-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Victor Trumper - A Tribute
- Thread starter SJS
- Start date
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Was thinking that, but the 2nd pic in the last row. With the gas thank it looks like the Oval.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I've just looked it up - the series of photographs where he has no sweater on were taken during the tea interval of the Surrey game at the Oval on the 1902 tour - the other series at the Lords nursery
There is a "cinematic" film of the Lords episode apparently - would be good if someone could track that down!
archie mac
International Coach
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
WOW !! Now how/where the hell did you get that info from ?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I am doing a Legends series (will eventually end up as a series of articles for the CW) which is to include a Legends playing XI as under. This is a tentative list and may get modified.
SJS this photo (which is about as beautiful as sports photography can possibly get) has got me thinking - any chance you could do a similar trawl through your writing/photography archives to compile a similar thread for Wally Hammond?
- Grace
- Trumper
- Ranji
- Maclaren
- Noble
- Armstrong
- Jackson
- Hirst
- Blackham
- Spofforth
- Barnes
12th Man Jessop
Whats common about these players is that they played around the beginning of the 20th century which means that while for the student of the game these are legends, for the modern fan, they are players around whom their is more myth than substance.
Unfortunately the lack of contemporary account for most of them and almost a complete absence of action photographs has made the situation worse. Trumper and Barnes suffer the most in this regard and they are to be in any short list of the greatest batsman and greatest bowler of all time respectively. This is a massive tragedy. I believe there is a need to bring these legends to 'life' as it were by putting together a series based on contemporary accounts and a collection of action photographs where possible.
I have already done a lot of writing in different threads on CW about Barnes. Now with Trumper and Grace I am covering another two.
I am going to use the material I post here along with my commentary for the series of articles I am preparing.
It would be an absolute pleasure to do one on Hammond but since so much material from contemporary accounts is already availabe, I decided to take up the more "distant" and hence rather "grey" figures to start with for there the need is greater.
Then the statistics for a hundred years ago are going to be completely different. Not only because they played so little of international cricket (in fact for many years important county matches were bigger games than what we now know as test matches) but because of different conditions. Centuries were fewer, double centuries rare and triple centuries in the realm of the miraculous - even in first class cricket. Clearly this reflected in the batting averages of the players - and in the lower bowling averages of the bowlers too. Unfortunately instead of understanding and deconstructing the persona of those times through a better understanding of the times and the stats, there is a tendency to run down the batsmen because the averages were lower and (in an amazingly contradictory manner) run down the bowlers' lower averages by talking of the helpful bowling conditions).
We need to look at these great sportsmen beyond their figures. Of course, the figures tell something but you cant even compare the figures of Grace's youth with that of Hobbs, where is the question of comparing Grace with Tendulkar.
A champion has to be seen as a champion by how much he stands taller in comparison with his peers and then we realise that Grace was so much taller than the others around him, and so it has been right upto today when Tendulkar and Lara stand head and shoulders above their peers.
Now how to know how much 'taller' than their peers they were. If I was to say it, or even a Cardus was to write of WG, we would, with at least some justification. doubt the veracity of the account by hinting at 'hero-worship' or glorifying the myths of the past. Thats why the accounts of their peers are so priceless.
Someone had asked me here about the best book on Trumper. I did not name any because there isn't a single contemporary account. I named Thomson's book because of his great style of writing. If I had to chose a later day account by someone who was not an eye-witness, I would have chosen Fingleton's The Immortal Victor Trumper. But when I read that book, I had already read the accounts of Trumper in Noble's book and the Mailey essay. Take away what Fingleton has taken from these two and his book has almost nothing to offer. He borrows heavily from the two chapters of Noble and quotes the entire mailey essay verbatim.
I am saying this to emphasise the importance of contemporary accounts. The later day accounts are only research works which can be just as good as a sum of their source materials (at least as far as content is concerned).
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
When Noble wrote of Trumper's handling of the leg-stump yorker . . .
This is the shot he was referring to. . .
The caption to this picture in Fingleton's book reads . . .
When a yorker on the leg stump was was pitched up to him he would pivot on his left leg and, raising the right foot, would glance it to fine-leg. The fact that the bat was substituted for the foot at the last minute was not always readily discerned by the bowler, who momentarily imagining that the ball was certain to hit the foot, would appeal for LBW, only to find, immediately afterwards, much to his surprise, that he had been hit for four.
This is the shot he was referring to. . .
Trumper's Dog shot
Source : Fingleton's The Immortal Trumper
It is amazing to think even after a hundred years that such a shot could be played to a fast yorker intentionally. No wonder the bowlers invariably threw their hands up in appeal anticipating a wicket and not another boundary.The caption to this picture in Fingleton's book reads . . .
Trumper's 'dog-shot'. Although he employed it often, it is noticeably absent from any of the formal books on batting in which his photograph appears.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Younger than you!How old are you?
And your book collection already runs into the thousands, whereas mine is only in the hundreds - so I'm of greater need.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Sure they are Fred. Sure they are...Bloody vultures - any reports/rumours of my impending demise are wholly inaccurate - I hope
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Colonel Phillip Trevor was the manager of the ashes side that toured Australia in 1907-08. He has written one of the finest pieces on Trumper in his book Cricket and Cricketers
For all practical purposes we may take it that Trumper's real career was limited to a space of ten to a dozen years. . . Trumper owes his reputation more to how he did things than to the things he did. He only got half a dozen centuries in Test matches and indeed if the arithmetic Test is the only one by which a batsman is to be tried, there are a good many claimants for the place which Trumper, in the considered opinion of many of the experts, holds.
. . . In some respects, the subtelety of Trumper's strokes was even more concealed than it was in the strokes which ranji made. However closely you watched Trumper, it was inordinately difficult to follow exactly what he was doing with his bat. Trumper, we know, could hit the ball 'half way around the clock'. I will try to substantiate that statement at the risk of being prosaic.
Extend the bowling crease (at the batsman's end) to the boundary on both sides of the ground and then bowl to Trumper an ordinary, medium paced good length ball. Trumper could hit that ball to any spot in front of that extended white line. That is a feat in itself - a feat that even Ranji might be put to it to accomplish. And that is not all. Suppose Trumper hit every ball of that over in the following order : the first to point (square) the second through the covers, the third evading mid-off, the fourth more or less straight, the fifth to mid-on and the sixth to square leg. You would watch these successful strokes and you could not tell accurately as the bat came on to the ball the exact direction in which the batsman intended the ball to go. Trumper knew it to himself almost to the 'minute of a degree' . His knowledge indeed of batting angles was too exact for the ordinary eye to follow. I am still blessed with good distance eye-sight. I can still read figures and names on hoardings in a way that should make advertisers feel that they have not spent their money in vain. . . .
But I was made to stop swaggering about my distance eye-sight when Trumper put his bat on the ball. I used to find myself guessing but I nearly always guessed wrong. I predicted a square cut. . . and the ball would go in front of cover-point. I was worse fogged by the strokes to the on and hopelessly baffld by the square leg hits. Good length bowling meant nothing to Trumper.
When I say I did not see him at his very best, I mean I did not see him for a considerable period of the time during which he remained at his very best. Of course, I saw him play many innings in which his comrades admitted him to be at his best. It was on these occasions that he dealt with good length balls as the ordinary forcing first-class batsman deals with half-volleys and long hops. Our steadiest professional bowlers, indeed have said that they would rather bowl to Ranji than bowl to Trumper. They knew, they said, more exactly the extent of evil that could happen to them when they bowled to him than when they bowled to Trumper.
Of all disheartening balls which they could bowl, the straight good length one was, from their point of vies, the most disheartening of all. It was sent either past point or to the square leg boundary - even over the square leg boundary - according to Trumper's mood at the time of making the stroke. As I watched I became desperately anxious to analyse the inner workings of the batsman's mind, or the thing that was causing the man's mood. That he was fearless, physically or morally, a schoolboy could not fail to know, and that he =must have been self-confident goes without saying. Yet if there is such a thing as modesty in a public performer, man or woman, Victor Trumper was modest. . .
Trumper was certainly a peculiar blend. In his batting strokes you seemed to recognise all the athletic simplicity of W>G>, with most of the subtlety of Ranji. Certainly Trumper was athlete and artist, though I believe the majority of spectators were more convinced of his athleticism than his art. He was a perfect timer of the ball; yet as he played some of his strokes, I could not tell whether it was his forearm or wrist which he was using more.
You always knew with Ranji that he was using his wrists, but one wondered if in making some of the most marvelous strokes Trumper himself was aware whether chief marks should go to shoulders, forearms or wrists. It was a case indeed of blend and blend was the essence of Trumper's batting.
. . . In some respects, the subtelety of Trumper's strokes was even more concealed than it was in the strokes which ranji made. However closely you watched Trumper, it was inordinately difficult to follow exactly what he was doing with his bat. Trumper, we know, could hit the ball 'half way around the clock'. I will try to substantiate that statement at the risk of being prosaic.
Extend the bowling crease (at the batsman's end) to the boundary on both sides of the ground and then bowl to Trumper an ordinary, medium paced good length ball. Trumper could hit that ball to any spot in front of that extended white line. That is a feat in itself - a feat that even Ranji might be put to it to accomplish. And that is not all. Suppose Trumper hit every ball of that over in the following order : the first to point (square) the second through the covers, the third evading mid-off, the fourth more or less straight, the fifth to mid-on and the sixth to square leg. You would watch these successful strokes and you could not tell accurately as the bat came on to the ball the exact direction in which the batsman intended the ball to go. Trumper knew it to himself almost to the 'minute of a degree' . His knowledge indeed of batting angles was too exact for the ordinary eye to follow. I am still blessed with good distance eye-sight. I can still read figures and names on hoardings in a way that should make advertisers feel that they have not spent their money in vain. . . .
But I was made to stop swaggering about my distance eye-sight when Trumper put his bat on the ball. I used to find myself guessing but I nearly always guessed wrong. I predicted a square cut. . . and the ball would go in front of cover-point. I was worse fogged by the strokes to the on and hopelessly baffld by the square leg hits. Good length bowling meant nothing to Trumper.
When I say I did not see him at his very best, I mean I did not see him for a considerable period of the time during which he remained at his very best. Of course, I saw him play many innings in which his comrades admitted him to be at his best. It was on these occasions that he dealt with good length balls as the ordinary forcing first-class batsman deals with half-volleys and long hops. Our steadiest professional bowlers, indeed have said that they would rather bowl to Ranji than bowl to Trumper. They knew, they said, more exactly the extent of evil that could happen to them when they bowled to him than when they bowled to Trumper.
Of all disheartening balls which they could bowl, the straight good length one was, from their point of vies, the most disheartening of all. It was sent either past point or to the square leg boundary - even over the square leg boundary - according to Trumper's mood at the time of making the stroke. As I watched I became desperately anxious to analyse the inner workings of the batsman's mind, or the thing that was causing the man's mood. That he was fearless, physically or morally, a schoolboy could not fail to know, and that he =must have been self-confident goes without saying. Yet if there is such a thing as modesty in a public performer, man or woman, Victor Trumper was modest. . .
Trumper was certainly a peculiar blend. In his batting strokes you seemed to recognise all the athletic simplicity of W>G>, with most of the subtlety of Ranji. Certainly Trumper was athlete and artist, though I believe the majority of spectators were more convinced of his athleticism than his art. He was a perfect timer of the ball; yet as he played some of his strokes, I could not tell whether it was his forearm or wrist which he was using more.
You always knew with Ranji that he was using his wrists, but one wondered if in making some of the most marvelous strokes Trumper himself was aware whether chief marks should go to shoulders, forearms or wrists. It was a case indeed of blend and blend was the essence of Trumper's batting.
Colonel Trevor Phillip in Cricket and Cricketers
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
That is why you have to assess them by comparing them against their peers if you are looking at statistics that is and at what their peers thought of their game if you are looking beyond stats.
I had once, a few years ago, done a study here of how the Champion batsmen of the past fared against their peers over the period of their careers and it made for very interesting reading. I dont know if someone can fish it out.
By the way, the wickets settled down from around the first decade of the 20th century and comparisons from there onwards as far as stats are concerned are less affected as compared to those in the 19th century and WG's youth. Hence you have Hobbs with a batting average of 56 odd (if I recall right) though he played his first test in 1908. Thereafter we have the effects of changing laws (most importantly the changes in the LBW law), the covering of wickets, and of course now we have the phenomenal bats, the terrific protective gear including helmets and the saddest one which should have been avoided, the shrinking boundary distances. So as far as the batsmen are concerned its not far-fetched to say that right through the 20th century the thingds have been becoming more favourable except for one change in the LBW law. What has gone aginst the modern batsmen is the great improvement in the overall fielding standards. There were some great fielders in earlier sides but there were quite a few modest fielders too. Today there aren't too many like Munaf Patel around.
Last edited:
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
On reflection I suspect I got over-excited on seeing the words "finest action shots ever captured on film" and that the writer was simply referring to Beldam's stills - self inflicted rolleyes for me
Although to partially redeem myself I have established that there is film of the moving picture variety of SF Barnes in existence albeit he was 80 at the time
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
taking a walk in the Long Room ?
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Asked for that didn't I !!!No bowling in the nets
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
The Technique of Victor Trumper
Fingleton has written a complete chapter dissecting Trumper's technique. His study is based mainly on the two chapters on Trumper from Noble's book and on Beldam's photographs. by the way, it is here that Benaud's suggestion (its a suggestion nothing more) that Trumper's photograph of jumping out and driving might be a fake, appears. It must be remembered though that Benaud thinks it might be a fake because he thinks the picture 'pretends' to be from a match while no fielders can be seen in the two pictures. Hence the suggestion that it might be a fake. However, nowhere in Beldam's book is it suggested that this picture was taken in a match. Most of the photographs in Beldam and fry's book are taken from batsmen batting on the wicket in the middle of a ground and not in the nets. This may also be another such case. The fact that there are people standing and watching at the opposite side (midwicket) outside could be for many reasons.
Coming back to Fingleton's essay on Trumper's technique, it is fascinating how he compares Trumper's technique with Bradman's and thinks aloud how trumper might have dealt with Larwood and bodyline.
I am too tired to type out the whole thing (for it must be read whole) so I am scanning the pages for those interested.
Tomorrow morning I will post the other action pictures of Trumper.
Good night
Fingleton has written a complete chapter dissecting Trumper's technique. His study is based mainly on the two chapters on Trumper from Noble's book and on Beldam's photographs. by the way, it is here that Benaud's suggestion (its a suggestion nothing more) that Trumper's photograph of jumping out and driving might be a fake, appears. It must be remembered though that Benaud thinks it might be a fake because he thinks the picture 'pretends' to be from a match while no fielders can be seen in the two pictures. Hence the suggestion that it might be a fake. However, nowhere in Beldam's book is it suggested that this picture was taken in a match. Most of the photographs in Beldam and fry's book are taken from batsmen batting on the wicket in the middle of a ground and not in the nets. This may also be another such case. The fact that there are people standing and watching at the opposite side (midwicket) outside could be for many reasons.
Coming back to Fingleton's essay on Trumper's technique, it is fascinating how he compares Trumper's technique with Bradman's and thinks aloud how trumper might have dealt with Larwood and bodyline.
I am too tired to type out the whole thing (for it must be read whole) so I am scanning the pages for those interested.
Tomorrow morning I will post the other action pictures of Trumper.
Good night
Last edited:
