• 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.

Comparing different eras

archie mac

International Coach
Craig said:
If it was 2 day cricket, then technically it wouldn't be FC cricket?
I never thought of that. Maybe because of the extended hours it was allowed, but it was definitely 1st class, as it is part of Jack Hobbs record 197 tons.
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
archie mac said:
A good book to read is The Best of The Best by Charles Davis
An excellent read for those into their statistics and for comparing different eras. And I'm not surprised you brought it up Archie :p
 

archie mac

International Coach
burkey_1988 said:
An excellent read for those into their statistics and for comparing different eras. And I'm not surprised you brought it up Archie :p
I'm just trying to educate you youngsters Burkey, with the hope we can have more people on the trivia threads :D
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
archie mac said:
I'm just trying to educate you youngsters Burkey, with the hope we can have more people on the trivia threads :D
Do you know where I can get that book? Or any other good places in Melbourne for such books?
 

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
marc71178 said:
165 overs in a day? Are you sure about that?
Yes look at Lancashire´s 1919 home roses match for instance.
They added an extra hour to each day and then over rates of about 23.

It wasnt a succes, 2 days wasnt enough time generally. There were no fixed over rates making time wasting easy and of course such a game was extremly voulnerable to just the slightest rain. most games were drawn.

Looking up random old Sheffield shield games, the over rate seems to be 24 or more. days appear to have been short and low run rates.

A typical day would seem to have been something like 100 overs bowled in a little over 4 hours scoring 2 runs per over. such short afternoons made it possible for players to have a full working day during matches.

I think you can easily get 20 just by the bowler turning round and get back to his mark. beyond 20 probably has a lot to do with spinners being used.

Even by the 1980´s the english county championship still insisted on 19 overs an hour. Dont know if it teams actually achieved it.
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
Craig said:
If it was 2 day cricket, then technically it wouldn't be FC cricket?
The FC regulations haven't come in until recently. In the 70s and 80s many games from the early 20th century were being adjudacated FC, or not.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Dasa said:
Do you know where I can get that book? Or any other good places in Melbourne for such books?
There is a cricket book dealer in Melbourne his name is Roger Page, he will have it in stock or find it for you. His prices are not to bad.

here is his Melbourne No. 03 94356332

I buy a lot of books from him, always in the condition he describes :)
 

FuzzyDuck

Cricket Spectator
1. The wars always brought a massive change in all stats. Batting boomed after both wards. I think it is because the top bowlers of the world aged during the five odd years the WW's lasted. Batsmen with longer career spans survived and made merry with weaker bowling. This is particularly true for the faster bowlers who have even shorter career peaks.


I've thought about this in the past and I think there may be a "simpler" answer to the batting boom between the wars, the English class system and the division between "gentlemen" (batsmen) and "players" (bowlers).

Fast bowlers were (and largely still are) working class lads, working down pits, on farms or in factories. They couldn't avoid conscription and would probably end up in the infantry at the front line. During the First world war, many promising young bowlers would either have been, killed, injured or gassed ending their careers, whereas the batsmen (often public school educated) would certainly have entered the army as officers, giving them a far greater chance of survival.
 

archie mac

International Coach
FuzzyDuck said:
1. The wars always brought a massive change in all stats. Batting boomed after both wards. I think it is because the top bowlers of the world aged during the five odd years the WW's lasted. Batsmen with longer career spans survived and made merry with weaker bowling. This is particularly true for the faster bowlers who have even shorter career peaks.


I've thought about this in the past and I think there may be a "simpler" answer to the batting boom between the wars, the English class system and the division between "gentlemen" (batsmen) and "players" (bowlers).

Fast bowlers were (and largely still are) working class lads, working down pits, on farms or in factories. They couldn't avoid conscription and would probably end up in the infantry at the front line. During the First world war, many promising young bowlers would either have been, killed, injured or gassed ending their careers, whereas the batsmen (often public school educated) would certainly have entered the army as officers, giving them a far greater chance of survival.
Officers during WWl were little more than cannon fodder. The Test captain Lionel Tennyson and his two brothers were officers in the war both his brothers were killed, while Lionel was wounded three times. Almost all of his graduated class of officers were also killed.
 

Top