-
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.
Can you beat for the cricket guru title?
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
archie mac
International Coach
Over 500 runs in a series, without scoring a ton?burkey_1988 said:Oh no, forgot that it means I now ask a question
Clem Hill achieved a dubious record in the 1901/1902 series against England. Others to have achieved this include Mike Atherton and Graham Thorpe. What is the record ?
archie mac
International Coach
Thanks Burkey.
Here is a quote, tell me the player
"I want to play with my mates and the blokes who can catch"
Here is a quote, tell me the player
"I want to play with my mates and the blokes who can catch"
archie mac
International Coach
archie mac said:
Clue: There were two Australian teams at the time
archie mac
International Coach
Clue: he was a fast bowlerarchie mac said:Clue: There were two Australian teams at the time
archie mac
International Coach
About as close as you good be, but no not LilleeBoyBrumby said:
archie mac
International Coach
That is correct BB. Your turnBoyBrumby said:Thomson then?
archie mac
International Coach
Ernie Jones?BoyBrumby said:
archie mac
International Coach
Who did Ranji dedicate his famous book to? 'The Jubilee book of Cricket'
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I will be doing this from now. Some archive on the people, stories behind the answers.
Ernie Jones
Opinions differ considerably on the question, Who was the best fast bowler? The passing of Ernest Jones, the noted Australian bowler who came to England with the 1896, 1899 and 1902 teams has raised again this absorbing topic. One of the few cricketers of long experience who can speak on the subject as an authority is the old Cambridge and England captain and Yorkshire player, Sir Stanley Jackson. He readily accepted an invitation to a chat, and has been good enough to agree to his opinion being set down in Wisden.
Of all the fast bowlers the Australians have sent to this country, I think Jones was the best in my time. I have very good reasons for remembering him, as I took part in the first match he played in this country against Lord Sheffield's XI at Sheffield Park, Sussex, in 1896. He was one of the most powerful men I ever met. I believe he was a miner, and in his early days of the tour was very wild in his delivery. This was probably because the Australians came practically straight off the ship to the match and were short of practice. Jones gave me the impression that his main effort was to show his immense pace. The wicket was dry and he bowled short, bumpy stuff.
I went in first with W. G. Grace and we had to dance about a bit. One ball from Jones hit W. G. under the arm, and later in the innings another one went head-high past him and over Kelly's head to the boundary. This was the ball about which the Beard Story originated. I can see W. G. now. He threw his head back, which caused his beard to stick out. Down the pitch went W. G., stroking his beard, to Harry Trott and said: "Here, what is all this?" And Trott said: "Steady, Jonah." To which Jones made that famous remark: "Sorry, Doctor, she slipped." I do not think the ball actually touched W. G.'s beard. That story was told after-wards, and I believe I was responsible. When I was out and returned to the Pavilion, I said: "Did you see that one go through W. G.'s beard?" The ball was bouncing, and only Ranji appeared to like it. The pace that Jones was bowling impressed me because in the second innings, when I had made about 10, I had the misfortune to stop one with my ribs, but with the assistance of W. A. J. West, the umpire, who rubbed me, I was able to continue my innings.
( F. S. Jackson was not out 95 when the match was left drawn.-- EDITOR.)
When I went to London I had a good deal of pain, and my father sent for the doctor, who said, "It's cracked horizontally." He strapped me up, and I did not play for three weeks. Within a month of Sheffield Park I faced Jones at Lord's in the M.C.C. match, and he came up to me and said, "I am terribly sorry", and he clasped my hand in a vice-like grip that left me wondering which was the more painful--my hand or broken ribs.
Following those early incidents, Harry Trott took Jones in charge and changed him into a very fine bowler. He made him shorten his run and taught him the value of length and control. Jones developed a beautiful action. I believe it has been suggested that he threw, but this I personally regard as absolutely absurd. At that time, the action of some bowlers was not fair, and Sydney Pardon, by his campaign in Wisden, did valuable work towards stamping out the trouble.
I think it is often forgotten that bowlers, well supported by the field, are the match-winners. You can generally find plenty of batsmen, but genuine bowlers are scarce.
Although I never played against him, I would say that Larwood appeared to me the best fast bowler I saw. I have a great admiration for him, with his beautiful rhythmic run and a perfect action which gave him complete control over pace, direction and length. It was these qualities that made him such a fine bowler. I think that he achieved this because at the moment he delivered the ball he was poised high in the air with his left shoulder well up and pointing towards the wicket. It was then that he was complete master of himself, and the control at the end of his run gave him time to deliver the ball the way he wanted. Jones was similar.
Tom Richardson and Lockwood were great bowlers. Lockwood appeared to me the more difficult of the two owing to his ability to change his pace imperceptibly. He had more kinds of deliveries, and his variety, with an occasional very fast ball, made him great. I think Cotter for a few overs was a bit faster than Jones. Kortwright was generally regarded as the fastest bowler of his time in this country. Not only was he a very fast bowler, but also a very good one.
While on this subject of bowlers I am very sorry that, besides Jones, another old Australian friend, Charles Turner, has passed away. I always regarded Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against. He had a graceful run and lovely action, with clever change of pace. I recall my first Test match (1893) at Lord's; I had made 91 when, late cutting one from Turner that kept lower than I expected, I was splendidly caught by Blackham. It was a grand catch. His gloves must have been almost under my bat, and he remarked "Bad luck, youngster. It is one of the biggest flukes I ever had." In that innings England scored 334, and Turner's analysis was: 36 overs, 16 maidens, 67 runs, 6 wickets.
F. S. Jackson, then captain of Cambridge, got his runs out of 137, added with Shrewsbury for the third wicket.-- EDITOR.
We are now thinking of cricket after the war and the best way to improve it. One of the most vital things is the preparation of wickets, and here Jones comes into the story again. The practice of artificial preparation was started by Apted at the Oval in 1899, and he had every excuse. There is very little soil there; within three inches, I believe, you come to gravel. It was the final Test Match, and Hayward (137) and I (118) each made a hundred. We scored 185 for the first wicket in two hours fifty minutes. During our stand Jones, who altogether bowled 53 overs and took four wickets for 164 runs, came to me and tossing the ball up in the air, let it light on the pitch. Instead of bouncing a bit, it stopped dead, and Jones said: This is going to ruin cricket.
So, you see, as far back as then we had our problems. Unfortunately one cannot lay down a set rule for making pitches because nearly every ground requires different treatment, but we must try to prepare pitches so as to provide a more even struggle between the bowler and batsman without making the conditions dangerous.
In Yorkshire we never put on anything artificial following the end of March. After that, merely roll and water. We used to get real sticky wickets. I remember the time at Sheffield when a side that made 70 against us on a sticky wicket did well because we had such bowlers as Schofield Haigh, Wainwright, Peel, Hirst, Rhodes and myself. Yes, I used to bowl, and I enjoyed it more than batting.
In 1902 at Leeds, F. S. Jackson and Hirst dismissed the Australians in the second innings for 23, each taking 5 wickets. Jackson's analysis was 7-1-12-5. The last four wickets fell to him in five balls. Hirst's five wickets cost nine runs. Each took four wickets in the first innings, Jackson's costing 30 and Hirst's 35. The two bowlers were mainly responsible for Yorkshire winning by five wickets. The Australians only other defeat that season was in the Test Match at the Oval when England won by one wicket.
Wisden Almanack 1944
An article looking back at chucking:
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/138634.html
Bowlers no balled for throwing in a test:
E Jones Aus v Eng Melbourne 1898
GAR Lock Eng v WI Kingston 1954
GM Griffin RSA v Eng Lord's 1960
Haseeb Ahsan Pak v Ind Bombay 1960
I Meckiff Aus v RSA Brisbane 1963
Abid Ali Ind v NZ Christchurch 1968
SMH Kirmani Ind v WI Bridgetown 1983
DI Gower Eng v NZ Nottingham 1986
HK Olonga Zim v Pak Harare 1995
M Muralitharan SL v Aus Melbourne 1995
GW Flower Zim v NZ Bulawayo 2000
Ernie Jones
Opinions differ considerably on the question, Who was the best fast bowler? The passing of Ernest Jones, the noted Australian bowler who came to England with the 1896, 1899 and 1902 teams has raised again this absorbing topic. One of the few cricketers of long experience who can speak on the subject as an authority is the old Cambridge and England captain and Yorkshire player, Sir Stanley Jackson. He readily accepted an invitation to a chat, and has been good enough to agree to his opinion being set down in Wisden.
Of all the fast bowlers the Australians have sent to this country, I think Jones was the best in my time. I have very good reasons for remembering him, as I took part in the first match he played in this country against Lord Sheffield's XI at Sheffield Park, Sussex, in 1896. He was one of the most powerful men I ever met. I believe he was a miner, and in his early days of the tour was very wild in his delivery. This was probably because the Australians came practically straight off the ship to the match and were short of practice. Jones gave me the impression that his main effort was to show his immense pace. The wicket was dry and he bowled short, bumpy stuff.
I went in first with W. G. Grace and we had to dance about a bit. One ball from Jones hit W. G. under the arm, and later in the innings another one went head-high past him and over Kelly's head to the boundary. This was the ball about which the Beard Story originated. I can see W. G. now. He threw his head back, which caused his beard to stick out. Down the pitch went W. G., stroking his beard, to Harry Trott and said: "Here, what is all this?" And Trott said: "Steady, Jonah." To which Jones made that famous remark: "Sorry, Doctor, she slipped." I do not think the ball actually touched W. G.'s beard. That story was told after-wards, and I believe I was responsible. When I was out and returned to the Pavilion, I said: "Did you see that one go through W. G.'s beard?" The ball was bouncing, and only Ranji appeared to like it. The pace that Jones was bowling impressed me because in the second innings, when I had made about 10, I had the misfortune to stop one with my ribs, but with the assistance of W. A. J. West, the umpire, who rubbed me, I was able to continue my innings.
( F. S. Jackson was not out 95 when the match was left drawn.-- EDITOR.)
When I went to London I had a good deal of pain, and my father sent for the doctor, who said, "It's cracked horizontally." He strapped me up, and I did not play for three weeks. Within a month of Sheffield Park I faced Jones at Lord's in the M.C.C. match, and he came up to me and said, "I am terribly sorry", and he clasped my hand in a vice-like grip that left me wondering which was the more painful--my hand or broken ribs.
Following those early incidents, Harry Trott took Jones in charge and changed him into a very fine bowler. He made him shorten his run and taught him the value of length and control. Jones developed a beautiful action. I believe it has been suggested that he threw, but this I personally regard as absolutely absurd. At that time, the action of some bowlers was not fair, and Sydney Pardon, by his campaign in Wisden, did valuable work towards stamping out the trouble.
I think it is often forgotten that bowlers, well supported by the field, are the match-winners. You can generally find plenty of batsmen, but genuine bowlers are scarce.
Although I never played against him, I would say that Larwood appeared to me the best fast bowler I saw. I have a great admiration for him, with his beautiful rhythmic run and a perfect action which gave him complete control over pace, direction and length. It was these qualities that made him such a fine bowler. I think that he achieved this because at the moment he delivered the ball he was poised high in the air with his left shoulder well up and pointing towards the wicket. It was then that he was complete master of himself, and the control at the end of his run gave him time to deliver the ball the way he wanted. Jones was similar.
Tom Richardson and Lockwood were great bowlers. Lockwood appeared to me the more difficult of the two owing to his ability to change his pace imperceptibly. He had more kinds of deliveries, and his variety, with an occasional very fast ball, made him great. I think Cotter for a few overs was a bit faster than Jones. Kortwright was generally regarded as the fastest bowler of his time in this country. Not only was he a very fast bowler, but also a very good one.
While on this subject of bowlers I am very sorry that, besides Jones, another old Australian friend, Charles Turner, has passed away. I always regarded Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against. He had a graceful run and lovely action, with clever change of pace. I recall my first Test match (1893) at Lord's; I had made 91 when, late cutting one from Turner that kept lower than I expected, I was splendidly caught by Blackham. It was a grand catch. His gloves must have been almost under my bat, and he remarked "Bad luck, youngster. It is one of the biggest flukes I ever had." In that innings England scored 334, and Turner's analysis was: 36 overs, 16 maidens, 67 runs, 6 wickets.
F. S. Jackson, then captain of Cambridge, got his runs out of 137, added with Shrewsbury for the third wicket.-- EDITOR.
We are now thinking of cricket after the war and the best way to improve it. One of the most vital things is the preparation of wickets, and here Jones comes into the story again. The practice of artificial preparation was started by Apted at the Oval in 1899, and he had every excuse. There is very little soil there; within three inches, I believe, you come to gravel. It was the final Test Match, and Hayward (137) and I (118) each made a hundred. We scored 185 for the first wicket in two hours fifty minutes. During our stand Jones, who altogether bowled 53 overs and took four wickets for 164 runs, came to me and tossing the ball up in the air, let it light on the pitch. Instead of bouncing a bit, it stopped dead, and Jones said: This is going to ruin cricket.
So, you see, as far back as then we had our problems. Unfortunately one cannot lay down a set rule for making pitches because nearly every ground requires different treatment, but we must try to prepare pitches so as to provide a more even struggle between the bowler and batsman without making the conditions dangerous.
In Yorkshire we never put on anything artificial following the end of March. After that, merely roll and water. We used to get real sticky wickets. I remember the time at Sheffield when a side that made 70 against us on a sticky wicket did well because we had such bowlers as Schofield Haigh, Wainwright, Peel, Hirst, Rhodes and myself. Yes, I used to bowl, and I enjoyed it more than batting.
In 1902 at Leeds, F. S. Jackson and Hirst dismissed the Australians in the second innings for 23, each taking 5 wickets. Jackson's analysis was 7-1-12-5. The last four wickets fell to him in five balls. Hirst's five wickets cost nine runs. Each took four wickets in the first innings, Jackson's costing 30 and Hirst's 35. The two bowlers were mainly responsible for Yorkshire winning by five wickets. The Australians only other defeat that season was in the Test Match at the Oval when England won by one wicket.
Wisden Almanack 1944
An article looking back at chucking:
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/138634.html
Bowlers no balled for throwing in a test:
E Jones Aus v Eng Melbourne 1898
GAR Lock Eng v WI Kingston 1954
GM Griffin RSA v Eng Lord's 1960
Haseeb Ahsan Pak v Ind Bombay 1960
I Meckiff Aus v RSA Brisbane 1963
Abid Ali Ind v NZ Christchurch 1968
SMH Kirmani Ind v WI Bridgetown 1983
DI Gower Eng v NZ Nottingham 1986
HK Olonga Zim v Pak Harare 1995
M Muralitharan SL v Aus Melbourne 1995
GW Flower Zim v NZ Bulawayo 2000
archie mac
International Coach
I enjoyed that, the King met the Australian players, after finding out Ernie Jones was from Adelaide, he asked "did you attend Prince Alfred College?" Jones replied "yes I take the dust bin there every Tuesday"
archie mac
International Coach
Well done SJS, your turnSJS said:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Ranjitsinhji - Wisden Cricketer of the year 1897
KUMAR SHRI RANJITSINHJI, the young Indian batsman who has in the course of four seasons risen to the highest point of success and popular favour, was born on the 10th of September, 1872. When he first began to be talked about, the statement gained currency that he knew nothing whatever of cricket before coming to England to complete his education, but on this point Ranjitsinhji has himself put the world right. It is true that when he went up to Cambridge he had nearly everything of the real science to learn, but he had played the game in his school days in India, and was by no means such an entire novice as has sometimes been represented. It was in 1892 that the English public first heard his name, and there is little doubt that he ought that year to have been included in the Cambridge eleven. Naturally then he was not then the great batsman he has since become, but he made lots of runs in college matches, and was already a brilliant field. The authorities at Cambridge perhaps found it hard to believe that an Indian could be a first-rate cricketer, and at the complimentary dinner given to Ranjitsinhji at Cambridge on September 29th-when his health was proposed by the Master of Trinity -- Mr. F. S. Jackson frankly acknowledged he had never made so great a mistake in his life as when he under-estimated the young batsman's powers. However, Ranjitsinhji's opportunity came in 1893 when, in his last year at the University, he, to his great delight, gained a place in the Cambridge eleven. It was not his good fortune to do much against Oxford at Lord's--getting out for nine in the first innings, and without a run in the second--but on the whole he batted very well, scoring 386 runs with an average of 29 and coming out third in the Cambridge averages. Moreover he had the honour of being chosen for the South of England against the Australians at the Oval, and though his real greatness as a batsman was as yet scarcely suspected, he made himself a very popular figure in the cricket world, his free finished batting and brilliant work in the field earning him recognition wherever he went. Having left Cambridge, and not being yet qualified for Sussex,his opportunities in 1896 were very limited, and in first-class matches he only played sixteen innings. Still he did well, averaging 32 with an aggregate of 387 runs. For the immense advance he showed in 1895, it is safe to say that very few people were prepared. Qualified by this time for Sussex, he made a truly sensational first appearance for the county against the M. C. C. at Lord's, scoring 77 not out, and 150, and almost winning a match in which Sussex had to get 405 in the last innings. From this time forward, he went on from success to success, proving beyond all question that he was now one of the finest of living batsmen. In the first-class averages for the year, he ran a desperately close race with A. C. MacLaren and W. G. Grace, scoring 1775 runs with the splendid average of 49. Of these 1775 runs all but nine were obtained for Sussex, his energies being so entirely devoted to the county that, rather than stand out of the Sussex and Hampshire match, he declined the invitation of the M.C.C. committee to appear for the Gentlemen at Lord's. What Ranjitsinhji did last season is set forth in full detail on another page of WISDEN'S ALMANACK, and there is no need to go twice over the same ground. It will be sufficient to say that he scored more runs in first-class matches than had ever been obtained by any batsman in one season, beating Mr. Grace's remarkable aggregate of 2739 in 1871. While giving the Indian player, however, every credit for his extraordinary record, it must always be borne in mind that while he averaged 57 last season, Mr. Grace's average in 1871 was 78. As a batsman Ranjitsinhji is himself alone, being quite individual and distinctive in his style of play. He can scarcely be pointed to as a safe model for young and aspiring batsmen, his peculiar and almost unique skill depending in large measure on extreme keenness of eye, combined with great power and flexibility of wrist. For any ordinary player to attempt to turn good length balls off the middle stump as he does, would be futile and disastrous. To Ranjitsinhji on a fast wicket, however, everything seems possible, and if the somewhat too-freely-used word genius can with any propriety be employed in connection with cricket, it surely applies to the young Indian's batting.
KUMAR SHRI RANJITSINHJI, the young Indian batsman who has in the course of four seasons risen to the highest point of success and popular favour, was born on the 10th of September, 1872. When he first began to be talked about, the statement gained currency that he knew nothing whatever of cricket before coming to England to complete his education, but on this point Ranjitsinhji has himself put the world right. It is true that when he went up to Cambridge he had nearly everything of the real science to learn, but he had played the game in his school days in India, and was by no means such an entire novice as has sometimes been represented. It was in 1892 that the English public first heard his name, and there is little doubt that he ought that year to have been included in the Cambridge eleven. Naturally then he was not then the great batsman he has since become, but he made lots of runs in college matches, and was already a brilliant field. The authorities at Cambridge perhaps found it hard to believe that an Indian could be a first-rate cricketer, and at the complimentary dinner given to Ranjitsinhji at Cambridge on September 29th-when his health was proposed by the Master of Trinity -- Mr. F. S. Jackson frankly acknowledged he had never made so great a mistake in his life as when he under-estimated the young batsman's powers. However, Ranjitsinhji's opportunity came in 1893 when, in his last year at the University, he, to his great delight, gained a place in the Cambridge eleven. It was not his good fortune to do much against Oxford at Lord's--getting out for nine in the first innings, and without a run in the second--but on the whole he batted very well, scoring 386 runs with an average of 29 and coming out third in the Cambridge averages. Moreover he had the honour of being chosen for the South of England against the Australians at the Oval, and though his real greatness as a batsman was as yet scarcely suspected, he made himself a very popular figure in the cricket world, his free finished batting and brilliant work in the field earning him recognition wherever he went. Having left Cambridge, and not being yet qualified for Sussex,his opportunities in 1896 were very limited, and in first-class matches he only played sixteen innings. Still he did well, averaging 32 with an aggregate of 387 runs. For the immense advance he showed in 1895, it is safe to say that very few people were prepared. Qualified by this time for Sussex, he made a truly sensational first appearance for the county against the M. C. C. at Lord's, scoring 77 not out, and 150, and almost winning a match in which Sussex had to get 405 in the last innings. From this time forward, he went on from success to success, proving beyond all question that he was now one of the finest of living batsmen. In the first-class averages for the year, he ran a desperately close race with A. C. MacLaren and W. G. Grace, scoring 1775 runs with the splendid average of 49. Of these 1775 runs all but nine were obtained for Sussex, his energies being so entirely devoted to the county that, rather than stand out of the Sussex and Hampshire match, he declined the invitation of the M.C.C. committee to appear for the Gentlemen at Lord's. What Ranjitsinhji did last season is set forth in full detail on another page of WISDEN'S ALMANACK, and there is no need to go twice over the same ground. It will be sufficient to say that he scored more runs in first-class matches than had ever been obtained by any batsman in one season, beating Mr. Grace's remarkable aggregate of 2739 in 1871. While giving the Indian player, however, every credit for his extraordinary record, it must always be borne in mind that while he averaged 57 last season, Mr. Grace's average in 1871 was 78. As a batsman Ranjitsinhji is himself alone, being quite individual and distinctive in his style of play. He can scarcely be pointed to as a safe model for young and aspiring batsmen, his peculiar and almost unique skill depending in large measure on extreme keenness of eye, combined with great power and flexibility of wrist. For any ordinary player to attempt to turn good length balls off the middle stump as he does, would be futile and disastrous. To Ranjitsinhji on a fast wicket, however, everything seems possible, and if the somewhat too-freely-used word genius can with any propriety be employed in connection with cricket, it surely applies to the young Indian's batting.