Sobers slams Australia and Shane Warne Performances

[C_C]

So there's less FC teams around now then there was 50 years ago then is there?

Don't think so.

As usual, you miss the point and the analogy.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Maybe so, but you missed my point (and you didn't even reply to my latest one).

 

[C_C]

You still don't get my point.

My comeback to that was that as it moves up to 50% over time, so over time would quality of education, so roughly the same number of people would still pass.

No not really. Harder you make the standards, harder it is to make the cut. Simply because everyone has their 'wall' where they platau out. The exceptional performers would've made the cut while taking a hit sometimes...but many of the dibbly dobblies of the 30s and 40s were simply not good enough to get into the squad in the 70s or 80s or 90s.

With professionalism, many players dont make the cut...thats why when many grandslam winner tennis players turned pro they got promptly pasted.

 

[Francis]

Umm...you ever seen/heard of Sobers hooking ? All along the turf.
Tendy mostly hooks it along the turf too.

They can do that all they'd like, but they're not going to get many balls past the field. And sooner or later one of those balls just has to be a little in the air and they're out.

Like i said, i would rather face Lee bowling bouncers at my head with the legside packed than Holding bowling bouncers at my head with no legside fielding.

Why? I mean you'd be scared to death facing Holding, no doubt. But batsman can dodge and weave. Just because Holding balls a bouncer doesn't mean your gonna get hit. And eventually he'd try something different that would allow you to score. I mean it's getting silly if you think people and just pull or hook somebody who's bowling fast all the time without one shot going up in the air. If that's all you've got as a scoring option, then you have to go for it. All it would take is the ball to hit one part of the pitch that would give a varying bounce.

And every single ball bowled was not a bouncer either - most of the wickets fell to offside play, signifying that the leg theory tactic was nothing more than trying to intimidate batsmen through the notion of bodily harm and then mixing it around a bit to outfox him. Some fell to the legside, most to the offside.

I'd like to see some proof of this, a source of whatever. I've seen plenty of things on bodyline and when I'd look at the fields on tape, I never saw an off-side fielder. I mean I've heard Bradmans ay it time and time again, his problem with the series was that there was no where to go with the field.

And that kind of tactics has been done many times since by bowlers far superior in quality to Larwood.

Tactic? The tactic involved nine players on the leg-side. That tactic died in 1933.

Whatever you think bodyline was... this is the accurate story of bodyline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

 

[Francis]

I'd like to see you face Larwood with 7 short legs, no helmet and a rolled-up newspaper for a thigh pad.

You really haven't got a clue what you are rabbiting on about.

I like C_C a lot. In my short time here I'd say I enjoy reading him more than anybody else. He makes cricket web more interesting with his insightful thoughts. But I have to agree here. To say you can just pull or hook with seven short legs when a ball jerk off the seam at you need to protect your body with the bat... well it's just completely non-sensical.

No point in me continuing to argue this really when we all know bodyline wasn't an exaggerrated form of intimidation bowling. It was a means of "no way out." Why argue an argument when you know the very core which the argument is based on is false? No point.

 

[C_C]

I'd like to see some proof of this, a source of whatever. I've seen plenty of things on bodyline and when I'd look at the fields on tape, I never saw an off-side fielder. I mean I've heard Bradmans ay it time and time again, his problem with the series was that there was no where to go with the field.

Mostly throughout bodyline, they had 3-4 fielders behind square leg and bowling at the body.
But the slip cordon was still there and most of the dismissals were either caught-out in the slips/offside, lbw or bowled. Not many wickets fell in the legside actually.
That is what i glean from most books i've read about bodyline.

 

[Richard]

It WAS an amatuer era. It fits the definition of the word 'amatuer' for the overwhelming BULK of the players in pre 1960s world.
Some amatuers were able to hold their own while some wernt.
The essential thing to realise is that the nature of amatuer era is to have a very widely spread level of competitiveness.
In essence, its Tendulkar, Lara, my granny, your granny, Stuart Williams, etc. kinda distribution in a team (or teams).
As such, the good players massively inflate their figures against pathetic quality players the times they encounter them.
It wouldnt be that challenging for players like Tendulkar or Lara to average 70-80 if the bowling they faced were 'Gillespie, your mom, my mom and Hoggard'.

No, it's not - as I've told you before, the "your granny" idea is utterly stupid, and a massive, massive exaggeration.
Yes, there were indeed a disparity of class - as there is now, a huge one - and the chances are it's only slightly larger than today - the situation where the useless were sacked isn't new.

 

[Richard]

No it is not debatable IMO.
Larwood was nowhere near the bowler Lillee/Marshall/Holding/Imran etc. were.
You are assuming that Bradman would've adjusted no problems...just as much of an assumption that Newton would've understood Quantum physics.

Lillee?
What, prey, was so different with Lillee and Larwood?
Both were effective when they had conditions in their favour and not when they didn't. Lillee's record on the subcontinent demonstrates that.
It's not difficult to imagine that Marshall\Holding\Imran\Hadlee\etc. were better, because in their day things like reverse-swing were around.

 

[C_C]

the "your granny" idea is utterly stupid, and a massive, massive exaggeration.

I dont see any reason to believe that comment.

and the chances are it's only slightly larger than today

You need to read up on the economics of the western world in the early-mid 20th century/pre-WWII era.
You'd be surprised to find the effect on class barriers and economic polarity after the treaty of versailles, culminating with the great depression.The effect on sports was quite pronounced ( as afterall, sports was secondary to economics)
I see no reason to assume why situation in cricket was any different than amatuer era baseball/basketball/tennis, etc.
If you read Derek Birley's 'history of English cricket', you'd be quite illuminated about the huge gulf in quality of players at any given level.

 

[Richard]

Weren't pitches not covered in those days? So wouldnt pitches be harder to bat on.

There were more pitches that became difficult, yes, but a pitch where there was no rain-affect were broadly speaking pretty good for batting in the 1930s, quite possibly every bit as good as in the 2000s.

 

[C_C]

What, prey, was so different with Lillee and Larwood?

I see no reason to fault the following statement :

Lillee is to Larwood as Pollock is to Hoggard.

 

[Richard]

I dont see any reason to believe that comment.

I do - amateurs weren't people who just randomly pitched-up, at 70 and 80 years old, with no training in the playing of cricket.
A more accurate guess might be good-club-player\Hussain\Stewart\Atherton but even that's not something of which we can be certain.

You need to read up on the economics of the western world in the early-mid 20th century/pre-WWII era.
You'd be surprised to find the effect on class barriers and economic polarity after the treaty of versailles, culminating with the great depression.

Err - try cricketing class - where the blazes did I mention economic class?

 

[Richard]

I see no reason to fault the following statement :

Lillee is to Larwood as Pollock is to Hoggard.

Not really - both were extremely quick, both had fantastic actions and bowled the conventional attacking methods (seam and swing) very well, but both were much less effective on pitches where there was no seam and when the ball was not in condition to swing.
Only difference between Pollock and Hoggard is accuracy.

 

[C_C]

Not really - both were extremely quick, both had fantastic actions and bowled the conventional attacking methods (seam and swing) very well, but both were much less effective on pitches where there was no seam and when the ball was not in condition to swing.
Only difference between Pollock and Hoggard is accuracy.

It is obvious that both lillee and Larwood were fast bowlers while Pollock and Hoggard are medium pacers.
However, the analogy i presented was in relevance to the gulf of quality between the two players.

I do - amateurs weren't people who just randomly pitched-up, at 70 and 80 years old, with no training in the playing of cricket.
A more accurate guess might be good-club-player\Hussain\Stewart\Atherton but even that's not something of which we can be certain.

My comment about your granny and my granny were a bit tongue-in-cheek and meant to be taken as a figure of speech.
Substitute 'my granny' with ' weekend club players' and you get closer to the literal.

 

[Richard]

Ummm.. you EVER seen 'pace like fire' ? or Lillee-Thommo bowling round the wicket to yer body ? I would face down bodyline series any day of the week over the WI four prong bowling round the wicket aimed for yer head or Lillee-thommo barrage or a few times in the late 80s when Imran-Wasim or Wasim-Waqar 'turned it on'.
The effects of bodyline are massively exgaggerated compared to similar tactics often used much later by far more competent bowling units, simply because the 'first incident always sticks to the mind'.

Not really, in my experience the most recent sticks much more memorably.
Fact is, however much you like to deny it, the field-settings did have a huge influence, and if Holding\Garner\Roberts\Marshall\Lillee\Thomson\Imran\etc. were allowed to bowl with such field-settings, especially on pitches as dangerous as Adelaide 1932\33, with batsmen with no chest-pads, helmets or stomach-guards, they, too, would be accused of unsportsmanlike, dangerous behaviour and quite rightly.

 

[Richard]

It is obvious that both lillee and Larwood were fast bowlers while Pollock and Hoggard are medium pacers.
However, the analogy i presented was in relevance to the gulf of quality between the two players.

Fast, fast-medium, medium-fast, medium, there's no massive difference - seam-up is seam-up whatever pace you bowl it at.
Point is, Lillee and Larwood had much in common - Pollock and Hoggard have some things in common but there's a huge discrepancy in the most important thing - accuracy.

My comment about your granny and my granny were a bit tongue-in-cheek and meant to be taken as a figure of speech.
Substitute 'my granny' with ' weekend club players' and you get closer to the literal.

So why use a stupid simily when you can say something a bit closer to being accurate?
And I still say that it was nowhere close to the weekend-club-player\Lara-Tendulkar gap.

 

[Richard]

Dennis Lillee was the godfather of intimidating bowling

Was he?
I never heard him come-out with "I like seeing blood on the pitch" the way Thomson did.

 

[C_C]

the field-settings did have a huge influence,

given the % of wickets falling through leg before, bowled, wicketkeeper, i dont see any reason to beleive that.
What did have a huge influence is the 'never seen before' factor. The taste of what was common place in the 70s and 80s.
Some of the bowling done by Lillee-Thommo in 75-76 and the WI four prong were truely frightening. Given that they were operating on more seamer friendly wickets, were more accomplished bowlers and it was the professional era, i would rate the abovementioned performances over 'bodyline' any day of the week.
Sensationalism is commonplace with a 'first time tried and worked spectacularly' scenario.

 

[C_C]

Point is, Lillee and Larwood had much in common - Pollock and Hoggard have some things in common but there's a huge discrepancy in the most important thing - accuracy.

I see Lillee and Larwood having just about as much in common as Pollock and Hoggard...same type of bowlers but one is a class above.

And I still say that it was nowhere close to the weekend-club-player\Lara-Tendulkar gap.

Literature i've read extensively about cricket does paint it to be the 'weekend-club-player-good player-good player' scenario.
Indeed, thats what many literally were - day job holders who played in the weekends/summer time. No different than many club players today.

 

[Richard]

Mostly throughout bodyline, they had 3-4 fielders behind square leg and bowling at the body.
But the slip cordon was still there and most of the dismissals were either caught-out in the slips/offside, lbw or bowled. Not many wickets fell in the legside actually.
That is what i glean from most books i've read about bodyline.

Check-out the number of tailenders who were caught slip.
Check-out the regularity that the leg-theory was used to top-order batsmen.
Also - don't forget that facing Munaf Patel and Mitchell Johnson on that Adelaide 1932\33 wicket was likely to be far, far more dangerous than facing Holding and Garner on a 70s or 80s pitch - because of the advances in protective gear and the basic knowledge of how to avoid dangerous pitches.