Larwood 'medium paced'

[a massive zebra]

Apologies for the deluge of posts.

 

[watson]

Thanks Rather Large Stripey Ungulate - that article by Hobbs looks brilliant! Will have a read ASAP.

 

[watson]

Yes, that article from 1939 is probably the best as it lists the bowlers in order of speed (subjectively of course);

And so, having sifted all the available evidence, and the opinion of expert critics and players, I consider that there are five bowlers each entitled to be placed as the fastest in his own period -Fellows, Kortright, Jones, Cotter, and Larwood, with Constantine knocking at the door for Larwood's place.

In an attempt to place them in order, my selection would be - Kortright, Jones, Cotter, Fellows, and Larwood. A group which includes Constantine, Gregory, Tarrant, Lockwood. Richardson, Marcon, Freeman, and KIotze is close to Larwood.

It's a shame that the author's name isn't given as his opinion might have had more weight. However, 'The Onlooker' does seem to be in keeping with the prevailing opinions of the time as far as I can tell.

 

[watson]

So as it turns out, Jack Hobbs and the Umpire Bob Crockett are in broad agreement - the skill of bowling declined after WWI.

I have always regarded it as curious that while most of the changes in cricket in my thirty years have been in favour of the bowler, such as the smaller ball and the wider wicket, bowling generally, in my opinion, has deteriorated. There are very few outstanding bowlers of real class to-day, and I remember that just after the War, when admittedly things had changed a good deal, bowlers opened for their sides who weren’t considered prior to 1914.

 

[the big bambino]

A good idea would be to examine how far the keeper stood when these bowlers bowled.

Irrelevant. The better measure is 1st slip.

Also what clearly improved post WW1 were pitches with every decade since being 5 or 6 runs an innings higher.

 

[Blocky]

Surely though, the distance hasn't changed at all - therefore being able to measure speed by time of release to time to batsman and doing some statistical modelling to take account of frame rate changes etc, we should be able to eliminate the "who was faster" once and for all?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Hobbs sounds like a presumptuous **** but i suppose you can be when your the greatest player of your generation

 

[watson]

Hobbs sounds like a presumptuous **** but i suppose you can be when your the greatest player of your generation

Hobbs' piece is honest and analytical, that's all. These together sometimes give an impression of presumption, but in this case I think that it's a false impression because all the biographical accounts on Hobbs point to him being a good bloke.

 

[Migara]

Irrelevant. The better measure is 1st slip.

Also what clearly improved post WW1 were pitches with every decade since being 5 or 6 runs an innings higher.

Whatever 1st slip of keeper. On a bad wicket, keeper might stay little behind because if a ball that takes off hits the bat it will fly a longer distance. On other hand a one that shoots will get the batsman LBW or bowled , keeper is not needed.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Hobbs' piece is honest and analytical, that's all. These together sometimes give an impression of presumption, but in this case I think that it's a false impression because all the biographical accounts on Hobbs point to him being a good bloke.

Yeah but the whole it was better in the golden age thing, bowlers were better etc

 

[fredfertang]

Yeah but the whole it was better in the golden age thing, bowlers were better etc

Comparing the 1920s with the 1890s and 1900s, which is what Hobbs was doing, then I'm sure he was right

 

[watson]

Yeah but the whole it was better in the golden age thing, bowlers were better etc

The cricketers of the 1980s were far more skillful than what they are now. It's not arrogant to make such a statement because it is very likely true.

 

[the big bambino]

Whatever 1st slip of keeper. On a bad wicket, keeper might stay little behind because if a ball that takes off hits the bat it will fly a longer distance. On other hand a one that shoots will get the batsman LBW or bowled , keeper is not needed.

Definitely 1st slip (or slips generally). A keeper can stand back or over the stumps or anywhere in btwn while the bowler maintains the same speed.

Hobbs' piece is honest and analytical, that's all. These together sometimes give an impression of presumption, but in this case I think that it's a false impression because all the biographical accounts on Hobbs point to him being a good bloke.

The cricketers of the 1980s were far more skillful than what they are now. It's not arrogant to make such a statement because it is very likely true.

Hobbs makes exactly the same mistake. Cricket, like any other sport improves but for emotional reasons counter intuitively argues his favourite era is not only immune to the trend but represented the peak of the game.

Hobbs sounds like a presumptuous **** but i suppose you can be when your the greatest player of your generation

I like Hobbs but he does sound like a tit here. I believe he rated Knox the best fast bowler he saw and I just can't credit the rating. It is suspiciously tainted with national, club and generational bias. Hobbs' opinion doesn't account for the overall improvement in wickets after WW1 which made bowling harder and batting easier. That is the reason alone for the statistical superiority of bowlers from the golden age period and before. If Hobbs' heroes had to bowl on the improved pitches of any decade since WW1 they would have struggled like anyone else.

 

[Migara]

quality of cricket could only improve with time as in any other sport.

 

[fredfertang]

I'm not convinced that Hobbs would've done much more than put his name to these words - if you read what others later said about him he had great respect for the best bowlers of the interwar period, and realised that batsmen then never had it so good

 

[fredfertang]

quality of cricket could only improve with time as in any other sport.

Don't disagree with this, but the batsman in the 1920s had all the advantages - groundsmen prided themselves on preparing perfect wickets and they had the old lbw law - the only fly in the ointment was the possibility of a sticky wicket

 

[Camo999]

Adam Zwar investigated recently exactly how fast Larwood bowled in this show:

Bodyline : ABC TV

I think the conclusion, based on footage of him bowling at Adelaide, taking the frames, reference points in the background and building a 3D model was the range of 137 - 147kph.

The show then had Zwar face Brett Lee with a bodyline field armed with just 1930s protective equipment and bat.

 

[the big bambino]

I've seen an article that had him at 96mph. From memory the same article had Willis at 90mph.

 

[Goughy]

Adam Zwar investigated recently exactly how fast Larwood bowled in this show:

Bodyline : ABC TV

I think the conclusion, based on footage of him bowling at Adelaide, taking the frames, reference points in the background and building a 3D model was the range of 137 - 147kph.

The show then had Zwar face Brett Lee with a bodyline field armed with just 1930s protective equipment and bat.

Emirates had it as one of their documentaries on flights recently. Worth a watch though Zwar's lack of cricket ability is a little annoying.

 

[Red]

Adam Zwar investigated recently exactly how fast Larwood bowled in this show:

Bodyline : ABC TV

I think the conclusion, based on footage of him bowling at Adelaide, taking the frames, reference points in the background and building a 3D model was the range of 137 - 147kph.

The show then had Zwar face Brett Lee with a bodyline field armed with just 1930s protective equipment and bat.

What would have been far better would have been it get someone with cricket ability (Ponting) to face Lee bowling body line with a body line field.