Davidson did tend to bowl long spells. If you've followed closely you'll recall that he bowled some 15 overs per match more than FST in 1961.
From those 13 matches above, they took the same number of wickets but Trueman had a lower SR. Hence Davidson bowled more. There were two games in which Davidson scarcely participated. It follows that he bowled significantly more overs per match than Fred in the other games.
The point you find tenous and ridiculous is logically sound.
Davidson did tend to bowl long spells. If you've followed closely you'll recall that he bowled some 15 overs per match more than FST in 1961.
From those 13 matches above, they took the same number of wickets but Trueman had a lower SR. Hence Davidson bowled more. There were two games in which Davidson scarcely participated. It follows that he bowled significantly more overs per match than Fred in the other games.
The point you find tenous and ridiculous is logically sound.
1. You are again discounting any matches that don't fit you're individual theory. Its bad enough that you reduce it to a chosen year without this!
2. I'll run through this again; Trueman had a significanly better strike rate, which I would argue is indicative of his greater skill. Davidson bowled more overs to take the same number of wickets. You are arguing that the latter fact is irrelevant because Davidson bowled his overs significantly quicker, effectively fitting more overs into a day. I ask again, can you provide empirical evidence of this assertion?
3. Notwithstanding the above (and I still think the logic is questionable) - on the one hand, from a speed of wickets point of view have you not considered that England's other bowlers may well have acheived something in the overs that Fred did not bowl. On the other, If Davo took so many more overs to take his wickets, however quickly he may or may not have bowled them, this offered longer for runs to be scored at teh other end, thus dissipating his economy advantage!
Originally posted by peterg: 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.
This line of reasoning just doesn't work. The bowler takes wickets with a delivery, not a minute. The suggestion that a bowler becomes better because he bowls more often in any given minute is rather absurd. Gibbs would become better than Holding.
Test cricket is very rarely a race against time. If you can point to some occasions where England's slower over rate was a major factor in costing them matches then this could be taken into consideration. You would have to demonstrate that Trueman was especially blameworthy, however.
I don't recall this ever being an issue. In fact, I have only ever heard of the opposite where slow over rates were used to gain an unfair advantage.
Either way, it has no bearing on the issue as to who was more likely to take a wicket when his captain threw him the ball. This man, outside of Australia, is Trueman.
If you are using wicket per hour as a statistic the best way of doing this is to aggregate it into wickets per match.
Trueman took 4.58 WPM. Davidson took 4.22 WPM. In Ashes tests Trueman took 4.16 WPM. Davidson took 3.76 WPM.
Its also worth noting that during the 3 ashes series where Trueman and Davidson were the main bowlers (ie 58/59, 61 and 62/63), Trueman was bowling to better batsmen. Australia averaged 34.7 per wicket in these series whereas England only averaged 28.3.
I agree, test cricket is rarely a race against time. But this point surely makes SR's relatively unimportant? As I noted some time ago there is nearly always enough time to take 20 wickets unless weather ruins the chance, or the pitch is so perfect that a draw is inevitable.
The gap in WPM of the two is negligible, given Trueman's minnow advantage and the fact that Davidson did not get early use of the new ball for his first 12 Test matches. He also took negligible part in four of his Ashes Tests, twice because of early injury. In the games they both played, WPM were identical.
On the your supposition that England had the less good batting in those three series, I'd agree concerning 1958-59, when Trueman was fit for only three Tests. But I would not agree thereafter. I'd say that England's batting in 1961-63 was amongst its strongest in the post WWII era.
Cowdrey, Dexter, Barrington, May, Graveney played in many or most of the games we are considering. When have you had a better middle order?
Granted, Pullar was not a front rank opener, but Richardson had a fair record before his Australian tour and Sheppard was a class act. Subba Row, like Barrington, is high on the list of the most tenacious batsmen in history and had an outstanding series in 1961.
England did not have a strong a tail as Australia, not least because they didn't have Davidson, but it was far from negligible especially with the advent of Titmus. Murray was a better batsman than Grout, and even Fred averaged a very creditable 20 in the 62-63 series.
Originally posted by peterg: I agree, test cricket is rarely a race against time. But this point surely makes SR's relatively unimportant? As I noted some time ago there is nearly always enough time to take 20 wickets unless weather ruins the chance, or the pitch is so perfect that a draw is inevitable.
Possibly in the very recent game you have a point, however, it was certainly not so in the overly cautious 1950s. Also, if you take your wickets every 50 balls instead of every 65, thats the equivalent of five overs less for each pair to score runs (I'm allowing for the bowler at the other end as well here).
Originally posted by peterg: Cowdrey, Dexter, Barrington, May, Graveney played in many or most of the games we are considering. When have you had a better middle order?
Originally posted by peterg: I agree, test cricket is rarely a race against time. But this point surely makes SR's relatively unimportant? As I noted some time ago there is nearly always enough time to take 20 wickets unless weather ruins the chance, or the pitch is so perfect that a draw is inevitable.
The gap in WPM of the two is negligible, given Trueman's minnow advantage and the fact that Davidson did not get early use of the new ball for his first 12 Test matches. He also took negligible part in four of his Ashes Tests, twice because of early injury. In the games they both played, WPM were identical.
On the your supposition that England had the less good batting in those three series, I'd agree concerning 1958-59, when Trueman was fit for only three Tests. But I would not agree thereafter. I'd say that England's batting in 1961-63 was amongst its strongest in the post WWII era.
In the 61 and 62/63 series England averaged 32.3 with the bat, Australia averaged 34.2. (Aus 6% better).
SR measures how effective each delivery is. It may not necesarily have a direct bearing on the final result of a game but it does measure how likely a bowler is to take a wicket with any given ball. This is the measure of a strike bowler.
As such it is an important tool that can be used to assess the ability of any given bowler independently of the ability of his team to win test matches.
Its looking increasingly to me that there was a short period in the early 60s when Davidson was at least equal to Trueman and probably slightly better. Over their entire careers Trueman is clearly the better bowler.
Trueman was a much better bowler than Davidson from their respective debuts until late in 1957. For much of this time both bowlers were frustrated for different reasons - Trueman through selectorial policy which now looks ridiculous but had reasonable arguments at the time, Davidson through being injury prone, especially in 1955-56. and by the constant inhibiting presence of Miller, Lindwall and others who bowled ahead of him.
From late 1957 to his retirement in 1963, Davidson moved ahead of Trueman and was the better bowler. He was more accurate, used the new ball to greater effect, took wickets more cheaply, faced stronger opposition for a much greater proportion of his games, and was almost equally good away from home.
Trueman's sole superiority is a much better SR in England. I think it's adequately offset by AKD's greater consistency, economy and versatility.
Originally posted by peterg: I'd phrase it differently.
Trueman was a much better bowler than Davidson from their respective debuts until late in 1957. For much of this time both bowlers were frustrated for different reasons - Trueman through selectorial policy which now looks ridiculous but had reasonable arguments at the time, Davidson through being injury prone, especially in 1955-56. and by the constant inhibiting presence of Miller, Lindwall and others who bowled ahead of him.
From late 1957 to his retirement in 1963, Davidson moved ahead of Trueman and was the better bowler. He was more accurate, used the new ball to greater effect, took wickets more cheaply, faced stronger opposition for a much greater proportion of his games, and was almost equally good away from home.
Trueman's sole superiority is a much better SR in England. I think it's adequately offset by AKD's greater consistency, economy and versatility.
Unfortunately their Away records had no overlap with which to make a direct comparison. However, Trueman had better wicket taking figures in tests both at home and away. Its only in Australia that AKD was superior.
AKD was generally more economical.
It cannot be said that AKD was better than Trueman in 1957 and 1958 based on the matches they played.
Davidson had the better of Trueman from the end of 58 to the end of 61. These 3 years do not compensate for Truemans overall superior figures over careers lasting 10 and 12 years.
The 62/63 series was no more than slightly in AKDs favour (and was a home series for him). Trueman then had succesfull years in 1963 and 64 after Davidson had retired.
I can't believe this debate is still running... it's pretty clear that Trueman was the better bowler over the course of their careers, but I can understand peterg's point about Davidson being under-appreciated.
Originally posted by ojitarian: I can't believe this debate is still running... it's pretty clear that Trueman was the better bowler over the course of their careers, but I can understand peterg's point about Davidson being under-appreciated.
I agree with this. Until this debate started (back in January) I certainly underrated Davidson.
Before then i took it for granted that Trueman (and Lindwall) were far better than AKD. The difference actually appears to fairly smll between all 3 of them with Davidson probably ahead of Lindwall.
A World XII from 1945 - 1965 would probably have all 3 - with apologies to Bedser and Hall.
Originally posted by ojitarian: I can't believe this debate is still running... it's pretty clear that Trueman was the better bowler over the course of their careers, but I can understand peterg's point about Davidson being under-appreciated.
It's not clear at all. Only in one significant stat is Trueman ahead of Davo - strike rate. And as I've pointed out Shoaib Akhtar is well ahead of Glenn McGrath on strike rate without anyone considering him the better all conditions bowler.
Against top-flight opposition FST averaged 24.15 - Davo averaged 21.36. That's a significant difference, and where Davo took 41% of his wickets against class opposition Away from home, Trueman took just 31% of his outside England. Davidson dismissed more top-order bats and fewer tail-enders. There's plenty of good reasons to think, hand on heart, that Davo was the better all-conditions bowler, although on an English greentop FST was king. Somewhat like we might say Warne is clearly better than Kumble overall - but not in India.
Wickets per match is a meaningless statistic - says something about the other players concerned, but next to nothing about the quality of the bowler in question. And the difference in this case is a negligible 0.36 WPM.
If it's legitimate to exclude runs scored by the likes of Kallis or Hayden against joke opposition, it's legitimate to do the same to Fred Trueman.
----------------------- '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'
Originally posted by ojitarian: I can't believe this debate is still running... it's pretty clear that Trueman was the better bowler over the course of their careers, but I can understand peterg's point about Davidson being under-appreciated.
It's not clear at all. Only in one significant stat is Trueman ahead of Davo - strike rate. And as I've pointed out Shoaib Akhtar is well ahead of Glenn McGrath on strike rate without anyone considering him the better all conditions bowler.
Against top-flight opposition FST averaged 24.15 - Davo averaged 21.36. That's a significant difference, and where Davo took 41% of his wickets against class opposition Away from home, Trueman took just 31% of his outside England. Davidson dismissed more top-order bats and fewer tail-enders. There's plenty of good reasons to think, hand on heart, that Davo was the better all-conditions bowler, although on an English greentop FST was king. Somewhat like we might say Warne is clearly better than Kumble overall - but not in India.
Wickets per match is a meaningless statistic - says something about the other players concerned, but next to nothing about the quality of the bowler in question. And the difference in this case is a negligible 0.36 WPM.
If it's legitimate to exclude runs scored by the likes of Kallis or Hayden against joke opposition, it's legitimate to do the same to Fred Trueman.
Trueman never bowled in South Africa or Asia. Davidson never bowled in the West Indies or New Zealand. The only places where their performances can be compared are England and Australia. Trueman was magnificent in England, Davidson was magnificent in Australia. Trueman was better in Australia than Davidson was in England.
There is, therefore, not enough evidence to reach a conclusion regarding who was the better 'all-conditions bowler'. In the only two contrasting sets of conditions that they both played on (England and Australia), Trueman comes out on top.
Regarding minnows, almost all of the AKD v FST analysis has concentrated on ashes matches to avoid this issue. Anyway, its a bit hard to regard New Zealand as minnows (and South Africa not) when they played a 2-2 drawn series in South Africa in 1961/62.
WPM is not a meaningless stat as the prime purpose of a strike bowler is to take wickets, the more the better. It is true that this stat has to be used carefuly because of the variable amount of bowling a bowler may have in any given match.
0.36 WPM is not a neglible difference - most good bowlers operate in the range 3 WPM to 5 WPM. 0.36 represents 18% of this range. In Ashes tests the difference is 0.65 (FST = 4.15, AKD = 3.5 the figures I quoted in an earlier post were too high for AKD).
As a selector I imagine you would rather have a bowler who takes, say, 5 wickets per match @ 25 than one who takes 3 wickets per match @ 22. Yet its the average that is usually quoted to prove who is the better bowler!
But WPM isn't determined by the quality of the individual bowler - it's determined by the performance of other players in the match.
I'll add - Trueman had the likes of Statham and Laker/Titmus at the other end strangling the batsmen. Apart from Davidson, Australia had only Benaud, who while great, was a leggie, and prone to going AWOL at times - especially in England, where Davo had to carry the attack (bar 'Benaud's Match') in 1961. Davo HAD to keep it tight, and couldn't afford to go for wickets as Trueman could with Statham up the other end. Again: the strike rate differential could easily be a reflection of HOW they bowled, not how WELL they bowled.
Davidson's outstanding record in all conditions - and superior record away compared to at home - contrasts with Trueman's inconsistency, even if they didn't play in the same conditions.
----------------------- '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'
Originally posted by ojitarian: I can't believe this debate is still running... it's pretty clear that Trueman was the better bowler over the course of their careers, but I can understand peterg's point about Davidson being under-appreciated.
No argument there; I just don't see the comparison with Fiery - now if we were comparing with Statham I'd go for it.
Originally posted by ten years after: A World XII from 1945 - 1965 would probably have all 3 - with apologies to Bedser and Hall.
Possibly, possibly not. That same world XI would certainly include the great Keith Miller and Sir Gary Sobers plus at least one spinner, so I think you'd have to cull one of the three.
Originally posted by Leo: I'll add - Trueman had the likes of Statham and Laker/Titmus at the other end strangling the batsmen. Apart from Davidson, Australia had only Benaud, who while great, was a leggie, and prone to going AWOL at times - especially in England, where Davo had to carry the attack (bar 'Benaud's Match') in 1961. Davo HAD to keep it tight, and couldn't afford to go for wickets as Trueman could with Statham up the other end. Again: the strike rate differential could easily be a reflection of HOW they bowled, not how WELL they bowled.
Davidson's outstanding record in all conditions - and superior record away compared to at home - contrasts with Trueman's inconsistency, even if they didn't play in the same conditions.
There are many reasons for Trueman's lack of away tests, not nearly as many of which can be attributed to him as some might like.
As for Davidson's support, in his early career he played alongside all time greats like Lindwall and Miller whilst in his later Ashes contests he was supported by Garth McKenzie (nearly 250 Test wickets) Ken Mackay (who went for well under 2 an over in tests) and of course Benaud; not significantly worse overall, I'd venture.
Originally posted by Leo: If it's legitimate to exclude runs scored by the likes of Kallis or Hayden against joke opposition, it's legitimate to do the same to Fred Trueman.
Modern Zimbabwe = joke opposition.
According to this thread, Hanif Mohammed was also joke opposition!
I'm encouraged by tya's willingness to concede Davidson's superiority in the early 60's
I'm a little puzzled by his suggestion that AKD was only slightly the better bowler in 1962-63. He took four more wickets at six fewer runs per wicket, at a lower SR, and effectively did so in four Tests. It seems to me that if AKD was superior very early in the 1960's, then he remained so to the end of his career.
After hat, Trueman had a magnificent series against WI in 1963, but not one which eclipses Davidson's record in the Tied Test series as I argued above.It was this series which lifted Trueman to his peak LG rating, which was still a little lower than Davidson's.
Trueman then had a mixed series against Simpson's Australians and was probably fortunate to have ben scape-goated for Australia's series winning victory, since it meant he missed the dreadful and dreary Manchester run glut. He then faded out against NZ. [Similarly, he was probably lucky to have been dropped for the Oval three years earlier]
Another angle of comparison is the Peak 30 Tests
Davidson by this measure took 164 wickets at 19.03, ER 1.97, SR 57.7, with 14 five for's and two tens. As a sideline he also made 949 runs at 27.88.
Trueman took 160 at 20.58, ER 2.59, SR 47.6, with eleven five for's and three tens in match.
Once again, Trueman is superior only in SR, but Davidson bowled more than sufficient extra overs per match to compensate.
Originally posted by Leo: But WPM isn't determined by the quality of the individual bowler - it's determined by the performance of other players in the match.
I'll add - Trueman had the likes of Statham and Laker/Titmus at the other end strangling the batsmen. Apart from Davidson, Australia had only Benaud, who while great, was a leggie, and prone to going AWOL at times - especially in England, where Davo had to carry the attack (bar 'Benaud's Match') in 1961. Davo HAD to keep it tight, and couldn't afford to go for wickets as Trueman could with Statham up the other end. Again: the strike rate differential could easily be a reflection of HOW they bowled, not how WELL they bowled.
Davidson's outstanding record in all conditions - and superior record away compared to at home - contrasts with Trueman's inconsistency, even if they didn't play in the same conditions.
It could be argued that Statham and Laker taking wickets reduced FSTs opportunities (certainly this arguement tends to be used by the pro-Warne side in the Murali debate). IMO, in practice, this is balanced by the absence of strong bowling support at the other end. The two factors probably cancel out.
Australia's bowling was definitely not weak at this time. In Davidson's peak Ashes series (57/58, 61 and 62/63) Australia's combined bowling average was 28.3, Englands was 34.7. (I'm afraid the comparative strike rates will take longer to find).
Trueman's Away Strike Rate and WPM were BETTER than Davidson's. The fact that they were not as good as his own Home record is, therefore, not particularly relevant. Trueman was far better than Davidson in their respective home conditions. There was not much to chose between them in away conditions.
All but 4 of Trueman's away matches were in the West Indies and Australia so it can't be said that he had weak matches. Those other 4 matches were against NZ. As I pointed out earlier New Zealand were a good match for South Africa during the period when Trueman played them.
