A history of fast bowling

[Starfighter]

England went on the 1950/51 Ashes tour with one of their weakest attacks to have left their shores, having left more proven players such as Coxon and Jackson at home. Bedser was the only bowler of class but Trevor Bailey's newfound success helped buoy them in the first two tests. It was just as well England had dropped a batsman to strengthen the bowling for the third test, as Bailey had a thumb broken by Lindwall and Wright pulled a hamstring. But the lack of ability of England's backup seamer was brutally exposed.

John Warr seems to have been selected more for being young and going to Cambridge than for his potential to take wickets on the often difficult Australian surfaces (although the pitches in this series would prove quite amenable to bowling). His two tests yielded just one wicket and the impressive bowling average of 281, the worst in tests at the time (passed by Wijesuriya and Bopara since). His debut performance of 0/142 was the worst at the time (since surpassed by McGain). Although a lively and cheerful presence in the team he simply did not have the pace or movement needed to get wickets in Australia, and seems to be another instance of an England 'character pick'. He later went on to captain Middlesex.

As England fans watch Chris Woakes whang down his ineffective dross overseas they can be rest assured that it has all happened before.

All these are from jumbled collections of footage from the third test in 50/51, a lot of the collections cover the same clips.

(and at 8:58, from the other end)

 

[the big bambino]

I've expressed before that 'fast medium' often (though not always) meant what is equivalent to the higher end of medium (or sometimes medium-fast) these days, something that persisted up until the mid fifties (Bedser was 'fast medium', but Cartwright was just 'medium'). And it was quite rare for teams to have more than one bowler who would be fast-medium by today's definition. The big shift seems to coincide with pitch covering becoming increasingly common, which destroyed the genuine medium pacer's place in the game.

The terms medium, medium fast and fast medium are completely subjective. Three people could describe the same bowler differently. Wisden described Tate, Geary and Hammond as medium. I've seen Bedser referred to as all three during his career in reports from Trove. Cricinfo describes Abbas medium fast and Philander and fast medium. Also Trent Copeland but Chadd Sayers medium and then Adam Dale fast medium: go figure. Then again the descriptions change from time to time depending on who's commentating. Cartwright was medium but his contemporary, the similiar Shackleton, medium fast. But cricinfo calls him medium.

All these bowlers bowled around the same pace and throughout their careers. A uniformity despite the subjective and interchangeable application of their category. But as the above list shows this type of bowler still has a place now. I think of Oxenham, Hornibrook, Hurwood as the medium bowlers. England acknowledged the importance of such a bowler in Australia when they picked the ill fated Sam Staples to fill that role. Invaluable in timeless tests because they could fulfil many roles. Mainly as stock bowler who wouldn't go down with injury in matches on shirt fronts over 6 or 7 days. They were even more valuable to state teams in the shield because of that fact and they were versatile enough to use the new ball as well. Think of the times. Budgets were parsimonious and travelling a trial. Teams, like Qld for example, went on their southern tour with 12 players. That's not much room for error. So you won't pick 3 fast bowlers in a 12 man squad when they are the type of player most likely to go down injured. Much better to pick the medium bowler who can bowl across the innings, bowl dry and wait the batsmen out. When timeless matches went, budgets improved and the tyranny of distance overthrown, the case for the medium pacer became obsolete.

 

[Starfighter]

A bit out of order, it's time for someone who I didn't expect to be posting in this thread.

they may still not feature in this thread in a few weeks or months or whatever period of time, as the footage is of a nature, and posted on a channel, that is liable to get taken down due to copyright. It's a tremendous shame the BBC (and ABC in Australia) will zealously guard footage they also clearly think has no commercial value. There are hours of footage that could easily be posted on an official Youtube channel or on some other free service that would provide hours of interest. Yet they would rather disparage its historical and entertainment value and sit on it while intending to do nothing with it.

Up until yesterday I had never seen Les Jackson bowl, never heard of anyone who had seen video of him, and only ever seen one picture of him in the middle of his action. It was thus hard to build a picture of one of England's most unfortunate cricketers. For Jackson only played two tests, one in 1949 and one in 1961, when he was 40. He did not overly impress on a flat pitch in 1949, and in 1961 he was merely a fill in for Statham, bowling well enough on a dry pitch (though nothing like Trueman, who cutting his pace and increasing his cut, took 11 wickets). In between he consistently cleaned up for Derbyshire, eventually ending with over 1700 first-class wickets.

But what of the bowler himself? It is often repeated that part of the reason for Jackson's exclusion was the selectors did not like his slinging bowling action. Yet the footage will attest that his action was completely normal for the late forties. Pivoting smartly into a side on position, he moved his hand from beside his hips to snap it from just behind the line of his back like a slingier Keith Miller. There's no exaggerated extension like a Lindwall and with his arm close to vertical he could maintain his renowned line and length while darting it about off the seam. An economical twelve pace run let him bowl long spells at a sharp pace. He was probably high fast-medium rather than fast by today's standard - Harold Rhodes says (presumably in the mid-late fifties) he was similar to Anderson and Broad in pace, and he played most of his career after 30. But at the end of the forties, at his physical peak, the was perhaps no other bowler in England who could discomfort the batsmen like him.

So why wasn't he picked more? It certainly wasn't his action (especially when Peter Loader's far odder, and suspect, action was acceptable). His batting incompetence definitely didn't help (his top score in 418 matches was 39*). He was sometimes considered a home track bully on Derbyshire's green pitches, though the figures showed he was successful on most surfaces (ironically by the time he finished up Derbs' pitches were well on their way to becoming total featherbeds). Trueman and Statham emerged in the early fifties and were both better and significantly faster, but there's no reason Loader (not that much better a bat) or Moss (a class below as a bowler) should have been preferred, until you see which counties they played for. The most telling example in in 1950, when Jackson was passed over for the Ashes tour in favour of Warr, a far less capable bowler (though Jackson did go on a Commonwealth tour after being passed over and broke down with an elbow injury, so it may have been a moot point). Jackson left school for the mines at 16 and played for an unfashionable county, Warr was a Cambridge blue and played for a London county. All in all his exclusion from the England cricket team was probably down to prejudice of county and class, a problem that dogs English cricket to this day.

(there is a very good chance that if you are viewing this post at a later date this video will have been removed)

 

[Cricnerd]

A brilliant and incredibly insightful thread. Thank you. A few thoughts with regard to the style of bowling in the early 20th century faster bowlers. As has been observed, apart from Gregory and one or two others, there isn't much of a leap as they approach the crease. I'm wondering if part of the reason for this is that most of them had to bowl on wet wickets. In early Wisdens, writers will often bemoan the fact that so and so fast bowler couldn't really bowl because it was a wet summer or wicket. Or that Richardson, for instance, bowled brilliantly despite it being so damp. If you leap on a wet wicket, then you really are likely to do yourself an injury if you're fast bowler. So in order to get the work and renew their contracts for the following summer, fast bowlers by necessity would have been better off with a contained action. Also, over-arm bowling was fairly new, so evolution from under arm to round arm to modern bowling meant adding a bounding leap was a huge change.

 

[Blenkinsop]

I would have thought the lack of a leap might have more to do with the back-foot no-ball rule, which allowed bowlers to deliver from nearer the batsman by 'dragging' the back foot.

 

[Cricnerd]

I would have thought the lack of a leap might have more to do with the back-foot no-ball rule, which allowed bowlers to deliver from nearer the batsman by 'dragging' the back foot.

Good point which I hadn't thought of.

 

[Starfighter]

I would have thought the lack of a leap might have more to do with the back-foot no-ball rule, which allowed bowlers to deliver from nearer the batsman by 'dragging' the back foot.

Good point which I hadn't thought of.

An interesting discussion. I personally think the lack of leap is probably down to the much softer, less reliable pitches and also less adequate footwear. There were certainly some bowlers (like Spofforth) who leapt fairly high, but most of the ones we have footage or photographs of evidently don't. In comparison the exaggerated drag doesn't become really prominent until a bit later, especially post-WWII.

One thing which exaggerates the difference is that bowlers then, even those who leapt higher, did not tuck their legs up nearly as much as bowlers today. In my opinion this seems to promote a flatter, more secure landing for the back foot.

 

[Burgey]

Echo the earlier comments about the quality of this thread. It's exceptional.

The last clip you posted had some highlights of Davo batting, which was a big bonus from my POV. What a cricketer he was.

 

[Starfighter]

Harold Larwood bowling to Sutcliffe, Hutton and Leyland in a Notts Vs Yorkshire game, 1936. Sutcliffe absolutely determined to get behind the line of the ball. Leyland more attacking than I expected, while Verity’s action is superb.

Read the last line of the OP

 

[HookShot]

Read the last line of the OP

Video deleted.

 

[Starfighter]

Video deleted.

Thankyou. One day I might get to work on this thread again - I've had a lot happening and the later ones are harder as the footage is more dispersed, but I want people to be able to go through it and see things (roughly) in order. My intent was to demonstrate the overall changes in style over the decades.

 

[HookShot]

Thankyou. One day I might get to work on this thread again - I've had a lot happening and the later ones are harder as the footage is more dispersed, but I want people to be able to go through it and see things (roughly) in order. My intent was to demonstrate the overall changes in style over the decades.

BTW I don’t put credence on that famous film of Arthur Mold bowling in 1901 as he was 38, rotund, on the verge of retirement and merely ‘going through the motions’ in the nets.

I think that a young Arthur Mold bowling off a long run up in a competitive match would have been an entirely different proposition.

 

[Cricnerd]

BTW I don’t put credence on that famous film of Arthur Mold bowling in 1901 as he was 38, rotund, on the verge of retirement and merely ‘going through the motions’ in the nets.

I think that a young Arthur Mold bowling off a long run up in a competitive match would have been an entirely different proposition.

Yes Mold is interesting - and agree it's unfair to judge him from this film. You watch that film and think, "Surely people can't have considered that fast!?" Being kind he looks military medium, around 70 mph.

However, that run up is probably the one he used in first class matches. According to Wisden he bowled off a short run up (and that was a time when of course a fast bowler's run up was much shorter than today). The film was shot to prove he wasn't a chucker/thrower. He was fighting for his career and livelihood. His problem was that he probably was a thrower and in the film was doing his damnest to bowl with a fair delivery.

But he was for the time a fast bowler. He was seen as just as fast as Richardson - who bowled off 15-18 paces and who Wisden regularly talks up as being "tremendously fast." Also, when MacDonald and Gregory toured in 1921, commentators lamented that we had nothing to fight back with - that our own pace bowlers were nothing like as fast as those of the 'golden age.'

I reckon that a younger Mold, complete with dodgy throw, was pretty quick - and much quicker than the film - where as you say he was 38 and well past his peak. The throw must have added some pace. He did bowl bouncers, he was fast for the time (when protective equipment was basic to put it mildly) and I would have thought his fastest ball was probably in the low 80s.

 

[Starfighter]

At 47 seconds, one of the SA players walks out to field smoking a fag.

That's from the crowd.

 

[Brook's side]

Nw we come to the country that has produced more than its fair share of quick bowlers. While the West Indies is known for its spindly, bloody tall bowlers like Garner, Ambrose and at a more modest pace, Holder (and Tony Gray, who has the greatest proportion of legs to torso I've ever seen on anybody), this wasn't always so. The West Indian bowlers we will meet here (including a couple of later ones) are varied style wise, but they're all about 5'8". This isn't uncommon for the era, Larwood, Cotter and Walter Brearley were about the same height as well, among others, but it would be very unusual today, when diets are richer and people of such height are steered away from being pace bowlers.

The first bowler shown close up in the video below was oldest and slowest, Herman Griffith and though sometimes credited with being fast, is perhaps more accurately described as fast-medium for the era, at least when he debuted at age 34 (at least Wisden agrees). With a shuffling run of maybe ten steps, a modest but distinctive leap and low front arm he was nonetheless a much respected and even feared bowler throughout the Caribbean. Interestingly, some newspapers I've seen, and Don Bradman, call him 'Griffiths', a mistake also commonly suffered by Charlie Griffith three decades later. Why?
The other one is much more well known, the ever popular Learie Constantine. Also an explosive though inconsistent batsmen and all round box office figure, his popularity in the Lancashire league made him one of the highest paid sportsmen in Britain. Earlier in his career, as shown in the 1928 film, Constantine was a tearaway and at times one of the fastest bowlers around. Although his run of ten paces was a short for an express bowler even then he had big, powerful strides and an explosive leap of rare size for the era. Later on when he played league cricket he smoothed out the action and cut down the pace most of the time, instead substituting subtlety.

One might note the dropped catch at gully off Constantine at the end of the video. The 1928 West Indies team was an exceptionally poor fielding side, quite possibly the worst ever to play tests, and their slips catching was especially bad, with disastrous outcomes for a team reliant on their pace bowlers. And as you can see, the drop was a relative dolly.

The third of these fast bowlers was George Francis, who came between in age and pace, and possessed an even higher, more abrupt jump at delivery, again nothing special for these days but very remarkable at the time.

1933, when he was recalled at age 36 for the first test against England

Constantine and Francis bowling together in Australia in 1930.

Constantine in 1938, notice how different his action is.

One thing I learned from the reading the Australian newspapers of the 30/31 people was that the 'being nice' epithet for people of African descent was 'dusky'. Try getting that in a paper these days...

Interesting how close the square leg umpires are standing in these videos.

Does this suggest lack of power in the batting?

Conversly, Constantine has a lightning and smooth action.

 

[Brook's side]

That's from the crowd.

Ah yes, my bad. Apols.

 

[the big bambino]

Cognitive abilities seem to have declined to the point we can no longer distinguish players on the field to spectators watching them.

 

[peterhrt]

Les Jackson playing only two Tests remained a talking point for some time. The professionals always rated him. Graveney said he was the best bowler in the country and Trueman reckoned he was the most consistent. From an Australian perspective, Lindwall could not fathom why he wasn't picked more often.

There were rumours that certain amateur selectors didn't like him, notably Gubby Allen and Freddie Brown. When challenged, Brown claimed that Jackson couldn't come back strongly for second and third spells. Given that stamina was something that Jackson was noted for, this doesn't ring true. Allen, ever conscious of appearances, reportedly didn't think he looked like an international bowler, ironic given the dodgy actions under his watch. Mike Carey's biography of Jackson suggests that another selector, Bob Wyatt, might have believed his early-career more open-chested delivery would not be effective on good pitches against high-class opponents.

Amateur batsmen thought differently. Dexter later said Jackson was the best bowler he ever faced. Cowdrey made the following observation:

“By unshakeable tradition, fast bowlers picked for Test matches are genuinely fast. Thus over a period of five years, Trueman and Statham were automatically selected for Test matches at Lord's when they were not necessarily the best bowlers suited to the conditions. Lord's during those years was a seamers' paradise and had England picked Les Jackson, plus Derek Shackleton and Tom Cartwright, we would have been more successful.

Against those three men I would not have backed a visiting team, whatever its reputation, to make above 200 in an innings more than once in 20 attempts. The trouble was we never had the courage to come to terms with seam bowling.”

Trueman and Statham played together six times at Lord's between 1955 and 1961. England won four of those matches but lost the two against Australia, which is probably what Cowdrey is referring to. Cowdrey was captain in the 1961 Ashes Test. For the following Test at Leeds May returned as skipper and Jackson was selected in place of the injured Statham. Maybe Cowdrey had a word.

 

[Brook's side]

England went on the 1950/51 Ashes tour with one of their weakest attacks to have left their shores, having left more proven players such as Coxon and Jackson at home. Bedser was the only bowler of class but Trevor Bailey's newfound success helped buoy them in the first two tests. It was just as well England had dropped a batsman to strengthen the bowling for the third test, as Bailey had a thumb broken by Lindwall and Wright pulled a hamstring. But the lack of ability of England's backup seamer was brutally exposed.

John Warr seems to have been selected more for being young and going to Cambridge than for his potential to take wickets on the often difficult Australian surfaces (although the pitches in this series would prove quite amenable to bowling). His two tests yielded just one wicket and the impressive bowling average of 281, the worst in tests at the time (passed by Wijesuriya and Bopara since). His debut performance of 0/142 was the worst at the time (since surpassed by McGain). Although a lively and cheerful presence in the team he simply did not have the pace or movement needed to get wickets in Australia, and seems to be another instance of an England 'character pick'. He later went on to captain Middlesex.

As England fans watch Chris Woakes whang down his ineffective dross overseas they can be rest assured that it has all happened before.

All these are from jumbled collections of footage from the third test in 50/51, a lot of the collections cover the same clips.

(and at 8:58, from the other end)

@4.50 in the third one, bowling with a leg slip and a leg gully. Then they just seem to stay in the same place for the right hander!!!

I look forward to having a proper look through this thread, and the "historical footage" one. Great stuff posted.

 

[Brook's side]

I might try to put together a list/simple spreadsheet of the bowlers shown on the thread, together with their approx era, and a comment based on the video (and any comment made on the thread about how they were contemporaneously regarded).

Won't be til next week though until I make any meaningful progress.