Jager
International Debutant
AWTA. Migara giving me migraines here
-
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.
SF Barnes
- Thread starter zaremba
- Start date
the big bambino
International Captain
Not to labour a point (well I guess I am) other well known pace men to have stumping dismissals are Morne Morkel and Yasir Arafat the Pakistani quick. I've seen keepers stand up to Ryan Harris too. Another man with stumping dismissals is Waqar Younis. People may have heard of him. Back in the 1890s Tom Richardson didn't have any stumping dismissals (though I recall a story abt a keeper daring to stand up to him and his captain told him to stand back bcos the bowler eased up in pace). Richardson's contemporary, the famous Bill Lockwood, had 4 stumpings even though he was said to be nearly as fast as Richardson.
Last edited:
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's all Knotty's fault
the big bambino
International Captain
O'Reilly blamed Bradman when he deputised for his injured keeper in a state game, understandably stood back for anything over medium pace, and insisted it was best for keepers to stand back.
archie mac
International Coach
Yes I have read that; Tiger was not a fan, although Tiger was rarely a fan of anything the Don did
the big bambino
International Captain
Mind you, and to clarify, I think it is to the credit of a pace bowler if he has the control to enable a keeper to stand up and bring stumping into play. A keep standing up adds pressure to the batsman as he always has to think where his feet are. This thread has taken a funny turn whereby a fast bowler is somehow diminished if he has stumping credits to his name. As if pace is the equivalent of penis size and to bowl with guile almost effeminate.
One interesting aspect of the Mold clip is his low, almost round arm delivery. Those who saw Mold and wrote of his style mention that he had a high action when he began playing but it became progressively lower; a fact borne out by the film. Since the film verifies this observation by the writers of the time perhaps we can also believe them when they said he previously bowled with a high action and very quickly.
One interesting aspect of the Mold clip is his low, almost round arm delivery. Those who saw Mold and wrote of his style mention that he had a high action when he began playing but it became progressively lower; a fact borne out by the film. Since the film verifies this observation by the writers of the time perhaps we can also believe them when they said he previously bowled with a high action and very quickly.
Migara
International Coach
Looks like we have a real expert here. Bah! Do you know that even in a net session bowlers action does not change much, unless he uses a different one explicitly. Mold walking up and rolling arm once is a pathetic apologetic description. And simply with that **** action he cannot be fast. Unless you prove me that his normal action was different, I just laugh at your wishful thinking.Oh yes. I think I remember you now. You were one of the gents in a top hat. Must have been you to know Mold was bowling seriously.
Do you watch cricket? Anyone who has knows when a bowler is taking a net seriously. Whether its Mold walking up to a stump and idly rolling his arm over or Mitch Johnson bowling over his wrist.
Just as an aside beligerently rehashing your opinions after they have been dealt with is not impressing anyone.
Migara
International Coach
Running back to FC cricket where the bowlers don't operate at full intensity is a joke. The fact is early test "fast" bowlers have stumping, and modern ones have none. Running to FCC is to clutch on to another straw to defend a flimsy logic.
And using a match four seasons after Marshall has retired is another joke.
Last edited:
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They're not going to get any while 'keepers stand back
I have to say I don't understand why so much weight is being put on that clip of Mold in the nets - as far as we know that is the only time he was ever filmed and in those days there was no such thing as action photography - everything was posed and we simply have no way at all of knowing what was going on in that clip
Last edited:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
How come the onus of proof is on him? You're the one who brought this as evidence to suit your case so you're the one who has to prove it.
Migara
International Coach
You should read up the discussions first mate.
I posted video evidence to say Mold's action was apalling. And it was TBB sho brought up that he was joking in a net session. I have my video evidence, and onus is on others duty to prove he was joking.
Migara
International Coach
The original idea of posting this was to say that pace of bowlers of early 1900s were overestimated / hyped up by so called cricket historians. The exercise was to, fast medium that describes Barne's pace, is no where close to fast medium we describe these days (130-135k), but couple of dozens of kms lower.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
So you decided based on the evidence that he wasn't a quick bowler, the burden of proof is with you.
However since you've got no counter to the perfectly logical reasoning as to the reasoning behind his appearance in the video, the most significant being his age, you'll try and claim to be right about this when you clearly aren't.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It is of course true that there have been great improvements over the years in most sports - all athletics records keep going north, although much less rapidly now that the improvements in tracks, footwear, clothing etc have pretty much hit a plateau.
Golfers hit the ball miles further, and tennis players much faster, but their equipment has improved immeasurably over the years.
Soccer and Rugby have much less equipment, and the changes there relate as much to tactical innovation and higher standards of fitness but even then the difference between modern balls and the old fashioned leather ones, which were still in use when I were a lad in the 60s and 70s, especially when they got wet, means they are different games.
Cricket bats have changed, and as a general rule the modern ones hit the ball further, but I reiterate my point about Albert Trott - but a cricket ball has barely changed at all, and the last major change in bowling anything other than spin came in 1864 when overarm bowling was legalised, so I don't see why 21st century bowlers should necessarily be any swifter than those from the 19th century
It is true that up until the 1890s pitches were a lot rougher, so there was no need to bowl particularly fast, but that all changed then when improved pitches altered the game forever. Once that happened bowling fast became important as speed alone was a means of beating batsmen, particularly as swing as we know it today was an underdeveloped skill, so I'm quite happy to accept the accounts of those that were there that the likes of Mold, Tom Richardson, Walter Brearley and Charles Kortright were distinctly sharp
Golfers hit the ball miles further, and tennis players much faster, but their equipment has improved immeasurably over the years.
Soccer and Rugby have much less equipment, and the changes there relate as much to tactical innovation and higher standards of fitness but even then the difference between modern balls and the old fashioned leather ones, which were still in use when I were a lad in the 60s and 70s, especially when they got wet, means they are different games.
Cricket bats have changed, and as a general rule the modern ones hit the ball further, but I reiterate my point about Albert Trott - but a cricket ball has barely changed at all, and the last major change in bowling anything other than spin came in 1864 when overarm bowling was legalised, so I don't see why 21st century bowlers should necessarily be any swifter than those from the 19th century
It is true that up until the 1890s pitches were a lot rougher, so there was no need to bowl particularly fast, but that all changed then when improved pitches altered the game forever. Once that happened bowling fast became important as speed alone was a means of beating batsmen, particularly as swing as we know it today was an underdeveloped skill, so I'm quite happy to accept the accounts of those that were there that the likes of Mold, Tom Richardson, Walter Brearley and Charles Kortright were distinctly sharp
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
To classify bowlers as slow because the keepers stood up to them is the most ridiculous argument one has ever heard. here on CW, one has heard the running down of the old keeping greats standing up to the stumps with the argument that the latter day practice of standing back was a more sensible thing to do because there was more 'percentage' in it. On the face of it this is not a line of thinking to be brushed aside for there is some merit in it although the older wicket keepers and the bowlers they stood up to will claim there is more to standing up by way of pressure on the batsman, restricting the movements of some out of the crease as some great batsmen did even to the quicker stuff but the argument that the chances of a snick being held are greater if a keeper is standing back than on the stumps is not one that can be easily brushed away.
So the great line of keepers who made standing up to the stumps to everyone, except the fastest, like Blackham, Oldfield and Strudwick needed to be admired for their quick reflexes for they not just brought up some great stumpings but also took snicks standing up which would be impossible without impeccable technique and awesome reflexes. However, if they had stood back, whether they would have had more or fewer victims is a point of debate.
No one ever argued that they stood up because the bowlers were not quick enough. This one is new :o). Blackham stood up to everybowler except Earnest Jones and, on a few occasions when Spofforth specifically told him he was going to unleash some really express stuff. Otherwise he stood up to Spofforth as well. No one, ever, has claimed that Spofforth was anything but fast medium most of the time.
Keeping and protection for keepers kept improving and greats like Oldfield and Strudwick were pastmasters at taking quick bowlers standing up. Look up the stumpings off the bowling of Kelleway (AUS - RAFM - 1 stumping), Douglas (ENG - RAFM - 2), John Ryder (AUS - RAFM - 2), Stork Hendry (AUS - RAFM - 1), Barnes (ENG - RAMF - 4), Bill Voce (ENG - LAF - 1) and Stan McCabe (AUS - RAM - 1) and you find that all barring two of these are the handiwork of Strudwick and Oldfield.
These are not a lot of stumpings compared to the number of wickets taken by the bowlers mentioned here. About 1 in 50 of the wickets of these bowlers came from stumpings. It is not like what Oldfield managed off the leg-spinners Mailey and Grimmett for example. One fourth of all wickets these bowlers took came from stumpings. That is the figure of a leg spinner as we understand the term not a bowler who moves the ball, off the wicket from leg to off at medium fast to fast medium pace.
The fact that there waer keepers in those times who stood up to quicker stuff is about the evolution/change in wicket keeping rather than a commentary on the speed of the bowlers. I have absolutely no doubt that, Oldfield would have insisted on standing up to someone like McGrath and who knows where his current record of 52 stumpings from 54 Test matches would have stood if he was a contemporary of our 'pigeon' !
Let me end by quoting from the book The Rattle of the Stumps by Bert Oldfield, the last of the great keepers after which standing back to anything except the slow stuff seemed to become the norm. He writes . . .
I am quoting this not to start another argument on which keepers are better, those who stand up or those who stay back. I am mentioning this just to highlight the fact that great keepers stood up to bowlers who were just short of express pace - all the time. It is not a reflection of the speed of the bowlers but of a trend in keeping (of staying back) which was not prevalent amongst the best stumpers. Oldfield, by the way, was Bradman's contemporary. I hope we are not of the opinion that all bowlers except those who bowled after the WW II were of doubtful speeds . . .
By the way, Spofforth's three stumped victims out of his 98 overall are a larger proportion that Barnes' 4 out of 189. I wonder if we should start catergorising the 'Demon' amongst the slow to slow medium 'spinners' as well
So the great line of keepers who made standing up to the stumps to everyone, except the fastest, like Blackham, Oldfield and Strudwick needed to be admired for their quick reflexes for they not just brought up some great stumpings but also took snicks standing up which would be impossible without impeccable technique and awesome reflexes. However, if they had stood back, whether they would have had more or fewer victims is a point of debate.
No one ever argued that they stood up because the bowlers were not quick enough. This one is new :o). Blackham stood up to everybowler except Earnest Jones and, on a few occasions when Spofforth specifically told him he was going to unleash some really express stuff. Otherwise he stood up to Spofforth as well. No one, ever, has claimed that Spofforth was anything but fast medium most of the time.
Keeping and protection for keepers kept improving and greats like Oldfield and Strudwick were pastmasters at taking quick bowlers standing up. Look up the stumpings off the bowling of Kelleway (AUS - RAFM - 1 stumping), Douglas (ENG - RAFM - 2), John Ryder (AUS - RAFM - 2), Stork Hendry (AUS - RAFM - 1), Barnes (ENG - RAMF - 4), Bill Voce (ENG - LAF - 1) and Stan McCabe (AUS - RAM - 1) and you find that all barring two of these are the handiwork of Strudwick and Oldfield.
These are not a lot of stumpings compared to the number of wickets taken by the bowlers mentioned here. About 1 in 50 of the wickets of these bowlers came from stumpings. It is not like what Oldfield managed off the leg-spinners Mailey and Grimmett for example. One fourth of all wickets these bowlers took came from stumpings. That is the figure of a leg spinner as we understand the term not a bowler who moves the ball, off the wicket from leg to off at medium fast to fast medium pace.
The fact that there waer keepers in those times who stood up to quicker stuff is about the evolution/change in wicket keeping rather than a commentary on the speed of the bowlers. I have absolutely no doubt that, Oldfield would have insisted on standing up to someone like McGrath and who knows where his current record of 52 stumpings from 54 Test matches would have stood if he was a contemporary of our 'pigeon' !
Let me end by quoting from the book The Rattle of the Stumps by Bert Oldfield, the last of the great keepers after which standing back to anything except the slow stuff seemed to become the norm. He writes . . .
It has become the modern practice to stand back from the wicket when keeping to all bowlers slightly over medium pace, this enables the batsman to enjoy greater liberty in using his footwork to turn good length balls into half-volleys.
It is the keeper's place to remain at the wicket to all types of bowling except "express" or fast bowling. It will be seen that it is far easier to take a catch standing close to the stumps as the angle of deflection increases as the ball continues on its way.
It is the keeper's place to remain at the wicket to all types of bowling except "express" or fast bowling. It will be seen that it is far easier to take a catch standing close to the stumps as the angle of deflection increases as the ball continues on its way.
I am quoting this not to start another argument on which keepers are better, those who stand up or those who stay back. I am mentioning this just to highlight the fact that great keepers stood up to bowlers who were just short of express pace - all the time. It is not a reflection of the speed of the bowlers but of a trend in keeping (of staying back) which was not prevalent amongst the best stumpers. Oldfield, by the way, was Bradman's contemporary. I hope we are not of the opinion that all bowlers except those who bowled after the WW II were of doubtful speeds . . .
By the way, Spofforth's three stumped victims out of his 98 overall are a larger proportion that Barnes' 4 out of 189. I wonder if we should start catergorising the 'Demon' amongst the slow to slow medium 'spinners' as well
Last edited:
the big bambino
International Captain
Exactly right SJS. You have explained in detail the point we have been trying to make in brevity. Keeping trends changed. From standing up to standing back. O'Reilly thought Bradman was instrumental in the change in practice. Otherwise we would see more stumpings off pace bowlers now and that would be a good thing.
As I mentioned earlier there are merits to standing up. A keeper puts pressure on a batsman's footwork if he stands up. But in the end the percentages argument has been favoured so keepers stand back.
Btw that Voce stumping came on the matting in Trinidad iirc. I've heard reports that Voce being a versatile bowler who could bowl slow spin to fast bodyline reverted to bowling cutters that match and won the game for England.
I have my own opinion as to what is the most pathetic argument I have heard in my short time on CW. It is the idea that bowlers don't take fc matches seriously so we should ignore stumpings they achieved in those games. HOWEVER a guy larking about in a net in 1901 and bowling to a 50 year old is considered positive proof of his speed and intent! The things some people will say just to justify the paucity of their argument. It makes me laugh and shake my head.
(Mind you I have seen keepers standing up to fast men in internationals - how would Migara rationalsie that?)
As I mentioned earlier there are merits to standing up. A keeper puts pressure on a batsman's footwork if he stands up. But in the end the percentages argument has been favoured so keepers stand back.
Btw that Voce stumping came on the matting in Trinidad iirc. I've heard reports that Voce being a versatile bowler who could bowl slow spin to fast bodyline reverted to bowling cutters that match and won the game for England.
I have my own opinion as to what is the most pathetic argument I have heard in my short time on CW. It is the idea that bowlers don't take fc matches seriously so we should ignore stumpings they achieved in those games. HOWEVER a guy larking about in a net in 1901 and bowling to a 50 year old is considered positive proof of his speed and intent!
The things some people will say just to justify the paucity of their argument. It makes me laugh and shake my head. (Mind you I have seen keepers standing up to fast men in internationals - how would Migara rationalsie that?)
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fast forward CW 2050:
Video proof Glenn McGrath was actually a SLOW bowler!!!!! (ignore the 136Km/h speed gun reading in the corner, speed cameras were terrible in 2005)
I mean, why else would Gilchrist stand up to him, huh?!
Video proof Glenn McGrath was actually a SLOW bowler!!!!! (ignore the 136Km/h speed gun reading in the corner, speed cameras were terrible in 2005)
I mean, why else would Gilchrist stand up to him, huh?!
the big bambino
International Captain
And look at his physique. A man that skinny can't bowl 85mph...