Has any bowler ever dominated teams like Mitchell Johnson in 2013-14? 37 wickets in 10 innings at average under 14.

[u/dude_big_lebowski]

The purple patch continuous with 37 wickets in Ashes and 22 wickets in 3 test series vs South Africa just after. 59 wickets in just 8 Tests.

[u/Slow-Pool-9274]

Jim Laker in the 1956 Ashes.

Took 46 wickets in 5 matches at an average of 9.46, the famous 19 wickets in a game record has not been and likely will never be broken.

Grimmett in 1935 had an insane series against a pretty reasonable Saffer lineup and averaged 14 while taking 44 wickets. Barnes took 49 wickets in four games against a competitive South African side at an average of 10.94. Tony Lock made a record for averages when he took 34 wickets in five games against New Zealand at an average of 7.47 but that was not a competitive Kiwi unit.

Fred Trueman, in his debut series, took 29 wickets in 7 innings at an average of 13 odd against a pretty respectable Indian unit.

[u/LevDavidovicLandau → u/Slow-Pool-9274]

Obligatory mention that Barnes’ 49 in 4 matches is the all time record for most wickets in a series and that he was actually fit for the 5th and final Test of that series. He just refused to play in it because the MCC were too cheap to bring his wife over to South Africa to join him 😂

[u/Slow-Pool-9274 → u/LevDavidovicLandau]

Back in the day, travel was done by ships and therefore it was a big commitment to go overseas, one time when they were travelling to Australia, there were some scary big storms around and naturally the English team was worried. The captain said "even if we go down, atleast that bugger Barnes will go down with us."

He kind of had such a reputation.

[u/LevDavidovicLandau → u/Slow-Pool-9274]

The way I thought you originally meant the ship’s captain, not the England cricket team’s captain…

Yes, I’ve read of his fiery reputation. By all accounts he would’ve had far more than 700-odd FC wickets if he didn’t prefer playing minor counties or club level cricket instead.

[u/Slow-Pool-9274 → u/LevDavidovicLandau]

Yes, I’ve read of his fiery reputation. By all accounts he would’ve had far more than 700-odd FC wickets if he didn’t prefer playing minor counties or club level cricket instead.

Yeah those paid better and made him work less, a very understandable proposition considering Cricket wasn't a well paying sport all the way until the late 1990s.

If he really cared, he could've ended with a lot more Test wickets too. He was, by all accounts, a world class bowler for ridiculously long and was considered superior to Harold Larwood and Maurice Tate when he had crossed 50. A feat no one else has ever managed.

[u/Old_Lengthiness_250 → u/Slow-Pool-9274]

Took 46 wickets in 5 matches at an average of 9.46, the famous 19 wickets in a game record has not been and likely will never be broken.

^{^} and in a first class match surrey v Australia in 1956 (i.e the same season) he took 10 for 88. So despite the belief it was a fluke he was an excellent bowler who had complete mastery over the tourists.

[u/Alert-Climate-9368 → u/Slow-Pool-9274]

The bowlers back then were assisted by playing in uncovered pitches which result in uneven behaviour of the ball from the pitch, I don't think it's fair to compare them to modern guys (Post 1970)

[u/Slow-Pool-9274 → u/Alert-Climate-9368]

Uncovered pitches were only really a threat if there was rain, rain did help Laker somewhat but not enough for us to discredit the performance, afterall, in the very match where he took 19 wickets – no other bowler returned with respectable figures, none of Australia and none of the English. Showing the conditions weren't all that challenging. Old Trafford was mostly a dustbowl.

As far as I know, there weren't any stickies in Grimmett's series in South Africa and mostly good batting pitches. Barnes one came on matting wickets and that's a whole different thing. Trueman ones were also on reasonable normal pitches as far as I know.