Best ever left-arm pacer? Wasim Akram or Alan Davidson?

[Slog]

Discuss.

Also feel free to add any others who may have a shout

 

[Pakistanian]

Waseem Akram, Nobody knows David Alanson.

 

[Robert]

Hard to call.

Davo had that minuscule economy rate. The top batters of his day just couldn’t hit him. Orthodox swing both ways. But Wasim was quicker and reversed it.

About the same as batters.

Davo was probably the best catcher of his era.

 

[Buffet]

Davidson was not great in his first 12 tests. He had no 5-fers and averaged 34.

Next 32 Test: averaged 19 with 14 5-fers and 2 10-fers.

That was very high frequency of 5-fers here. Ended with career average of 20.


Davidson's peak looks higher than Wasim, but Due to small sample size in older era and not really having the benefit of seeing him, I will pick Wasim.

 

[todfod 11]

Never heard of davidson...

 

[wrongun]

To be fair to the posters in this thread, even if you surveyed average Australian cricket fans I'd say only 40/50% would even know who Davidson was. Despite him often being named in Australian Half of Fame or lists of ATG teams.

His record around the world was incredible but so few saw him bowl and I've seen very little footage so it's really impossible to rank.

 

[Junaids]

It’s actually impossible to say.

People who watched both say they were practically identical in quality in both batting and bowling.

If one was better than the other it was by a tiny margin.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

It’s actually impossible to say.

People who watched both say they were practically identical in quality in both batting and bowling.

If one was better than the other it was by a tiny margin.

It must be true then I believe, I'll go ahead and say it would've been Davidson since he played when Technology and athlete training was at its peak!

 

[Junaids]

It must be true then I believe, I'll go ahead and say it would've been Davidson since he played when Technology and athlete training was at its peak!

Ha ha!

The problem is, we all know that sports science has actually had a NEGATIVE effect on fast bowling.

This is largely because in Australia the university teaching of sports science is dominated by rugby league, and in New Zealand and South Africa it is dominated by rugby union.

We have seen since the mid-1980’s a long line of bowlers from Craig McDermott to Shoaib Akhtar to James Pattinson have ended up with bloated, excessively muscular physiques which damage their backs, knees and ankles.

These bowlers end up too heavy to bowl side on or to have a leap in their delivery stride, lose pace and suffer regular and chronic injuries.

Imran Khan at 72 kg could afford a leap to increase his pace. James Pattinson at 95 kg cannot.

 

[Justcrazy]

Wasim Akram.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Very difficult to say. Although, out of 44 tests played, Davidson managed 14 5'fers which is a remarkable percentage and more often than not, he performed.
We all have seen Wasim so we know how destructive he could be. I would say even stevens!

 

[Bilal Ahmad15]

Wasim Akram because I have never heard on Alan Davidson

 

[gani999]

Comparing a 1950s era pacer to a 1990s one is a pointless exercise.

I think Wasim had a much bigger impact on the batsmen than Davidson might have had.

 

[Mueez]

Wasim Akram.

Period.

 

[Hitman]

LOL .... have a look at how many wickets Wasim Akram took in both Tests and ODI's, and how many matches he played and still maintained his consistency. And then compare it with the other player.

 

[Godhelpma]

LOL .... have a look at how many wickets Wasim Akram took in both Tests and ODI's, and how many matches he played and still maintained his consistency. And then compare it with the other player.

Basically this . This late trend of comparison of different players on pakpassion is getting a little bit absurd .
Ps this does not mean that Davidson was a lesser player etc

 

[SM1989]

Alan Davidson who?

Should I start a thread on whether Fakhar Zaman is a better batsman than Wallis Mathias?

 

[PakLFC]

Whose Alan Davidson??. It's generally accepted by Cricket fans that Wasim is the best left arm pacer off all time.

 

[Hawkeye]

Who's this Alan?

Lool nobody knows him! How can he be the best?!

 

[Hitman]

People often forget that it's not only about talent and ability. What matters is what that player achieves with his talent and ability. No player, regardless of how good he is, won't get more acclaims than an established ATG if his accomplishments completely pales in front of him. George Headley, Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock are widely regarded by his contemporaries and critics as being truly great players. But do they get the same or maybe even more plaudits than guys like Sobers, Viv, Sachin and Lara? No! The only exception here is Don Bradman due to his unreal average and century scoring rate. But even then he played 60 Tests, which were a lot during his time. Bradman makes the cut ahead of everyone else because of his unreal average over 60 Tests, which no one else in the history of the game is even remotely close to.

Wasim Akram played 104 Tests and 356 ODI's and took 916 wickets between them with an excellent average in both forms of the game. Allan Davidson played 44 Tests and took 186 wickets at a much better average but far inferior SR than Akram.

You're seriously comparing them both?

 

[Square Drive]

Wasim Akram or who?

 

[Robert]

Whose Alan Davidson??. It's generally accepted by Cricket fans that Wasim is the best left arm pacer off all time.

Only by people who haven’t read about Davison. I think it’s very close.

 

[Mamoon]

Davidson might have been wonderful for his time, but in the grand scheme of things, he is a nobody.

Legacy and impact on the game also play huge roles, and he is nowhere near Wasim on these fronts.

You have to be a cricket nerd to be aware of his existence. On the other hand, Wasim is a universally acclaimed legend. It will be greatly disrespectful for someone like Wasim to be even compared to someone like Davidson.

Even the regular Australian fan would not put him in the same league as Wasim, and I doubt if many Australian fans even know about him.

 

[Ab Fan]

Wasim. He is one of the top 5 fast bowlers of all time and the second greatest after McGrath from his era.

 

[topspin]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] again upto their old era preservation society antics.

They know Wasim was miles ahead however don't have the stomach to admit it because they feel if they say Wasim their support for the older era cricketers will be called into question.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] again upto their old era preservation society antics.

They know Wasim was miles ahead however don't have the stomach to admit it because they feel if they say Wasim their support for the older era cricketers will be called into question.

[MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] up to his “Time did not exist before the World Cup Final 1992” antics.

Imran came into existence as a 38 year old and only played that one match, you know.

 

[ihsandar]

when we talk about the era and players, we forget about the speed of the game,

cricket was a gentle man game that time , they give more respect when you play with style , if you slog or hit blindly, they call it bad manners,

200 runs use to be a wining total

 

[Junaids]

when we talk about the era and players, we forget about the speed of the game,

cricket was a gentle man game that time , they give more respect when you play with style , if you slog or hit blindly, they call it bad manners,

200 runs use to be a wining total

Alan Davidson took the first three wickets in the most famous Test match ever, the 1960-61 Tied Test between Australia and the West Indies at the Gabba.

Wes Hall bowled the Final Over, and he was a 150+ Express Bowler.

There was Sobers, the GOAT cricketer.

Benaud, the GOAT captain and spin bowling all-rounder.

Worrell, the legendary West Indian.

Davidson didn’t play in an era of amateur nobodies. He played in an era featuring multiple ATG’s.

 

[Bullet Drive]

Alan Davidson took the first three wickets in the most famous Test match ever, the 1960-61 Tied Test between Australia and the West Indies at the Gabba.

Wes Hall bowled the Final Over, and he was a 150+ Express Bowler.

There was Sobers, the GOAT cricketer.

Benaud, the GOAT captain and spin bowling all-rounder.

Worrell, the legendary West Indian.

Davidson didn’t play in an era of amateur nobodies. He played in an era featuring multiple ATG’s.

how do we know how good they were? Maybe they were all average, and just one was decent.

We tend to overrate players from the past

 

[topspin]

[MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] up to his “Time did not exist before the World Cup Final 1992” antics.

Imran came into existence as a 38 year old and only played that one match, you know.

I'm well versed on cricketers from the professional era, not the amateur nobodies that you harp on about.

Alan Davidson has never been mentioned in the comm box or any cricket related article and books I have read. Wasim Akram will never be forgotten, so ultimately it is nothing but an insult to compare a nobody from the amateur era to a universally recognised ATG.

As usual when you guys bring up the amateur era of players you get buried, so

 

[Robert]

And obviously nobody was professional in the 1950s and 1960s either.

Except, you know, all of them....

 

[topspin]

Don’t be silly [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], that never happened because [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] has not heard of it. Only things he has heard of were ever real.

Irony is more Aussies know who Wasim Akram is than the Aussie born bowler from the ancient times.

In fact I can bet my house hardly any of the Australian cricket fans have even heard of Alan Davidson. You need to quit the old era hype brigade. Cricket has moved on and so should you.

Chances are Alan Davidson is another Rumman Raees, Shinwari, Junaid Khan et al at best. Only difference is he boosted his stats on wet, uncovered wickets.

 

[Mamoon]

Don’t be silly [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], that never happened because [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] has not heard of it. Only things he has heard of were ever real.

That is the point, isn’t it?

Greatness is not just your skills but also what you leave behind, i.e. your legacy and name. Wasim will be remembered for as long as the game exists, but Davidson is already lost in history.

You simply cannot compare the two cricketers at all.

 

[Robert]

Irony is more Aussies know who Wasim Akram is than the Aussie born bowler from the ancient times.

In fact I can bet my house hardly any of the Australian cricket fans have even heard of Alan Davidson. You need to quit the old era hype brigade. Cricket has moved on and so should you.

Chances are Alan Davidson is another Rumman Raees, Shinwari, Junaid Khan et al at best. Only difference is he boosted his stats on wet, uncovered wickets.

And in forty years nobody will have heard of Wasim.

But he will still have been there.

And you will be telling youngsters about him.

But they won’t believe you. The 1990s were before the Mars Landings and teleportation. Nothing happened before that.

 

[Robert]

That is the point, isn’t it?

Greatness is not just your skills but also what you leave behind, i.e. your legacy and name. Wasim will be remembered for as long as the game exists, but Davidson is already lost in history.

You simply cannot compare the two cricketers at all.

I thought better of you [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]. Your ignorance is not evidence.

 

[Mamoon]

And in forty years nobody will have heard of Wasim.

But he will still have been there.

And you will be telling youngsters about him.

But they won’t believe you. The 1990s were before the Mars Landings and teleportation. Nothing happened before that.

In forty years, as many people will know about Wasim as they do today.

The truly great players are never lost in history - that is why people still remember Bradman, Viv, Sobers, Imran, Botham, Hadlee, Gavaskar....Marshall etc. etc., and that will not change in the future.

However, whatever the reasons may be, Alan Davidson has not impacted the game in the same way. If that was so, the millions who know about the great cricketers of yesteryears would also know about Davidson, but they don’t.

As a player he might be as good as those names, but he quite clear could not impact the game in the same way and hence their legacies are incomparable.

When people talk about the great players of the past, his name barely gets any recognition, and that is why he has hardly made any all-time XIs ahead of Wasim as a left-armer, and wasn’t mentioned by Gower in his fifty greatest cricketers of all time.

I am not belittling his achievements, he might have been as good a bowler/cricketer as Wasim, but the gulf between the legacies of the two players is far too great for this to be a fair comparison.

 

[Mamoon]

I thought better of you [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]. Your ignorance is not evidence.

Well I apologize if you think less of me now, but I just don’t see how this is an appropriate comparison based on what I said in my previous (above) post.

 

[Robert]

Well I apologize if you think less of me now, but I just don’t see how this is an appropriate comparison based on what I said in my previous (above) post.

Ask a young person to name a scientist and they might say Stephen Hawking. He might be the only scientist they could name. Does that make Hawking a better scientist than Newton, Darwin, Fleming, Turing and Rutherford? Or just better known due to being part of the Information Age?

You have to want to learn about history and make an effort to open books to understand the contributions by these people.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Alan Davidson was a poor man's Sydney Barnes in terms of stats. McGrath has similar stats with 3x amount the wickets. Nobody has to remember a bowler who has achieved nothing significant.

 

[Mamoon]

Ask a young person to name a scientist and they might say Stephen Hawking. He might be the only scientist they could name. Does that make Hawking a better scientist than Newton, Darwin, Fleming, Turing and Rutherford? Or just better known due to being part of the Information Age?

You have to want to learn about history and make an effort to open books to understand the contributions by these people.

I am not sure if you got the point. Perhaps I did not explain as well as I should have. Any person who has an interest in science will be aware of the scientists that you mentioned. You cannot dig deep into science without coming across these people.

However, the same cannot be said about Alan Davidson. Today, he is a forgotten man unlike the great cricketers of his time or before him.

It has nothing to do with the Age of Information. Players who played before him are better known today because they left bigger marks on the game. Something was missing from his career that did not enable him to leave a lasting legacy, and that something is the reason why he should not be compared with Wasim, and why he hardly makes any list of any former cricketer or analyst.

 

[bujhee kom]

Davidson was a great bowler. The level of historical knowledge here is very low - I have asked for a seniors forum but without sympathy. Most of these guys are zygotes effectively. Some more boastful than others.

On the issue, Akram has duration and volume of achievements in his favour. He also has peerless peer review which means a lot. He is universally accepted as the #1 left arm quick of alltime. Add in that half his games were played on those flat decks in Pk. He was a gem of a cricketer.

 

[topspin]

That is the point, isn’t it?

Greatness is not just your skills but also what you leave behind, i.e. your legacy and name. Wasim will be remembered for as long as the game exists, but Davidson is already lost in history.

You simply cannot compare the two cricketers at all.

In forty years, as many people will know about Wasim as they do today.

The truly great players are never lost in history - that is why people still remember Bradman, Viv, Sobers, Imran, Botham, Hadlee, Gavaskar....Marshall etc. etc., and that will not change in the future.

However, whatever the reasons may be, Alan Davidson has not impacted the game in the same way. If that was so, the millions who know about the great cricketers of yesteryears would also know about Davidson, but they don’t.

As a player he might be as good as those names, but he quite clear could not impact the game in the same way and hence their legacies are incomparable.

When people talk about the great players of the past, his name barely gets any recognition, and that is why he has hardly made any all-time XIs ahead of Wasim as a left-armer, and wasn’t mentioned by Gower in his fifty greatest cricketers of all time.

I am not belittling his achievements, he might have been as good a bowler/cricketer as Wasim, but the gulf between the legacies of the two players is far too great for this to be a fair comparison.

I am not sure if you got the point. Perhaps I did not explain as well as I should have. Any person who has an interest in science will be aware of the scientists that you mentioned. You cannot dig deep into science without coming across these people.

However, the same cannot be said about Alan Davidson. Today, he is a forgotten man unlike the great cricketers of his time or before him.

It has nothing to do with the Age of Information. Players who played before him are better known today because they left bigger marks on the game. Something was missing from his career that did not enable him to leave a lasting legacy, and that something is the reason why he should not be compared with Wasim, and why he hardly makes any list of any former cricketer or analyst.

Spot on and this follows up very nicely from that superb analysis you made earlier in the year in regards to Jack Hobbs; when you mentioned his technique was lesser than a mediocre modern day bat in Hafeez and thus far less equipped to face express bowling than the more recent generation of cricketers.

Along with this, it's another hard pill to swallow for the two members of the old era hype society.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] as I've said before if you keep bringing up the ancient eras and try to claim that they are at the same level of cricketers of the more recent era you will be buried.

I should also add your analogy with the scientists is a false equivalence because like Mamoon said, those with a keen interest in science would know scientists from hundreds of years back. Wasim Akram will not be forgotten in 40 years or even 100 years time because they left a legacy and made a name for themselves. Alan Davidson on the other hand clearly didn't since he is barely known among Aussie cricket fans from what I gather.

 

[MMHS]

AK Davidson, probably will make all time 14 of AUS - in a time zero world, that puts him straight into ATG reckoning. Obviously we can’t compare two players of different era. He played cricket in a different era and rated lower than what Akram was in his time - that’s only I can say. In PP, I think Davidson is one of 2 most underrated cricketers - other one is RJ Hadlee. May be, he was 4th best in a team that had RK Miller, RR Lindwall, Richie Benaud; otherwise truly an world class cricketer - might make the team of 1950s.

PS: he won’t make my team of 50s, because I’ll always play 2 spinners - Lindwall, Truman, Miller, Benaud & Laker; that makes him 12th man as 4th pacer. Wasim’ll make every XI of 90s and probably most AT XI.

 

[Mamoon]

Spot on and this follows up very nicely from that superb analysis you made earlier in the year in regards to Jack Hobbs; when you mentioned his technique was lesser than a mediocre modern day bat in Hafeez and thus far less equipped to face express bowling than the more recent generation of cricketers.

Along with this, it's another hard pill to swallow for the two members of the old era hype society.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] as I've said before if you keep bringing up the ancient eras and try to claim that they are at the same level of cricketers of the more recent era you will be buried.

I should also add your analogy with the scientists is a false equivalence because like Mamoon said, those with a keen interest in science would know scientists from hundreds of years back. Wasim Akram will not be forgotten in 40 years or even 100 years time because they left a legacy and made a name for themselves. Alan Davidson on the other hand clearly didn't since he is barely known among Aussie cricket fans from what I gather.

I have great respect for people like Robert and Junaids. Their insight is priceless and they provide a perspective that others cannot. It is also a privilege to listen to and learn from people with experience and time on their side, and I have certainly learned a lot from both.

I think the disrespect and the condescending attitude that some people show them is highly inappropriate. It is fine who disagree with them, but a lot of people cross limits.

 

[topspin]

I have great respect for people like Robert and Junaids. Their insight is priceless and they provide a perspective that others cannot. It is also a privilege to listen to and learn from people with experience and time on their side, and I have certainly learned a lot from both.

I think the disrespect and the condescending attitude that some people show them is highly inappropriate. It is fine who disagree with them, but a lot of people cross limits.

I rate Junaids with his insight on the modern era but with Robert, he gave a great account of himself on here of just how biased he is imo.

 

[Mamoon]

I rate Junaids with his insight on the modern era but with Robert, he gave a great account of himself on here of just how biased he is imo.

Everyone is biased.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

AK Davidson, probably will make all time 14 of AUS - in a time zero world, that puts him straight into ATG reckoning. Obviously we can’t compare two players of different era. He played cricket in a different era and rated lower than what Akram was in his time - that’s only I can say. In PP, I think Davidson is one of 2 most underrated cricketers - other one is RJ Hadlee. May be, he was 4th best in a team that had RK Miller, RR Lindwall, Richie Benaud; otherwise truly an world class cricketer - might make the team of 1950s.

PS: he won’t make my team of 50s, because I’ll always play 2 spinners - Lindwall, Truman, Miller, Benaud & Laker; that makes him 12th man as 4th pacer. Wasim’ll make every XI of 90s and probably most AT XI.

Hadlee isn't underrated, he's undisputed recognized as an ATG and arguably top 5 bowler of all time. Davidson, most people aren't even aware of his existence. We know the name of Grimmett, Barnes, Lockwood. But Davidson who? What has he done so that modern day folks has to know his name?

 

[topspin]

Everyone is biased.

Technically yes everyone has preferences, so bias will incorporate their judgement in one way or another however I'm talking about those who have no concept whatsoever of impartiality. A case in point is "Amla > Kohli" as mentioned on here numerous times by certain poster(s). Those are the type of opinions which dilute the quality of discussion on PP.

 

[MMHS]

Hadlee isn't underrated, he's undisputed recognized as an ATG and arguably top 5 bowler of all time. Davidson, most people aren't even aware of his existence. We know the name of Grimmett, Barnes, Lockwood. But Davidson who? What has he done so that modern day folks has to know his name?

That's for you - most cricket enthusiasts do know him and do recall the first tied Test as well - he was the first man in history to score 100+ runs (not century, 44 & 80) in a Test & take a 10for in that same game. That AUS-WIN series of 1961 is still celebrated as one of the best ever cricket contest and he was the MoS of that series, taking 25 wickets & scoring 200+ runs.

His stats are actually better than Akram & his stats are equally impressive every where, from South Asia to South Africa. In 44 Tests, 14 5fors (20 innings of 4 or more wickets), 2 10fors (1 in IND) and an average in 20.53 (economy <2), makes him statistically as good as any one. Add to that batting average, and he was one of the best slip fielders of his time - I wonder why you are not aware of his existence, when apparently you know about Lockwood. It's unfortunate that modern day folks don't know his name, which I can't help - he has done enough to be known for generations.

I have been here in PP for long enough to know how RJ Hadlee is recognized here. In cricket world, Hadlee is the only cricketer to be Knighted when he was still active in Test cricket, therefore I guess, we do know what's his status else where.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

That's for you - most cricket enthusiasts do know him and do recall the first tied Test as well - he was the first man in history to score 100+ runs (not century, 44 & 80) in a Test & take a 10for in that same game. That AUS-WIN series of 1961 is still celebrated as one of the best ever cricket contest and he was the MoS of that series, taking 25 wickets & scoring 200+ runs.

His stats are actually better than Akram & his stats are equally impressive every where, from South Asia to South Africa. In 44 Tests, 14 5fors (20 innings of 4 or more wickets), 2 10fors (1 in IND) and an average in 20.53 (economy <2), makes him statistically as good as any one. Add to that batting average, and he was one of the best slip fielders of his time - I wonder why you are not aware of his existence, when apparently you know about Lockwood. It's unfortunate that modern day folks don't know his name, which I can't help - he has done enough to be known for generations.

I have been here in PP for long enough to know how RJ Hadlee is recognized here. In cricket world, Hadlee is the only cricketer to be Knighted when he was still active in Test cricket, therefore I guess, we do know what's his status else where.

That's the thing, if he truly did enough to be well recognized, he would be known much more. We know of Sobers and Trueman who were from the same era. Davidson simply didn't become famous enough to be known across eras. I have barely even seen his name anywhere on any articles.

I am now aware of his stats, but Marshall had more than 2x amount of wickets with same average, so it's hard to put him anywhere on the same level as other greats with 2-3x longevity. Sydney Barnes gets a pass because he was Bradman of bowling in his time. Can't say the same for Davidson, he did not become a legend.

 

[MMHS]

That's the thing, if he truly did enough to be well recognized, he would be known much more. We know of Sobers and Trueman who were from the same era. Davidson simply didn't become famous enough to be known across eras. I have barely even seen his name anywhere on any articles.

I am now aware of his stats, but Marshall had more than 2x amount of wickets with same average, so it's hard to put him anywhere on the same level as other greats with 2-3x longevity. Sydney Barnes gets a pass because he was Bradman of bowling in his time. Can't say the same for Davidson, he did not become a legend.

He played 44 Tests in 12 years - it's not his fault that there were less cricket then. Work load is an excuse (for players that time), which I don't buy, because these players used to play several times FC games than recent times. And, many of them were semi pro, worked at off season - even Bradman was a clerk.

Pom media puffs Syd Barnes too much - he had 83 wickets @ 9 against SAF in their 2nd decade of Test history with handful of whites carrying cricket legacy there - just like BD got Test status because Asian block got stronger, SAF got Test status probably 50 years earlier than they should have, hence Barnes was the greatest. He has 104 wickets in 20 Ashes Tests at 22, which by any standard that time is POOR. AK Davidson not only was a better cricketer than Syd Barnes, actually he was a better bowler as well - 30 wickets in IND at 15 in 5 Tests and a 12 for at Kanpur; Syd Barnes would dream even in British India's state of cricket in 1900s. And, Davidson, average <20 in PAK, on matting wickets .....

The more you get into it, things will become complicated - it's better leave it here. If cricket media was such like now with Internet & PakPassion, AK Davidson would have been as famous as the fav 4 even now. Fantastic cricketer, one of the best ever natural talents, who could do almost everything - bowled spin and probably he kept few times as well. I believe, he used to work (manual labor), in a mine (vine yard) in AUS during his playing days, for which, he hardly could play in Counties, or Club cricket in UK.

Different era, hence comparison with Marshall or Akram (& these two are not Tom, Dick either) is moot, but AK Davidson was one of the most colorful cricketers of his time; less discussed compared to RK Miller, because RK was simply the greatest all-rounder till then and Davidson didn't have that charming persona. RK flew fighter jets as well for RAF during WW2, which mad him almost like playboy among British ladies, AK was more of a working class man.

 

[Robert]

I am not sure if you got the point. Perhaps I did not explain as well as I should have. Any person who has an interest in science will be aware of the scientists that you mentioned. You cannot dig deep into science without coming across these people.

However, the same cannot be said about Alan Davidson. Today, he is a forgotten man unlike the great cricketers of his time or before him.

It has nothing to do with the Age of Information. Players who played before him are better known today because they left bigger marks on the game. Something was missing from his career that did not enable him to leave a lasting legacy, and that something is the reason why he should not be compared with Wasim, and why he hardly makes any list of any former cricketer or analyst.

Perhaps I too abrupt with you @<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=131701" target="_blank">Mamoon</a>.

I don’t understand how anyone can have heard of Trueman and Statham, of Benaud, of Lindwall and Miller, yet not heard of Davidson the unhittable swing bowler and world’s best catcher. They are all part of the pantheon I read about when I started following cricket.

Here he is bowling England out. Looks quick with the new ball and slower as it gets older. Curious curving slip cordon.

 

[WengerOut]

Perhaps I too abrupt with you @<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=131701" target="_blank">Mamoon</a>.

I don’t understand how anyone can have heard of Trueman and Statham, of Benaud, of Lindwall and Miller, yet not heard of Davidson the unhittable swing bowler and world’s best catcher. They are all part of the pantheon I read about when I started following cricket.

Here he is bowling England out. Looks quick with the new ball and slower as it gets older. Curious curving slip cordon.

That looks so amateur man. Almost exhibition match vibes. What a short run up!!!

 

[happydavy]

Mods can we add a poll please. Include 3 greats in the list and let's see whom the people chose - Akram, Davidson and Unadkat

 

[gazza619]

Cant believe this thread is still going on.
Wasim Akram has no comparison to any left armer.

 

[Robert]

I have great respect for people like Robert and Junaids. Their insight is priceless and they provide a perspective that others cannot. It is also a privilege to listen to and learn from people with experience and time on their side, and I have certainly learned a lot from both.

I think the disrespect and the condescending attitude that some people show them is highly inappropriate. It is fine who disagree with them, but a lot of people cross limits.

Thank you [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]. However I would caution that both [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and I are prone to mischief at times.

It’s ok. When I was young I didn’t believe older people knew anything either. I just thought they were out of date. Then I got into my mid-thirties and thought hold up, maybe these old boys know a thing or two after all.....

 

[Junaids]

It’s notable that the Under-40’s in this thread have only heard of Bradman and Trueman from the pre-colour TV era.

There’s a significant point there.

Bradman was the GOAT batsman and Trueman was the second greatest bowler behind Marshall.

But the arrival of colour TV varied from country to country.

In the UK we mainly got it between the 1966 and 1970 World Cups, but the 1969-70 SA v Australia series was filmed in black and white which is why Procter, Pollock and Richards are so under-rated here.

It’s quite strange. Wasim Akram TBH was no better than Imran Khan.

But because everyone has watched Malcolm Marshall in colour, nobody would dream of calling Imran the GOAT right-arm quick.

Yet because the Alan Davidson footage is black-and-white, Young Pakistanis assume that Wasim Akram was the undisputed GOAT left-arm quick.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Perhaps I too abrupt with you @<a href="http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/member.php?u=131701" target="_blank">Mamoon</a>.

I don’t understand how anyone can have heard of Trueman and Statham, of Benaud, of Lindwall and Miller, yet not heard of Davidson the unhittable swing bowler and world’s best catcher. They are all part of the pantheon I read about when I started following cricket.

Here he is bowling England out. Looks quick with the new ball and slower as it gets older. Curious curving slip cordon.

Trust me Robert, I wish I heard of him, but he's not famous. Don't know why, but he is not a legend. Good player, but did not become a legend. And nobody will rate him highly ahead of well known players. He failed to create a legacy among regular fans, and is only remembered by geeks.

 

[Hasan123]

Wasim is better . Not interested in what the older posters say.

 

[Robert]

It’s notable that the Under-40’s in this thread have only heard of Bradman and Trueman from the pre-colour TV era.

There’s a significant point there.

Bradman was the GOAT batsman and Trueman was the second greatest bowler behind Marshall.

But the arrival of colour TV varied from country to country.

In the UK we mainly got it between the 1966 and 1970 World Cups, but the 1969-70 SA v Australia series was filmed in black and white which is why Procter, Pollock and Richards are so under-rated here.

It’s quite strange. Wasim Akram TBH was no better than Imran Khan.

But because everyone has watched Malcolm Marshall in colour, nobody would dream of calling Imran the GOAT right-arm quick.

Yet because the Alan Davidson footage is black-and-white, Young Pakistanis assume that Wasim Akram was the undisputed GOAT left-arm quick.

Very good point. Black and white film implies old which implies meaningless.

Plus, Wasim has iconic status for young Pakistanis so anything suggesting he wasn’t the GOAT feels like blasphemy does to a religious person.

 

[Robert]

That looks so amateur man. Almost exhibition match vibes. What a short run up!!!

That was an Ashes match so would have been played in deadly rivalry. It’s interesting how Davo got genuine pace off such a short run. Must have been very strong in the upper body. Typhoon Tyson only ran off eight strides too.

 

[topspin]

That looks so amateur man. Almost exhibition match vibes. What a short run up!!!

Spot on - looks like a charity cricket match.

 

[topspin]

Thank you [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]. However I would caution that both [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and I are prone to mischief at times.

It’s ok. When I was young I didn’t believe older people knew anything either. I just thought they were out of date. Then I got into my mid-thirties and thought hold up, maybe these old boys know a thing or two after all.....

Arsene Wenger got worse and inept as he got older. With a fresh new, younger manager they're on a 11 win streak and just 2-3 points away from the top of the table. They look like a new team but it's virtually the side.

This shows that with age, judgement can also deteriorate as evident from the views made on here from the old era hype society.

 

[Tusker]

It’s notable that the Under-40’s in this thread have only heard of Bradman and Trueman from the pre-colour TV era.

There’s a significant point there.

Bradman was the GOAT batsman and Trueman was the second greatest bowler behind Marshall.

But the arrival of colour TV varied from country to country.

In the UK we mainly got it between the 1966 and 1970 World Cups, but the 1969-70 SA v Australia series was filmed in black and white which is why Procter, Pollock and Richards are so under-rated here.

It’s quite strange. Wasim Akram TBH was no better than Imran Khan.

But because everyone has watched Malcolm Marshall in colour, nobody would dream of calling Imran the GOAT right-arm quick.

Yet because the Alan Davidson footage is black-and-white, Young Pakistanis assume that Wasim Akram was the undisputed GOAT left-arm quick.

Whats color TV got anything to do with how player looks in the footage ? I mean Test Cricket is played in whites. There are media players out there that will allow you to play the Wasim Akram footage in B&W tust me his bowling action and style will appear no different nor will the batsmen appear any less clueless.

 

[Junaids]

Arsene Wenger got worse and inept as he got older. With a fresh new, younger manager they're on a 11 win streak and just 2-3 points away from the top of the table. They look like a new team but it's virtually the side.

This shows that with age, judgement can also deteriorate as evident from the views made on here from the old era hype society.

And I’m the one who argues that a team should only carry one player aged 30-32 and one older than that.

And that coaches tend to lose it after the age of 55.

 

[topspin]

And I’m the one who argues that a team should only carry one player aged 30-32 and one older than that.

And that coaches tend to lose it after the age of 55.

I agree that is true and I've also given you the credit you deserve for your posts on the modern era (see post 45). You earned my respect particularly when you called out Misbah for playing beyond his sell by date.

However Robert comes across as a lot more insecure with falsely compiled analogies and conspiracy theories.

 

[Tusker]

I have great respect for people like Robert and Junaids. Their insight is priceless and they provide a perspective that others cannot. It is also a privilege to listen to and learn from people with experience and time on their side, and I have certainly learned a lot from both.

I think the disrespect and the condescending attitude that some people show them is highly inappropriate. It is fine who disagree with them, but a lot of people cross limits.

Beg to disagree here. The two get what they deserve. Their main problem being the entitlement that they expect. They think that because of their age they automatically know more about cricket than most and expect others to blindly take their word as-is. [MENTION=144456]bujhee kom[/MENTION] is another such poster. Guess what this the 2018 not 1978. People know a thing or two about fact-checking.

They have such outdated opinion of cricket that it beggars belief. Their views wont stand even basic scrutiny let alone a serious introspection. For instance [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] thinks that using computers and spreadsheets is beneath him and thinks very poorly of those who do in their analysis. He constantly ridicules the modern player (don't have strong defense and leave a lot of gap between bat and pad) but will never ever ever engage you in a serious debate. Why ? He most certainly knows that he will get beat-up quite badly in a serious fact based debate where re-producing words by xyz player/expert isnt going to cut-it.

And speaking of great defense and technique - what great defensive technique is on display by the batsman we see in the Allan Davidson video ? Fo instance @1.42 we see the batsman poking at a ball well outside off with feet slow to move. Hearing these guys crow about old era cricket nonstop day-in and day-out you would think that the quality of cricket back then would be out of the world !!


Previously I used to take [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] seriously and indulge in lengthy debates spending serious time crafting my responses but then I realized the futility of it after I read his appalling take on how BCCI depends on ICC revenue.

 

[Tusker]

Davidson was a great bowler. The level of historical knowledge here is very low - I have asked for a seniors forum but without sympathy. Most of these guys are zygotes effectively. Some more boastful than others. &#55357;&#56836;

I consider myself a serious cricket fan and I will engage you on any topic that you wish to debate. I can guarantee you a proper debate backed by facts, stats and logic and maturity level that you expect from a senior. Just dont expect me to take your words as facts just as I dont expect you to take my words as fact.

However Iam not sure you are really interested in such serious discussions. I think you are merely here to exchange droolage on old-era cricket with like minded cricket fans high on nostalgia.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
I’m a highly paid person, but I spend money accordingly.

My BCCI point is that they are like me. They are used to spending huge sums, and they depend upon huge payments from the ICC to fund their expenditure.

I actually miss our disagreements. You actually do persuade me at times!

In terms of pre-Packer footage, like with Davidson, you tend to overlook that there was a different LBW rule and that pitches only started to be covered late in his career.

Batting and bowling techniques didn’t change because cricketers somehow became professional. They changed because playing conditions changed.

Mike Brearley was an “amateur” in the early 1960’s who led the movement to end the “gentlemen versus players” divide.

But that divide was based on inherited wealth, not actual professionalism.

By the same token, rugby union and the Olympic Games were supposedly “amateur” until the 21st century. But in reality the participants had been full-time professionals for decades before

 

[Tusker]

Thank you [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]. However I would caution that both [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and I are prone to mischief at times.

It’s ok. When I was young I didn’t believe older people knew anything either. I just thought they were out of date. Then I got into my mid-thirties and thought hold up, maybe these old boys know a thing or two after all.....

wisdom isnt a function of just age alone. I will give you your own example - hardly anything you say is verifiable. You have highly exaggerated opinion about old era players and when that happens there will be significant divergence from reality which will stand out like a sore thumb. Example - Your views about Frank Tyson right here on this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1UAhYPByQ

If you think that Tyson is bowling at speeds that deserves him to categorized as a "Typhoon" like how the newspaper article says then there can be no serious discussion that one can have with you.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
I’m a highly paid person, but I spend money accordingly.

My BCCI point is that they are like me. They are used to spending huge sums, and they depend upon huge payments from the ICC to fund their expenditure.

I actually miss our disagreements. You actually do persuade me at times!

In terms of pre-Packer footage, like with Davidson, you tend to overlook that there was a different LBW rule and that pitches only started to be covered late in his career.

Batting and bowling techniques didn’t change because cricketers somehow became professional. They changed because playing conditions changed.

Mike Brearley was an “amateur” in the early 1960’s who led the movement to end the “gentlemen versus players” divide.

But that divide was based on inherited wealth, not actual professionalism.

By the same token, rugby union and the Olympic Games were supposedly “amateur” until the 21st century. But in reality the participants had been full-time professionals for decades before

The BCCI gets pocket change from ICC ... compared to the billions they make thru IPL ... why is it such a hard thing to accept and move on ? This is like saying England lives on the plunder from colonial times.

If you seriously think the Pros from the 60s and 70s were just as well paid and looked after like todays then you know why I dont respond to your posts as much as I did in the past. Gordon Greenidge is on record stating that he got paid only if he played. Do you dispute that ?

quite staggering that someone from a serious profession will hold on to such frivolous opinion.

And no I dont persuade you. You just comeback a week later and start the same old nonsense again as though the discussions never happened. Sorry but thats not how a serious discussion works.

 

[Junaids]

The BCCI gets pocket change from ICC ... compared to the billions they make thru IPL ... why is it such a hard thing to accept and move on ? This is like saying England lives on the plunder from colonial times.

If you seriously think the Pros from the 60s and 70s were just as well paid and looked after like todays then you know why I dont respond to your posts as much as I did in the past. Gordon Greenidge is on record stating that he got paid only if he played. Do you dispute that ?

quite staggering that someone from a serious profession will hold on to such frivolous opinion.

And no I dont persuade you. You just comeback a week later and start the same old nonsense again as though the discussions never happened. Sorry but thats not how a serious discussion works.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying about professionalism.

Money was awful pre-Packer.

But since the 1950’s most major international players - all international players from my home country of England - had been professional cricketers in that they played cricket year-round and trained constantly on their skills and (or in the case of Colin Milburn OR) fitness.

 

[Tusker]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying about professionalism.

Money was awful pre-Packer.

But since the 1950’s most major international players - all international players from my home country of England - had been professional cricketers in that they played cricket year-round and trained constantly on their skills and (or in the case of Colin Milburn OR) fitness.

What happened to these Professional cricketers if they got injured and couldn't play? Who paid their medical expenses? Did they have a retainer contract?

And I see you didn't respond to the BCCI point I made. Is that to be taken as your acceptance ?

 

[Junaids]

What happened to these Professional cricketers if they got injured and couldn't play? Who paid their medical expenses? Did they have a retainer contract?

And I see you didn't respond to the BCCI point I made. Is that to be taken as your acceptance ?

In England, Australia and New Zealand all medical expenses are covered by the government. In fact, professional cricketers who don’t get overseas contracts in winter tend to sign on for unemployment benefits.

In terms of the BCCI, when last I checked their published financial statements, the sum of money they were paying in opaque, barely explained payments to State Cricket Associations each year almost precisely matched the amount the ICC was disbursing to the BCCI.

And that ICC money was the difference between breaking even or running at a loss.

I’m not calling the BCCI poor. I’m saying that it is so extravagant in its spending that without ICC handouts it would be trading while insolvent.

Ironically for this thread, when Alan Davidson didn’t play Lancashire League Cricket during the off season he actually worked as a bank teller!

 

[Itachi]

In England, Australia and New Zealand all medical expenses are covered by the government. In fact, professional cricketers who don’t get overseas contracts in winter tend to sign on for unemployment benefits.

In terms of the BCCI, when last I checked their published financial statements, the sum of money they were paying in opaque, barely explained payments to State Cricket Associations each year almost precisely matched the amount the ICC was disbursing to the BCCI.

And that ICC money was the difference between breaking even or running at a loss.

I’m not calling the BCCI poor. I’m saying that it is so extravagant in its spending that without ICC handouts it would be trading while insolvent.

Ironically for this thread, when Alan Davidson didn’t play Lancashire League Cricket during the off season he actually worked as a bank teller!

Dude. You did call bcci poor. Sometimes admitting owns mistake doesn't make you any less. We all have made statements which were wrong at different point of time. Its OK.

 

[Tusker]

In England, Australia and New Zealand all medical expenses are covered by the government. In fact, professional cricketers who don’t get overseas contracts in winter tend to sign on for unemployment benefits.

And this qualifies as a professional setup according to you?

In terms of the BCCI, when last I checked their published financial statements, the sum of money they were paying in opaque, barely explained payments to State Cricket Associations each year almost precisely matched the amount the ICC was disbursing to the BCCI.



And that ICC money was the difference between breaking even or running at a loss.

I’m not calling the BCCI poor. I’m saying that it is so extravagant in its spending that without ICC handouts it would be trading while insolvent

And where do you think the IPL monies are spent in your opinion?

Ironically for this thread, when Alan Davidson didn’t play Lancashire League Cricket during the off season he actually worked as a bank teller!

And therefore cannot be considered as a true professional

 

[Junaids]

(In reply to my mentioning that Davo worked in a bank out of season)

And therefore cannot be considered as a true professional

Yes [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION].

We seem to have arrived at a point in which even when I provide evidence to back you up you still argue!

I actually agreed with you!

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], do you reckon Davo would get into the ATG Aussie XI?

I’d say that the top five Aussie fast bowlers are Lindwall, Miller (a must as the all-rounder), Davo, Lillee and McGrath. I honestly don’t know who misses out, given that you’d have to drop one and get in Warne, or maybe two on a Bunsen and get Grimmett, O’Reilly or Benaud.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
I’m a highly paid person, but I spend money accordingly.

My BCCI point is that they are like me. They are used to spending huge sums, and they depend upon huge payments from the ICC to fund their expenditure.

I actually miss our disagreements. You actually do persuade me at times!

In terms of pre-Packer footage, like with Davidson, you tend to overlook that there was a different LBW rule and that pitches only started to be covered late in his career.

Batting and bowling techniques didn’t change because cricketers somehow became professional. They changed because playing conditions changed.

Mike Brearley was an “amateur” in the early 1960’s who led the movement to end the “gentlemen versus players” divide.

But that divide was based on inherited wealth, not actual professionalism.

By the same token, rugby union and the Olympic Games were supposedly “amateur” until the 21st century. But in reality the participants had been full-time professionals for decades before

The last Gentlemen Vs Professionals fixture was in 1962. But in reality everyone was professional by then.

Amateur status really referred to people who were independently wealthy aristocrats, paid expenses only for cricket, not a salary. To my mind if you get a pay packet at the end of a match, you’re a professional.

 

[Robert]

I agree that is true and I've also given you the credit you deserve for your posts on the modern era (see post 45). You earned my respect particularly when you called out Misbah for playing beyond his sell by date.

However Robert comes across as a lot more insecure with falsely compiled analogies and conspiracy theories.

Ha ha! I’m the conspiracy theory buster usually. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is more mischievous than I’ve ever been.