't because it would totally misrepresent that player's contribution.

Trueman had a magnificent test at Headingley, a decent test at Lords. He bowled poorly at Manchester and in his only innings in Birmingham.
______________________________________________________________________

That's fair comment, tya.

In my own defence, however, I might point out that I have several times drawn attention to McCabe's lack of success over most of the remainder of the Bodyline series.

Similarly I've noted at least once that his run of low scores in the latter games of 1938 lowered his career average below 50, and earned him in some quarters an otherwise unjustified reputation for inconsistency.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
I think you'll find that all good bowlers have very penetrative SR's in Tests which they win.

Well of course, that's a truism, in the same way that good batsmen don't tend to score many runs in matches their team loses.

quote:

In any case, the mere statistical probability that a better SR will lead to a crucial wicket is no guarantee that it will happen in any given instance.

OK, but a batting average of 50 is no guarantee that the player will get fifty in a match. It's an indicator that he will.

peter, you seem to be ignoring those stats which disagree with your assumptions.

Trueman and Davidson played in 13 Ashes Tests together in the course of four series, in only one of which each played all five games. Of these 13 games Australia won five, England three, with five draws.

Trueman had by far the better SR in England where five of the games were played and each side won twice: 47.8 as against 68.2.

Davidson was ahead in Australia, where the home side won three to England's one. His advantage was much less marked, however. Fred struck at 67.7, Davo at 64.6.

Overall, FST's SR in these games was 58.7, AKD's 66.1.

They each took 53 wickets. Fred's cost 26.72 at an ER of 2.73.

Davo's cost 22.89 at an ER of 2.04.

England bowled first in seven games, Australia in six.

In one match Davidson bowled only ten wicketless overs and was the fourth to use the new ball. In another he bowled only 28 wicketless balls.

Now these figures show the two on the levelest terms possible. Trueman has a dramatic advantage in terms of English SR but it is attributable substantially to one of five games.

In all other respects Davo appears to me to have the advantage, and to have been the more consistent performer.

Never mind all those silly crappy stats, 0.3 better than this that and the other. Means nothing when you actually play the game.

You think Davidson was a better bowler than Trueman fair enough but there's plenty of other people who think Trueman was better, including many ex players who rate Trueman very near the top. There opinion and others is just as valid as yours and ex pros don't need to revert to wisden stats book to prove a point, they played instead!!

quote:

Originally posted by daydreamings:
You think Davidson was a better bowler than Trueman fair enough but there's plenty of other people who think Trueman was better, including many ex players who rate Trueman very near the top. There opinion and others is just as valid as yours and ex pros don't need to revert to wisden stats book to prove a point, they played instead!!

Agreed. BUT ... "and vice versa"

quote:

Originally posted by daydreamings:
Never mind all those silly crappy stats, 0.3 better than this that and the other. Means nothing when you actually play the game.

You think Davidson was a better bowler than Trueman fair enough but there's plenty of other people who think Trueman was better, including many ex players who rate Trueman very near the top. There opinion and others is just as valid as yours and ex pros don't need to revert to wisden stats book to prove a point, they played instead!!

Nonetheless i shall continue to enjoy discussing the stats with peterg, Wide Wally and several others who don't think it is pointless.

In the end they will rarely cause anyone to change a strongly held opinion. Peterg will continue to pick AKD ahead of FST and i will continue to do the opposite (as a specialist fast bowler anyway).

Its fun to discuss and thats all that matters.

quote:

Nonetheless i shall continue to enjoy discussing the stats with peterg, Wide Wally and several others who don't think it is pointless.

Oi! Don't bring me into this discussion.

I think they are exactly equal.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
Trueman and Davidson played in 13 Ashes Tests together in the course of four series, in only one of which each played all five games. Of these 13 games Australia won five, England three, with five draws.

Trueman had by far the better SR in England where five of the games were played and each side won twice: 47.8 as against 68.2.

Davidson was ahead in Australia, where the home side won three to England's one. His advantage was much less marked, however. Fred struck at 67.7, Davo at 64.6.

Overall, FST's SR in these games was 58.7, AKD's 66.1.

They each took 53 wickets. Fred's cost 26.72 at an ER of 2.73.

Davo's cost 22.89 at an ER of 2.04.

England bowled first in seven games, Australia in six.

In one match Davidson bowled only ten wicketless overs and was the fourth to use the new ball. In another he bowled only 28 wicketless balls.

Now these figures show the two on the levelest terms possible. Trueman has a dramatic advantage in terms of English SR but it is attributable substantially to one of five games.

In all other respects Davo appears to me to have the advantage, and to have been the more consistent performer.

So to summarise, even with a vastly reduced sample against a single selected opponant Trueman still has the superior strike rate by a comfortable margin.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
I think you'll find that all good bowlers have very penetrative SR's in Tests which they win.
For the most part they are notably less penetrative in lost or drawn games.

So from this logic it would follow that if a bowler can maintain a penetrative strike rate over the course of a career he will contribute to his team winning a lot of matches.

quote:

Originally posted by daydreamings:
Never mind all those silly crappy stats, 0.3 better than this that and the other. Means nothing when you actually play the game.

You think Davidson was a better bowler than Trueman fair enough but there's plenty of other people who think Trueman was better, including many ex players who rate Trueman very near the top. There opinion and others is just as valid as yours and ex pros don't need to revert to wisden stats book to prove a point, they played instead!!

Yes and no - I don't think statistical analysis is irrelevant at all, I just have qualms with the way that stats get interpreted sometimes.

In those 13 Ashes tests in which they both played, FST's SR was 12.6% more penetrative than AKD's.

Against this, FST's identical number of wickets cost 16.7% more, and his ER was 33.8% less economical.

Then there's the point that Davidson, with a shorter run, consistently bowled his overs in a shorter time, and hence bowled more balls per hour.
Over a six hour day, the difference in SR effectively vanishes, but Davidson's other superiorites remain.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
Then there's the point that Davidson, with a shorter run, consistently bowled his overs in a shorter time, and hence bowled more balls per hour.
Over a six hour day, the difference in SR effectively vanishes, but Davidson's other superiorites remain.

That has to be the most tenuous argument I've ever heard! Can you provide some empirical evidence?