Lohmann from 1890s is the greatest bowler ever

[Lurker]

In marketing parlance there is a term - brand value bank account. Essentially what it means is a brand builds value over years and when things dont go the way of the company they dip into this vault and supplement their goodwill in the market. Toyota is currently doing this. With retarded threads as this it is only a matter of time before this website becomes a laughing stock amongst the serious cricketer followers. No matter of brand value bank account will save it. It is one thing to not beleive in people you have not seen, completely different to be an arrogant and dismissive preeck. By all accounts Lohmann was a great bowler. To run him down, or to mock him, is something that only modern-day-ignorant-Indian-loonies are capable of. xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Boss, do me a favor - can you list down 2 all time World XIs according to your pick of relatively equal strengths? Just curious to understand how your cricketing logic works? No restrictions, can pick players from any era based on any criteria that you deem important, can pick as many players from one country or the other etc.

[Bumper]

Few comments: 1) 18 tests in 1890s is not too little. Back then with people travelling in ships et al (took 6 friggin months to travel), one series per year is all they can afford. Lohmann's career span of 10 years is still long enough. 2) Domination of peers: The other day weren't we using percentages when comparing Bradman's bodyline avg vs the rest ? a) Lohmann averages 20% BETTER than his closest rival & 40% BETTER than the 3rd ? Also keep in mind that averaging 20-40% better as a bowler is heck a lot more difficult than doing the same as a batsman. b) Besides if you look at Lohmann as a whole package interms of 5fers, 10fers, S/R, E/R, #wickets, Avg he is waay ahead of his peers. c) How do you explain that NONE of his peers top Lohmann even on a single bowling metric ? If this is not domination of peers, I dont know what is ? d) Show me a bowler in the history of the game, who towers over not only his peers, but also over top bowlers of other eras iin EVERY SINGLE category like Lohmann has done. Therefore I agree with DSR here. Its fair to conclude that Lohmann is the greatest bowler ever.

[The Outsider]

^ You're late, Bumper. Post #23 has already refuted the notion. :winky:

[Bumper]

You mean this post of yours ?

I've already shown : 1. Lohmann did not dominate his peers like Bradman did.

This is an assertion not proof. Answer why there is not a single top bowler in history who has not bettered Lohmann in all the diff categories over a span of 18 tests

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.

May be the bowlers were superior at the time (1890s) ? How do you know that batsman's poor averages are not because of the quality of bowling ? Is it possible that the three great bowlers reigned supreme in the 1890s depressing the averages of batsmen ? As for Bradman's averages, how are you so certain that Bradman's peers werent cr@p ? Dont quote me their numbers. If Holland, Bangladesh & Zimbabwe are the only three nations playing cricket, the averages in that league will be very similar to the averages in the rest of the eras. If a Mohd Yusuf or Jayawardene type player bats in one of the teams they could have averaged the same as Bradman. I think Lohmann's numbers have enough substance to merit the "greatest ever bowler" tag.

[Sooda]

list down 2 all time World XIs according to your pick of relatively equal strengths.

I love picking all time XIs so couldnt resist... :P Gavaskar Hobbs Headly Tendulkar G Pollock Sobers Healy Akram Kumble Holding Murali vs Sutcliffe Sehwag Bradman Lara Richards Miller Gilchrist Marshall Warne McGrath O Reilly

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

The purpose of this thread was to deride those who think that Bradman is the greatest batsman using Lohmann as an example. But Spin Cricket Magazine in its April issue (if it's not out yet) is going to declare George Lohmann as history's greatest player (pre-1950)! And Don Bradman is chosen as history's greatest batsman of all-time.

Sir Donald Bradman was NOT, game for game, the most valuable player in the history of Test cricket, according to exhaustive new statistical research published in the April 2010 issue of SPIN magazine. Rather than the Don, it is an English bowler, George Lohmann, who emerges as, game for game, history’s greatest player. The research, for the first time, attempts to compare both batsmen and bowlers using the same criteria – of how great a contribution they made to their team’s performances. Though there remains no dispute that The Don, who averaged 99.94 and hit 29 centuries in his 52 Tests, was the greatest batsman of all time, there has until now been no reliable measure that compares the relative values of batsmen and bowlers. Indeed, the greater length of batsmen’s careers has tended to give them more prominence in cricket’s halls of fame than bowlers – despite the fact that it is taking 20 wickets that wins Test matches, rather than sheer accumulation of runs. California-based ex-pat statistician Dave Wilson came up with a method to compare the different disciplines. This month SPIN publishes the first half of Wilson’s epic research, taking in Test matches up to 1950. Next month will see the second half, which will reveal the modern era’s most valuable player. Lohmann played 18 Tests between 1886 and 1896, winning a remarkable 15 of them and taking 112 wickets at just 10.75 apiece. That average, as well as his strike rate (a wicket every 34.1 balls) and his economy rate (just 1.88 runs per over) are the best of any bowler in history. “Traditionally batsmen are more highly regarded,” says Wilson. “It all comes down to the vast majority of cricket fans being romantics, basically – batsmen are lauded for being stylish, graceful and majestic; bowlers are described as menacing, dangerous, demonic. There’s very much a positive/negative slant. “Systems such as the ICC Player Ratings are extremely useful. But you can only search for batting, or bowling – not both together. What I felt was needed is a method of objectively measuring and comparing all players at the same time, regardless of their main cricketing discipline.” Wilson’s research was based on the ICC team rankings, which give a Series Points total for each team involved in a Test series. For example, when Australia (ranked first) drew with England (ranked third) in the 1938 Ashes series, Australia were awarded 393 points by the ICC’s system, while England were awarded 502 points (the system rewards England more highly as they performed above their ranking to force a draw). Wilson’s real work came in then allotting those points for each series to the players involved: he did this by comparing the runs scored and wickets taken against the average Test performances for the time period. Then the batting points were divided up between the batsmen based on runs scored; fielding points on the basis of catches and stumpings made; and bowling points divided on the basis of wickets taken. link

This is great comedy, you have a thread that's using a player to mock others but that player gets declared as the greatest by a magazine!

[Bumper]

Thanks rett, that made my day :hysterical: With a few more journals claiming it, it will become an undisputable truth!

[zen]

Thanks rett, that made my day :hysterical: With a few more journals claiming it, it will become an undisputable truth!

The article also says that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time (which is what the key to the solution of all these debates) :winky:

[Lurker]

The purpose of this thread was to deride those who think that Bradman is the greatest batsman using Lohmann as an example. But Spin Cricket Magazine in its April issue (if it's not out yet) is going to declare George Lohmann as history's greatest player (pre-1950)! And Don Bradman is chosen as history's greatest batsman of all-time.

Really why is that such a big surprise to some of you? I would dare to say most cricketing historians know ample enough about Lohmann and his greatness. Was he the greatest ever? Noone can settle that. Heck we can not settle who was the greatest fielder, or the greatest skipper, or the greatest wicket keeper, or the greatest captain who could also double as the keeper, so how are you going to settle who was the greatest bowler? Easily a much harder subject to deal with. I for one see no real surprise as George Lohmann being nominated as the greatest bowler ever, or for that matter greatest player. Do I think Lohmann was greatest ever? Of course not but why is to so hard to respect a past great and laugh ignorantly at that assertion??? xxx

[Lurker]

Lurker asked the same question the other day .... my teams would be most certainly from the times that I have watched ... even though I have followed cricket from the late 70s I only got to watch them on TV since 80s for obvious reasons. So my players would be from those times.

10 din se itna bajaa baja rahe ho miyaan, wo bhi fata hua raag se. Iske fraction of time mein you could have selected a BB XI, BB XI part dos etc etc. Why dont you actually do that??

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

I need to maintain my reputation as being one of the most laziest around :--D

Kahe ka lazy bhai, woh Sachin vs Bradman thread mein 1000 ke uppar chala gaya reply usmein jaah-e-naseeb aadha se jyaada contribution aapka hai :giggle: Kahin aisa to nahin ke you suspect you shall come out of the closet (finally!) and end up selecting half of the miyaanji's in the team :hmmm:

[Bumper]

The article also says that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time (which is what the key to the solution of all these debates) :winky:

But, the article places Lohmann one pedestal above. Calls him the greatest player ever. Why does this appear funny to you ? If more and more articles tout Lohmann the same way, am pretty sure the only debate we'll have here is who is the second best bowler of all time.

[zen]

Really why is that such a big surprise to some of you? of course not but why is to so hard to respect a past great and laugh ignorantly at that assertion??? xxx

Neither I am surprised nor I am laughing at him being selected. I think it's clear that I am pointing at the comic situation where some people (the thread starter for example) used Lohmann to mock those who think that cricketers of the past could be the greatest as if Lohmann isn't one (but trying to show that through his stats) and then a cricket magazine comes out and says that he is the greatest

[zen]

But, the article places Lohmann one pedestal above. Calls him the greatest player ever. Why does this appear funny to you ? If more and more articles tout Lohmann the same way, am pretty sure the only debate we'll have here is who is the second best bowler of all time.

Appears as if you didn't get the point. It doesn't matter if it places Lohmann as the greatest cricketer as who knows he may well be one. You have to read that article when it comes out to know the reasoning behind that The point being made here is (to simplify) - Some folks thought Bradman isn't the greatest batsman - They picked Lohmann to mock the points where someone from the past is shown to be the greatest - In trying to mock them, they argued for him - A magazine publishes an article determining Lohmann as the greatest player (pre 1950) - The same article hails Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time (not just pre 1950 as the article uses the word 'all time') - So even though the article vindicates them (in a sense as they are saying that Lohmann is the greatest based on his stats), it also states that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time (the main point of the debate which they are debating against and to show that he is not this thread came up because they think Sachin is the best) - By Lohmann being declared the greatest, they win the battle but lose the war as they same article declares Bradman as the greatest batsman of all-time Which is the comedy I am pointing at and the point I made in the post you replied to last *spoon feeding ends*

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --