richie benaud's greatest 11

[C_C]

^ 1850s/60s or 1950s/60s ?

latter one.

 

[Josh]

I'd consider it a professional sport for much longer than that. Just because the levels of skill, technique, etc. have changed in recent times doesn't mean that at the time of Barnes, etc, that the sport was not professional for the time. Just because everything is better these days just means it's a different level of professionalism.

 

[marc71178]

There were professionals in the 1850s, certainly.
I'm pretty sure, too, that it dates back further still.

Yes, but the game was not professional, both in terms of attitudes of the players and the proliferation of amateurs.

 

[benchmark00]

Well when saying that cricket was or was not professional, all youd have to do is find out if they got paid for playing... simple as that, no more debate really needs to come from that.... however it has several definitions so you have to state which one you are talking about i.e. Attitudes etc.

 

[Richard]

latter one.

You really don't know your history, do you?
Professional cricket started in the 1850s\60s at the absolute latest.

 

[Richard]

i'm sure George Lohmann wasn't too bad either but we don't hear an awful lot about him except when it comes to statistics

That's because he was a very typical bowler of the period - who would very probably have done not much on 20th-century pitches (certainly post-1930 ones).
Barnes was a totally different case.

 

[Richard]

and he had the conditions to help him do that. its extremely hard to say that someone would still have been able to bowl well if he didnt have the conditions to help him, and certainly we know off many bowlers who can be lethal when the conditions help them and yet go to become mediocre when they dont.

We have indeed - we also have plenty of evidence that Barnes could do stuff with the ball that we've never seen anyone else do, at his time or after it.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but the game was not professional, both in terms of attitudes of the players and the proliferation of amateurs.

Certainly it only became a majority-professional sport at the very end of the 19th-century.
Nonetheless there were professionals around well before then and certainly cricket was played in a comparable manner to today in the early 19th-century. So it is purely-and-simply incorrect to say that cricket's embryonic stages were any time in the 20th-century.

 

[C_C]

You really don't know your history, do you?
Professional cricket started in the 1850s\60s at the absolute latest.

I would like you to read the book " A social history of English Cricket" by Derek Birley and then tell me if i know my cricketing history or not.

Cricketers didnt turn professional - payment AND attitude-wise, until the late 1950s/early 1960s.

 

[marc71178]

You really don't know your history, do you?
Professional cricket started in the 1850s\60s at the absolute latest.

No, professionals in Cricket started at that time.

Cricket was far from professional back then.

 

[Richard]

I know - it only became a professional-majority sport in the late 19th-century.
Nonetheless the thing in the 1800s was comparable to an embryo; in the 1900s (The Golden Age) it was much more comparable to teenage years.

 

[Richard]

I would like you to read the book " A social history of English Cricket" by Derek Birley and then tell me if i know my cricketing history or not.

Cricketers didnt turn professional - payment AND attitude-wise, until the late 1950s/early 1960s.

I'd like you to read some other stuff.
You might find the first people to be paid for playing cricket happened at least 100 years previously.
It became a professional majority sport in the late 19th-century, and from that age it can be said to have a "professional attitude".

 

[marc71178]

It did not become professional majority that early.

It was also far from professional until well after the Second World War.

 

[tooextracool]

We have indeed - we also have plenty of evidence that Barnes could do stuff with the ball that we've never seen anyone else do, at his time or after it.

and because someone who watched him bowl in the early 1900s said that, it means that he could do whatever it is he did( which for all we know was possibly just a googly or something of the sort) on a normal test match wicket now? and that in itself would be assuming that these people who watched him bowl from the 1900s were actually accurate.

 

[bryce]

We have indeed - we also have plenty of evidence that Barnes could do stuff with the ball that we've never seen anyone else do, at his time or after it.

the only evidence whatsoever there is of that AFAIK is unreliable personal accounts, i say unreliable because people who saw barnes bowl wouldn't have seen todays players bowl, let alone you making that statement

 

[tooextracool]

the only evidence whatsoever there is of that AFAIK is unreliable personal accounts, i say unreliable because people who saw barnes bowl wouldn't have seen todays players bowl, let alone you making that statement

i like the way he makes such a bold claim when he never watched barnes bowl and hasnt watched at least half of warnes career.

 

[C_C]

I'd like you to read some other stuff.
You might find the first people to be paid for playing cricket happened at least 100 years previously.
It became a professional majority sport in the late 19th-century, and from that age it can be said to have a "professional attitude".

I mentioned one of the many books I've read.
Another one perhaps you should try is 'beyond the boundary' by CLR James.

And i thought we had already established that being paid doesnt necessarily mean you have a professional attitude.
Professional attitude in sports didnt exist till this century and in the case of cricket, it didnt exist till late 50s/early 1960s.

 

[Richard]

If you ask some people.
If you ask others, you might find different ideas.

 

[Richard]

It did not become professional majority that early.

It was also far from professional until well after the Second World War.

Well I don't know the exact figures but it was always said that a team of professionals (not that that was ever an option before the 1960s) was always better than one of amateurs.
The annual Players v. Gentleman match was usually Player-dominated during the 20th-century.

 

[Richard]

and because someone who watched him bowl in the early 1900s said that, it means that he could do whatever it is he did( which for all we know was possibly just a googly or something of the sort) on a normal test match wicket now? and that in itself would be assuming that these people who watched him bowl from the 1900s were actually accurate.

Everyone said he bowled far more deliveries, with far better accuracy, at far greater speed, than most spinners.
They also said he could bowl more than one style with considerable success, something not many have been able to do.
Even Sobers never managed to bowl any of his styles with extraordinary success.
We can fairly safely say that the definitions of all the above haven't changed much down the years.