Cricketweb poster with the best understanding of the game

[C_C]

in addition, playing a fend off the body, a perfectly fine way of playing the short ball (when performed correctly), is virtually completely eliminated by the presence of these short legs, which of course aren't there for the skied pull or hook shot, but are there to take any chances which may arise from trying to play a straight bat shot to the short pitched bowling.

Short leg, fwd. short leg, etc. and other close-in fielders are allowed in the modified law. It only prohibits more than 2(i think?) fielders in the arc between square leg and fine leg.

Exactly. The Murali tensions between Australia and Sri Lanka when Ranatunga led his team off the field and the BCCSL accused Hair of being racist were nothing on the tensions that these so-called "amatuer" cricketers inspired back in the days of bodyline.

What has politics gotto do with the quality of cricket played is beyond me. So is the outrage caused by bodyline the barometer for the quality of professionalism and cricketing nous exhibited on the field ?
if that is so, then forget brazil vs France or Brazil vs Argentina, no one plays a higher quality and more professional soccer than Costa Ricans and Salvadorians...they went to WAR over a soccer game once.

It has been yes, but you're comparing batting on uncovered wickets, with no fielding restrictions and a technique that isn't as well honed to players who had the benefit of covered pitches, restrictions on leg-side field, and (in the later part of the 70's) helmets.

Pitches wernt covered till the 60s anyways. And i think covered/uncovered issue is massively overrated. The primier shortfall of bodyline players was the lack of technique to play short pitched hostile bowling... for through the 70s and 80s, it was short pitched, into the body all the time by better and faster bowlers all the world over.
Oh and helmets didnt become popular until the mid/late 80s....most of the batsmen batted without a helmet till mid/late 80s and in anycase, it is there to prevent injury...helmet or no helmet, it certainly doesnt enhance/compromise your skill to face the short-pitched stuff.

This is of course unquestionable, and nobody is actually disagreeing with you there. The issue at hand is WHEN exactly cricket was in its unprofessional infancy when a good player could stand head and shoulders above the pack with relative ease. Was W.G. Grace playing in an era when a true great would stand out more due to poor overall comparitive standards? How about Lohmann? Trumper? Hobbs? Sutcliffe? Bradman? Hammond? Sobers? Barrington? RG Pollock? G Chappell? Richards? Lara? Tendulkar?

it is not a question of timeline. A sport existing for 100 years since the early 1800s doesnt necessarily mean it is gonna be professional within 20-30 years or so of existing.
Professionalism comes with attitude and comes with making it a profession.
Granted that many players even as early as 1880s were 'professionals'- depending on cricket for livelihood. But were everyone ? No. Until the 50s, you still had namby pamby amatuers who were evening/weekend warriors.
The sport wasnt no-holds-barred and that is a key essence to professionalism.
And not until well into the 50s did cricket become a really professional sport and the field quality standardised. I take late 50s/post 50s era as that is really when the sport became professional. Amatuer sport doesnt mean that nobody takes it seriously. But it does mean that NOT EVERYBODY takes it seriously. which is why in almost all amatuer sports (look at amatuer boxing today for eg), the quality is wildly different.

 

[Swervy]

CC..can I ask a question (and no hidden meanings or anything intended)...have you played Cricket before???

 

[C_C]

Yes..quiete a bit actually...but not recently. Its tough to play cricket in the great white north

 

[Swervy]

Yes..quiete a bit actually...but not recently. Its tough to play cricket in the great white north

nightmare...why dont you start a team up or something...must be tough not being able to play when you want to

 

[C_C]

well as much as i like cricket, my first love has always been tennis....that is the only sport i took seriously and competed in juniors....besides cricket is really tough to start up in north america..... not enough time to play it...i once went to stanley park to play cricket but they had a no bouncer-no yorker rule.... and you bowl too fast ( 82-83mph for these guys) and they ask you to bowl spin....
But if i move to a cricket-friendlier country, i can see myself playing it regularly...

 

[Tapioca]

Here we go round the mulberry bush ...

The primier shortfall of bodyline players was the lack of technique to play short pitched hostile bowling...

I think the point that was being made in the last two pages was that no amount of technique would have helped the batsmen against the line & height of the ball and field that was being employed in that series. Now we are back to the starting point.

Professionalism comes with attitude and comes with making it a profession. etc

Yeah, and I suppose all the athletes of the past were hopeless. What was Jesse Owens' best time for 100 m ? 10.3 ? Bah. He would struggle to get into the finals in the Asian games with that sort of time. His fame is nothing but hype

 

[Swervy]

well as much as i like cricket, my first love has always been tennis....that is the only sport i took seriously and competed in juniors....besides cricket is really tough to start up in north america..... not enough time to play it...i once went to stanley park to play cricket but they had a no bouncer-no yorker rule.... and you bowl too fast ( 82-83mph for these guys) and they ask you to bowl spin....
But if i move to a cricket-friendlier country, i can see myself playing it regularly...

****..when I bowl these days I have no control on whether its a bouncer or a yorker ...I would have no chance over there then

 

[C_C]

For me, controlling the length was never a problem or producing any kinda delivery.....leg cutter, off cutter, outswinger, inswinger, etc...all except reverse swing... what really was a problem for me was controlling the line.
Really sprayed it around.
Man i am missing playing cricket already

 

[C_C]

Yeah, and I suppose all the athletes of the past were hopeless. What was Jesse Owens' best time for 100 m ? 10.3 ? Bah. He would struggle to get into the finals in the Asian games with that sort of time. His fame is nothing but hype

10.3 isnt that great a time really. Almost every meet there are atleast 3-4 sub 10.3 sec. runners....

I think the point that was being made in the last two pages was that no amount of technique would have helped the batsmen against the line & height of the ball and field that was being employed in that series. Now we are back to the starting point.

I disagree. I think the players in the 70s,80s and for parts of the 90s did display the required technique to play bodyline-esque bowling.
Like i said, the field placings are being overhyped.... fwd short leg still sits there trynig to catch the awkward fend and the hook can be well patrolled with fine leg/square leg and a dude or two in between.

The huge uproar was with those players getting hit...when getting hit was dime a dozen later on and was nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Until the 50s, you still had namby pamby amatuers who were evening/weekend warriors.
The sport wasnt no-holds-barred and that is a key essence to professionalism.
And not until well into the 50s did cricket become a really professional sport and the field quality standardised. I take late 50s/post 50s era as that is really when the sport became professional. Amatuer sport doesnt mean that nobody takes it seriously. But it does mean that NOT EVERYBODY takes it seriously. which is why in almost all amatuer sports (look at amatuer boxing today for eg), the quality is wildly different.

So who are these "namby pamby amatuers" who played in the Bodyline series?

 

[C_C]

Australian squad + English squad - Bradman - Grimmett - O'Reiley = Namby Pamby

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australian squad + English squad - Bradman - Grimmett - O'Reiley = Namby Pamby

One of the dumbest things I have ever read on any cricket forum.

Jack Fingleton, Stan McCabe, Bill Woodfull, Herb Ironmonger, Harold Larwood, Bill Voce, Herbert Sutcliffe, Douglas Jardine, Walter Hammond and Hedley Verity are "namby pamby amatuers"? This is a list that includes one of the most dedicated and ruthless captains the game has ever seen, one who shook the cricket world to its core because of his confrontational and brutal tactics aimed at undermining the strength of his opposition, one of the great fast bowlers of all time, two of the greatest ever middle order batsman and one of the top four or five best openers of all time, and probably the best left-arm spinner the game has ever seen - the one bowler who consistently challenged the greatest batsman the game has seen..

Amatuers? The Bodyline series is one of the most consistently strong in test history based on the net ability of the players on both sides, for you to dismiss it as the business of amatuers shows your complete lack of understanding of both the term and the state of cricket at the time.

 

[C_C]

Jack Fingleton, Stan McCabe, Bill Woodfull, Herb Ironmonger, Harold Larwood, Bill Voce, Herbert Sutcliffe, Douglas Jardine, Walter Hammond and Hedley Verity are "namby pamby amatuers"?

YES!
All of them in my opinion would struggle to dislodge the ritchie richardsons and Damien Flemings of the world IMO.

his is a list that includes one of the most dedicated and ruthless captains the game has ever seen, one who shook the cricket world to its core because of his confrontational and brutal tactics aimed at undermining the strength of his opposition, one of the great fast bowlers of all time, two of the greatest ever middle order batsman and one of the top four or five best openers of all time, and probably the best left-arm spinner the game has ever seen - the one bowler who consistently challenged the greatest batsman the game has seen..

TWO of the greatest ?
Listen mate, McCabe is by no means a great - not of his era and not of any era. Had a good but not great average even in HIS timeframe....and i've NEVER rated a person based on one innings of blinding brilliance....else i would include Lawrence Rowe before any other batsman since WWII
And best left arm spinner ?
Piffle.... i consider that an affront to Bedi/Iqbal Qasim and Underwood akin to comparing Ashley Giles with Anil Kumble.
Get past the media hogwash and romanticism and look into reality.....amatuer era with widespread standard of cricket that lead to a few off the scale performances....consistent with amatuer sports the world over.
I've said it a million times and i am not gonna repeat it again.
You can buy that BS..i certainly aint.

Amatuers? The Bodyline series is one of the most consistently strong in test history based on the net ability of the players on both sides, for you to dismiss it as the business of amatuers shows your complete lack of understanding of both the term and the state of cricket at the time.

Ability ?
Ability to do what ? hop around like bunny rabbits in face of decent short pitched pace bowling.
All those nincompoops(bradman excepted) wouldnt last 5 minutes with that 'technique' against Holding-esque or Lillee-esque chin music.
I dont rate the abilities of Larwood, Voce, Ponsford, Hammond etc. highly at all.....no more than 35-40 ave. bowlers and 40-45 ave batsmen of the modern era.

 

[vic_orthdox]

it all depends on how you measure a player and his worth. it'd be possible to argue that if a hammond, mccabe or the such came through a modern day system, then they'd have the required skills to make it. you can't say that these people wouldnt make it in current times when if they were to, they'd have access to better coaching, have more refined techniques and be used to facing quicker (if they were quicker, i don't know and TBH, don't really care) bowling.

 

[C_C]

t all depends on how you measure a player and his worth. it'd be possible to argue that if a hammond, mccabe or the such came through a modern day system, then they'd have the required skills to make it. you can't say that these people wouldnt make it in current times when if they were to, they'd have access to better coaching, have more refined techniques and be used to facing quicker (if they were quicker, i don't know and TBH, don't really care) bowling.

Well that really applies to anyone in any era then, isnt it ? Makes any sort of comparison arbitary, even between players with 5 years playing gaps...
the only way you can quantifiably compare is take the skillset a player has displayed in the-then era and transpose them in another to see how their aquired and exhibited skills match up.
Although i must point out that access to better coaching doesnt necessarily translate to 'i am gonna make shortpitched bowling my b!tch when i actually was the one initially bending over and clenching my teeth'....Zaheer Abbass is a quintissential example of this.... was one of the best ever, if no THE best ever player of spin and slow stuff...but accurate short pitched fast stuff and he was like a cat on hot tin roof.....
I dont think it is a garantee that some of the players who ****ed upon themselves facing Voce and Larwood would do better against MUCH superior Holding-Marshall or Lillee-Thommo merely by having better coaching...possible i agree...but a very longshot IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I dont think it is a garantee that some of the players who ****ed upon themselves facing Voce and Larwood would do better against MUCH superior Holding-Marshall or Lillee-Thommo merely by having better coaching...possible i agree...but a very longshot IMO.

On the contrary, I would say players who handled Voce and Larwood without the restriction on leg-side fielders, bouncers per over, covered wickets, protective gear etc would be quite dominant in the later era when they had these things. Of course, no players really handled Voce and Larwood well, but McCabe and Bradman did well enough with all that stacked against them that it can be assumed they had the necessary skillset to play fast, accurate, short-pitched bowling extremely well, and I think if they played in an era where such things were more common they would be excellent players of it. It could be argued that the likes of Fingleton, Woodfull and Ponsford, while great players, did not handle short, fast bowling very well under the circumstances, at least in comparison to the way they played other bowling throughout their careers.

 

[C_C]

On the contrary, I would say players who handled Voce and Larwood without the restriction on leg-side fielders, bouncers per over, covered wickets, protective gear etc would be quite dominant in the later era when they had these things.

Aye. A 27-30 average in an era of namby pambies, uncovered pitches, no protection etc. compares with 20-21 average of Imran,Holding,Lillee etc....
You can romanticise that era as much as you want.
Fact is, they wernt competent against DECENT bowlers bowling hostile bowling....they stand no chance against alltime greats, significantly faster and much better trained/fitter.

t could be argued that the likes of Fingleton, Woodfull and Ponsford, while great players, did not handle short, fast bowling very well under the circumstances, at least in comparison to the way they played other bowling throughout their careers.

Empirical comparisons make Fingleton,Woodfull,Ponsford, Hammond etc. quiete a bit off compared to the superior trained and tested greats of the much more challenging era of professionalism.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Empirical comparisons make Fingleton,Woodfull,Ponsford, Hammond etc. quiete a bit off compared to the superior trained and tested greats of the much more challenging era of professionalism.

Not many people put Fingleton, Woodfull and Ponsford in all-time XIs. In terms of their era, they were more in the Damien Martyn/Inzamam sort of category, where they were excellent players but not as brilliant as the likes of Bradman, Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe etc.

Hammond of course is a different issue, averaging in the 60s for most of his career and recognised as a near equal to Bradman at times, also a handy medium pacer and possibly the greatest slip fielder to ever play the game.

 

[C_C]

Not many people put Fingleton, Woodfull and Ponsford in all-time XIs. In terms of their era, they were more in the Damien Martyn/Inzamam sort of category, where they were excellent players but not as brilliant as the likes of Bradman, Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe etc.

empirically that would put them about level with the Saurav Gangulys and Graham Thorpes of the world.

Hammond of course is a different issue, averaging in the 60s for most of his career and recognised as a near equal to Bradman at times, also a handy medium pacer and possibly the greatest slip fielder to ever play the game.

I am sure keeping to medium/fast medium pacers in the slips is just as challenging as keeping to real fast bowlers.... and near equal to bradman ? says who ? the english press ?
pffffffft. That period had one distinct #1 and one distinct #2 - Bradman and Headley respectively....all the rest take a backseat to these two....

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I am sure keeping to medium/fast medium pacers in the slips is just as challenging as keeping to real fast bowlers.... and near equal to bradman ? says who ? the english press ?
pffffffft. That period had one distinct #1 and one distinct #2 - Bradman and Headley respectively....all the rest take a backseat to these two....

Towards the end of the 1920s Bradman was quite new on the scene and had not yet done his stuff in England, and Hammond was averaging in the 70s. There was a big buildup to the 1930 Ashes series in England about who was the best batsman in the world - in the previous Ashes series in Australia Hammond had scored 905 runs at 120 or so and set the record for runs in a series, while a young Bradman had scored 486 at 60 or so. The series was discussed as being the test to see who was better... Bradman scored 974 to break Hammond's record with a new one that still stands, while Hammond had a poor time of it in comparison and managed just 306 runs. At this time they were clearly number 1 and 2 in the world, and George Headley had not even began his career.

Even after Headley began, he never really set himself apart as number two in the world. He dominated on the two English tours of the West Indies in his career, but only played one series against Australia and didn't do all that well. At that time the Ashes was still clearly the dominant issue in world cricket, and both Bradman and Hammond were dominant in Ashes series as was Sutcliffe in the same time period, and Hobbs a few years earlier. Headley was in the same group as these players and perhaps was the second best, but it wasn't by as far as you make out here.