Lohmann from 1890s is the greatest bowler ever

[Roshanrocks]

His average is 20% better then next on list and 50% better then 3rd on list. That is domination on mass scale. No one can dispute that Stat

:hysterical: hilarious........awesome.....

[King Tendulkar]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=01+Jan+1949;spanmin1=01+Jan+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting What scale does above domination qualify as? 50% better than the next on the list!

So following your logic. Thn you agree that Lohmann is greatest bowler ever? He is dominant like Bradman, so you think Bradman is best based on stats so you must also feel 1890s Lohmann is the best?

[The Outsider]

So following your logic. Thn you agree that Lohmann is greatest bowler ever? He is dominant like Bradman' date=' so you think Bradman is best based on stats so you must also feel 1890s Lohmann is the best?[/quote'] I've already shown : 1. Lohmann did not dominate his peers like Bradman did. 2. An average of 10-14 for the best bowler of his time is expected because during his time the batting/bowling averages were lower by that amount overall compared to batting/bowling averages over the last 90 years. Bradman averaged 100 when the batting average was the roughly the same as now. So, to answer your question, Lohamann is not the best bowler ever.

[King Tendulkar]

His average is 20% better then next on list and 50% better then 3rd on list. That is domination on mass scale. No one can dispute that Stat Lohmann you friggin legend. Greatest ever

These stats show he is the best:--D DOMINATION from the moustached magician(saw his picture on cricinfo, black and white of course) In fact I go one further and say he is greatest player ever. MVP of cricket!!! An average of 10.:omg: Legend

[Roshanrocks]

willl this thread also go to 1000 replies?

[King Tendulkar]

I've already shown : 1. Lohmann did not dominate his peers like Bradman did. 2. An average of 10-14 for the best bowler of his time is expected because during his time the batting/bowling averages were lower by that amount overall compared to batting/bowling averages over the last 90 years. Bradman averaged 100 when the batting average was the roughly the same as now. So, to answer your question, Lohamann is not the best bowler ever.

Maybe not quite as much as Bradman but clearly MONSTER domination nevertheless. Not comparing him to Bradman but to other bowlers. And the stats don't lie. He is the best. p.s did anyone hear of this greatest bowler ever prior today?:--D

[Roshanrocks]

p.s did anyone hear of this greatest bowler ever prior today? :D

epically hilariously rioticall fanatically funny dude :hysterical:

[King Tendulkar]

To be honest always thought cricket was at its best in 1890s. It was a golden era of cricket according to many old timers!

[Roshanrocks]

To be honest always thought cricket was at its best in 1890s. It was a golden era of cricket according to many old timers!

how old are these old timers? sounds more like silent film era

[King Tendulkar]

Charlie Chaplin himself procalimed Lohmann " the greatest"

[Roshanrocks]

Charlie Chaplin himself procalimed Lohmann " the greatest"

there must be articles on Lohman's greatness somewhere in some history book... must have got burnt in some fire

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

speaking of the business of comparing with peers which is much bandied around ... Jack Hobbs played nearly half of his Test Career (about 30 tests) after age of 40 ... he also scored a boat load of runs in FC cricket after 40 ... infact his most prolific yrs as a batsman were after the age of 36 when the First WW ended. That sort of a thing is simply not possible anymore in the modern age. Either the game in the modern era is super competitive and super nasty or we are super krap compared to these guys back then. I know where I stand.

absolutely correct....i agree, but what about sachin(37) n jayasuriya(40)?

[vvvslaxman]

Good thing that has come out of it is guys like King Tendulkar tries to analyze cricket history .

[The Outsider]

speaking of the business of comparing with peers which is much bandied around ... Jack Hobbs played nearly half of his Test Career (about 30 tests) after age of 40 ... he also scored a boat load of runs in FC cricket after 40 ... infact his most prolific yrs as a batsman were after the age of 36 when the First WW ended. That sort of a thing is simply not possible anymore in the modern age. Either the game in the modern era is super competitive and super nasty or we are super krap compared to these guys back then. I know where I stand.

Gooch did the same. Played around 50 tests after the age of 36 and averaged 50. Waugh averaged in the 50s as well after the age of 36. Dravid and Tendulkar are both averaging more than 50 or thereabouts after the age of 36. Lara, when he retired, was scoring prolifically, so was Gavaskar. And not for no reason is Hobbs considered one of the all time cricketing greats and makes many an all time XI.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

48 is ridiculous at this genration :D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

You need to consider stopping buying stuff from cricket writers at face value

or lawyers.... or salesmen... i m begining to understand ur logic Mr. BB....

[The Outsider]

None of them played test cricket till the age of 48 yrs. None of them scored 100 FC 100s after age 40 None of them played FC after age 50 Gooch played in a Eng team at the begining of 90s which was one of the crappiest ever that was.

And so what? With the likes of Flintoff, Hayden, Gilchrist, and Lee calling it a day early now and with future cricketers more likely to retire early the achievements of the Gavaskars, Richards, Tendulkars, and Laras will go down? Why can't you understand the simple argument that you cannot judge cricketers or sportsmen by putting them in a time machine? They have to be judged within the context of their eras. Oh and Gooch had his best years towards the end of his career, averaging 50 against some pretty good attacks. It's irrelevant how crap the English team was. Along with Tendulkar, Lara, and Waugh he is the only batsman to average 50+ in the 90s.

You need to consider stopping buying stuff from cricket writers at face value ...this is not a put down or a negative comment so pls dont get mad.

No, I should rather start reading your fairy tales where 55 > 99. Don't take it as a put down or negative comment, no need to get mad.