The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[HookShot]

Might be interesting to compare them. Opinions differed at the time.

Here’s something about Spofforth….

Hugh Trumble’s younger brother John wrote a letter to the ‘Times’ in 1928 describing Fred Spofforth as an ‘off break’ bowler who varied his pace between ‘fast’, ‘medium-pace’ and ‘slow’. He considered him to be the best bowler he had seen in his life-time.

THE WORLD'S BEST BOWLER.
F.R. SPOFFORTH.

In a letter to the London "Times," Mr. J. W. Trumble, a former Australian Eleven player, says he considers F.R. Spofforth was the world's greatest bowler. The following extracts are taken from it:—

I played with him and against him in Australia, and toured England with
him in 1886, and, as I happened to be; an allround player and slip fieldsman, my opportunities of studying his bowling were exceptional. Spofforth struck me as being a very remarkable man, possessed of rare mental ability, and of other assisting personal qualities which enabled him to bring to a successful conclusion almost anything "be took in hand.

He started as a fast, bowler, and then studied medium-pace and slow bowling, his objective being a completely disguised combination of the three paces; and those who saw him bowling at his best will remember to what perfection he attained in this direction. His action on delivery was exactly the same for all of the three paces, and it was in his magnificent concealment of change in the pace of his bowling that he stood out from all other bowlers of all time. Nobody ever fooled good batsmen with the slow ball so completely as did Spofforth.

I remember an exciting match between England and Australia, at Sydney in 1885, which Spofforth won by the successful use of this very ball. Flowers and Maurice Read were well set. Spofforth had bowled Read a fast one outside the off stump, which was left alone. The slow ball then came along in action, delivery, and flight, apparently a reproduction of its predecessor. Read played forward to it and completed his stroke before the ball had arrived. He then tried to pull his bat back to cover his wicket, but was too late to prevent the ball getting through to the stumps. I look upon this as the cleverest ball I ever saw bowled, and I am sure Maurice Read will well remember it. We won by six runs, and just before the dissolution of this partnership the match locked any odds on England.

Spofforth was an off-break bowler. He was very accurate in direction and pitch in all paces and could vary his pitch and direction to a very fine point. In our 1886 tour we had a strong bowling side, including Spofforth, Palmer, Giffen, Garrett and others, but before very long Spofforth impressed me as being in a class by himself. That apparently was W. G. Grace's view, for he said that, however well set he might be, and however good the wicket, he never felt sure "Spoff” would not bowl him out next ball.

Probably Spofforth greatest performance was his 14 wickets for 90 runs in that historic Test match at the Oval in 1882 which Australia won by seven runs. It may be remembered that England on going in a second time had to get only 85 runs in order to win. With three wickets down the score stood at 51, and the batsmen undisposed of to make the remaining 31 runs were Grace, Lucas, Lyttelton, Studd, Steel, Read, Barnes, and Peate. When Grace was out two runs later the Australians felt that they had a chance- It was then that SpoSorth was seen at his best. The scene has often been described, Spofforth, all out, tearing along like the "Demon he looked; Boyle, the most daring of fieldsmen, close up in front at mid-on; Blackham in keen expectancy behind-the stumps, with the field crowding in and keyed up. What an ordeal, almost terrifying in character for the later batsmen to face as wickets kept falling! Then we come to the closing scene, with Peate (about the worst bat of his time) lashing out at Boyle with Intel results, and declaring subsequently in justification of his action that he could, not trust Mr. Studd. In this innings Spofforth took seven wickets for 44.

As a student in the art of bowling Spofforth stood out from all other bowlers, and would, in my opinion, have been able to cope with the difficulties of present-day concrete-conditioned wickets better than any other bowler end be still the best of them all.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/29297762

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/29297762

 

[HookShot]

I’ve also read that Spofforth didn’t go out of his way to swing the ball as he thought that it reduced his accuracy, and he put on a premium on line and length.

I’ll try and remember the source.

 

[Line and Length]

I’ve also read that Spofforth didn’t go out of his way to swing the ball as he thought that it reduced his accuracy, and he put on a premium on line and length.

I respect him even more.

 

[HookShot]

That seems like quite a high leap….

 

[HookShot]

 

[HookShot]

 

[peterhrt]

Statistical comparison between Spofforth, Turner and Lohmann. With English batting having developed further than elsewhere, looking at their Test stats is of limited value. Figures relate to first-class cricket. Lohmann's cheap wickets in South Africa, and Spofforth's in Philadelphia, are ignored.

In England:

Spofforth 687 wickets @ 13.65. 5.7 wickets per match.
Turner 610 @ 12.90. 6.6 wpm.
Lohmann 1598 @ 13.82. 6.2 wpm.

In Australia:

Spofforth 160 @ 20.63. 4.8 wpm.
Turner 383 @ 16.40. 6.2 wpm.
Lohmann 162 @ 14.95. 6.0 wpm.

The leading batsmen of the day were Grace and Shrewsbury. Their first-class records in innings when these three men bowled for the opposition are shown below.

Grace v Spofforth: 1039 runs, average 25.97 / 42 innings / 3 centuries / Spofforth dismissed Grace 19 times.
Grace v Turner: 1739 runs, average 34.78 / 53 innings / 1 century / Turner dismissed Grace 18 times.
Grace v Lohmann: 1679 runs, average 25.83 / 68 innings / 1 century / Lohmann dismissed Grace 19 times.

Shrewsbury v Spofforth: 1078 runs, average 28.36 / 44 innings / 2 centuries / Spofforth dismissed Shrewsbury 9 times.
Shrewsbury v Turner: 1381 runs, average 33.68 / 46 innings / 2 centuries / Turner dismissed Shrewsbury 20 times (once for 0 in each innings).
Shrewsbury v Lohmann: 875 runs, average 32.40 / 30 innings / 1 century / Lohmann dismissed Shrewsbury 9 times.

 

[HookShot]

A lengthy piece appeared in Wisden (1902) to commemorate Lohmann’s death, aged 36. It seems that Lohmann could be described, like Spofforth, as a medium paced off-break bowler who varied his pace so as to deceive the batsman.

He was of the school of Spofforth, commanding great variety of pace, and being master of endless devices for getting batsmen out, but he in no way imitated the great Australian's delivery, nor was he able to bowl so fast a ball. All the same, he would hardly have been the bowler he was if Spofforth before him had not shown that the arts of the old slow and fast bowlers could be combined in one person. On a wicket that afforded him the least help he could get as much off-break as he wanted, and though he wisely did not use the leg-break to any great extent he had it in reserve. To put the matter in a few words, he was a completely equipped bowler, ready to make the most of any advantage that the ground or the weather might give him. On a perfectly true fast wicket he was not so difficult as Richardson or Lockwood, but even under conditions entirely favourable to batsmen he did many wonderful things….

In an appreciation of Lehmann as a cricketer, written by Mr. C. B. Fry, appeared the following admirable description of his method and peculiar qualities as a bowler:

"He made his own style of bowling, and a beautiful style it was--so beautiful that none but a decent cricketer could fully appreciate it. He had a high right-over action, which was naturally easy and free-swinging, but, in his seeking after variations of pace, he introduced into it just a suspicion--a mere suspicion--of laboriousness. Most people, I believe, considered his action to have been perfect. To the eye it was rhythmical and polished but it cost him, probably, more effort than it appeared to do. His normal pace was medium ; he took a run of moderate length, poised himself with a slight uplifting of his high square shoulders, and delivered the ball just before his hand reached the top of its circular swing, and, in the act of delivery, he seemed first to urge forward the upper part of his body in sympathy with his arm, and then allow it to follow through after the ball. Owing to his naturally high delivery, the ball described a pronounced curve, and dropped rather sooner than the batsman expected. This natural peculiarity he developed assiduously into a very deceptive ball which he appeared to bowl the same pace as the rest, but which he really, as it were, held back, causing the unwary and often the wary to play too soon.”

“He was a perfect master of the whole art of varying his pace without betraying the variation to the batsman. He ran up and delivered the ball, to all appearances, exactly similarly each time; but one found now that the ball was hanging in the air, now that it was on to one surprisingly soon. He had complete control of his length, and very, very rarely--unless intentionally--dropped a ball too short or too far up. He had a curious power of making one feel a half volley was on its way ; but the end was usually a perfect length ball or a yorker. He had that subtle finger power which makes the ball spin, and consequently he could both make the ball break on a biting wicket and make it " nip along quick " on a true one. He made a practice of using both sides of the wicket on sticky pitches. If he found he was breaking too much, he would change from over to round the wicket, and on fast pitches he soon had a go round the wicket at a batsman who appeared comfortable at the other sort. But he was full of artifices and subleties, and he kept on trying them all day, each as persistently as the others, one after another. With all his skill, he would never have achieved his great feats but for his insistence of purpose. He was what I call a very hostile bowler ; he made one feel he was one's deadly enemy, and he used to put many batsmen off their strokes by his masterful and confident manner with the ball. He was by far the most difficult medium-pace bowler I ever played on a good wicket."

https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/235589.html

 

[HookShot]

Charles Turner also seemed bowl at medium-pace and rely on the off-break like Spofforth and Lohmann….

To have seen these masters of the art at the Oval is a pleasant recollection, and not one of them creates a happier memory than Turner in his rather long rhythmic run and beautiful right-arm action without any effort to make the most of his medium height--five feet nine inches. He delivered the ball almost facing square down the pitch, and, added to his off-break with slightly varied pace about fast-medium, was ability to turn the ball from leg, send down a fast yorker, and, above all, to get quick lift from the turf. As sufficient evidence of Turner's skill, Sir Stanley Jackson said in last year's Wisden, I always regarded Charles Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against--and he could gather an opinion as he scored 91 at Lord's and 103 at the Oval in the Tests in 1893, when Turner, on his third and last visit to England, fell from his greatest achievement to 149 wickets at 14 each, after 215 at 12 in 1890.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/155693.html

 

[HookShot]

It seems that Spofforth had greater control over his off-break than Turner….

In fact, Turner often turned (if you mind the pun) the ball a bit too much to get wickets. WG Grace summed it up nicely in a comparison between the two Australian greats: "Spofforth could make a ball break on a bowler’s wicket as much as he liked; he could bend it a-foot-and-a-half or two inches; and he knew how much he was putting on. Turner’s fault was that he persisted in bending them a lot ball after ball and could not produce the tiny break at will.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/charlie-turner-termed-terror-then-terminated-34204

 

[HookShot]

How fast was ‘medium-paced’ in 19th century venacular?

If you assume the Woolwich Arsenal to be correct then Turner’s medium-pace reached a speed of 55 mph, or 89 kph; about Shane Warne’s pace give or take.

Personally, I find that speed a bit slow as it would mean that bowlers like Wilfred Rhodes and Charlie Blythe would have bowled at a snails pace.

But the Arsenal couldn’t have been that wrong, so I’m guessing that Turner bowled a bit faster, around the 65 mph, or 105 kph mark….like Anil Kumble….

….it is estimated that Turner bowled at around 55 miles per hour. The device that measured this at Woolwich Arsenal in 1888 was typically used to measure the speed of bullets; two sets of wires were placed at a distance from each other. When Turner bowled the ball broke the wires and sent out an electrical charge, which was then used to calculate the speed.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/charlie-turner-termed-terror-then-terminated-34204

 

[HookShot]

And here are some ladies helping to manufacture bullets at the Woolwich Arsenal in 1918.

A remarkable photo in so many ways….

 

[HookShot]

More on Charles Turner by Ric Sissons….

Turner's figures are on par with those of SF Barnes (189 wickets at 16.43), and only bettered by George Lohmann's (112 wickets at 10.75). Lohmann, though, had the benefit of a series against a very weak South African side. Turner and Lohmann played against each other on many occasions and were always considered equals….

In Australia, for most of his first-class playing career, Turner was compared to Fred Spofforth, Australia's first great bowler. Australian opening batsman Alec Bannerman, who played with both, reckoned Turner "could turn the ball on a good wicket better than Spofforth and for this reason met with more success on Australian wickets, and equally as great success on English ones".

In 33 Years of Cricket Frank Iredale argued that Charlie faced a "harder task" than Spofforth, with fewer rabbits to bowl against, and improved wickets due to the liberal use of Bulli soil in Australia. Iredale concluded that "on all wickets, good and bad, and on English and Australian, Turner was the greatest bowler we ever produced".

Turner opened the bowling, delivering right-arm medium-pace with a low, square-on action off about seven yards. In 1888, at the Woolwich Arsenal, his delivery speed was measured at 55mph.

He described himself as a fingerspinner, and was renowned for being able to bring the ball back sharply into a right-hand batsman. His great variety - his yorker was a feared delivery - was his strength.

He may have bowled like an English professional, but Turner batted like an Australian amateur. A dasher, he only scored two first-class centuries, but was good enough to open for Australia on occasion.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ric-sissons-on-charlie-turner-603210

 

[peterhrt]

Medium-pace was a catch-all description for many bowlers in the 19th century, including some we would now regard as orthodox spinners like Trumble.

Turner seems to have been faster on average than Lohmann. Spofforth and Lohmann were regarded as modern bowlers with high actions and good control over their variations. Turner was a throwback to the previous era. A very strong man, he gained something of a reputation as a wet-wicket specialist and could be almost unplayable on a helpful pitch.

In first-class cricket (and Tests) Turner's numbers look better than Spofforth's, especially in Australia. Like Barnes, Spofforth's reputation was enhanced by feats in minor cricket. Less distinction was made back then between the various levels of the game.

During the calendar year of 1878 Spofforth took 655 wickets in all cricket at an average of 6.27. This is almost certainly a record. Some of his 64 matches were against odds, giving a wickets-per-match ratio of 10.2. They took place during every month of the year except April and in five different countries: Australia, New Zealand, England, USA and Canada.

A couple of years later in 1880 he claimed 607 wickets at 5.49 in 52 matches, a ratio of 11.7 per match.

 

[HookShot]

Medium-pace was a catch-all description for many bowlers in the 19th century, including some we would now regard as orthodox spinners like Trumble.

Turner seems to have been faster on average than Lohmann. Spofforth and Lohmann were regarded as modern bowlers with high actions and good control over their variations. Turner was a throwback to the previous era. A very strong man, he gained something of a reputation as a wet-wicket specialist and could be almost unplayable on a helpful pitch.

In first-class cricket (and Tests) Turner's numbers look better than Spofforth's, especially in Australia. Like Barnes, Spofforth's reputation was enhanced by feats in minor cricket. Less distinction was made back then between the various levels of the game.

During the calendar year of 1878 Spofforth took 655 wickets in all cricket at an average of 6.27. This is almost certainly a record. Some of his 64 matches were against odds, giving a wickets-per-match ratio of 10.2. They took place during every month of the year except April and in five different countries: Australia, New Zealand, England, USA and Canada.

A couple of years later in 1880 he claimed 607 wickets at 5.49 in 52 matches, a ratio of 11.7 per match.

Don’t disagree with any of the above.

However, the big question is….do Barnes, O’Reilly, Chandrasekhar, Kumble, Afridi all fall into the same ‘medium pace’ category as Spofforth, Lohmann, Turner and Trumble?

Can we categorise them as roughly the same because of their similar ‘fastish’ pace, and because of the spin ‘n work that they put on the ball? Not to mention the sheer variety of their deliveries.

Or to put it another way, has their been a specific spin bowling tradition that spans all the way from the Spofforth to Kumble that we haven’t quite recognised?

I realise that I am pushing the boundaries, but I think that’s the main point of forums anyway.

 

[Starfighter]

Or to put it another way, has their been a specific spin bowling tradition that spans all the way from the Spofforth to Kumble that we haven’t quite recognised?

No

 

[Starfighter]

Let's see what the grand old man, W.G. himself, has to say on these three, in 1891:

His style has been described many times: right-hand, round-arm, a high delivery and fairly fast, with a break from both sides, but chiefly from the off. He was most successful with his medium-pace balls, which, when he was in form, he could pitch where he liked. Whether he broke six inches or two feet, so wonderful was his command of the ball that if it beat the batsman it invariably hit the wicket. His very fast ones were generally yorkers, which were delivered without any apparent alteration of pace. Length and accuracy were his great characteristics, and it used to be said of him that, if he were allowed to pour water on a space six inches square on a dry and hard wicket, he would bowl out the best eleven in England for a very small score.

His pace is above medium, but not very fast; but, with the exception of Freeman, his ball comes quicker oft the pitch than any bowler's I have met. That peculiarity, added to his break from the off, makes him a most dangerous bowler. He alters his pace without showing it, is very fond of a yorker or fast straight one, and on a sticky wicket is unplayable.

He bowls right-hand, round-arm, above medium pace—indeed he might almost be classed as fast—has a beautiful action, and keeps a splendid length ; and he alters pace without altering his action, which is one of the strongest characteristics of a first-class bowler. His command of the ball is half the secret of his success. To a right-hand batsmen he bowls on or just outside the off-stump, and breaks back very quickly, but now and then he puts in a very fast one withShould a left-hand batsman follow, especially if he can hit well on the leg-side, he pitches everything on the wicket or off-stump, varying it with a faster one, breaking slightly from the off to leg. But the ball he has been as successful with as any is a simple straight good-length one without any break. The batsman expects something exceptional from him every ball, and never thinks that he will treat him with such an easy one, and so while he is looking for the break his wicket is bowled down. He has a brilliant future before him, possessing good health, strength, and stamina.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

How did JJ Ferris compare with them? Was he a rarity as a left armer. Also does anyone have an idea of what speeds Kortright bowled at?

 

[Starfighter]

How did JJ Ferris compare with them? Was he a rarity as a left armer

He may be safely considered the best left-hand bowler that has ever come from Australia; the only one likely to question his right to it being Mr. Frank Allan, who accompanied the first team in 1878. Ferris bowls medium-pace, keeps a splendid length, and as a rule breaks from leg; but occasionally he puts in a beauty which comes with his arm. Like Turner, he alters his pace with good judgment; but he is more reliable on a perfect wicket, not caring a bit about being hit, and he can keep up his end as pluckily as any one.

Also does anyone have an idea of what speeds Kortright bowled at?

95 mph according to some writer in a news article from the thirties I read a couple of years ago...

 

[HookShot]

No

But we do apparently have a benchmark speed for Charles Turner‘s ‘medium-paced’ bowling according to the Woolwich Arsenal - ‘81 ft per second’ which works out to be 55 mph or 89 kph. It’s possibly a bit low, but it couldn’t have been that far off his standard delivery.

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18931028.2.29.11

And so, we could easily conceive the early ‘medium-paced’ off or leg break bowlers operating at about Anil Kumble’s speed. Sometimes slower, sometimes faster.