SF Barnes

[Indipper]

Brilliant thread. Any Korty pictures mayhaps?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Indipper

Brilliant thread. Any Korty pictures mayhaps?

I have read there are no action photographs of Kortright and indeed in his later years Beldam himself expressed the view there were none - that being said Kortright's biographer says this is him in action in 1895 (when he would have been 24) - I have no knowledge of the provenance of the image but am inclined to hope it isn't Korty as if it is then the position of the keeper strongly suggests to me that this bowler is the not the fastest bowler who ever lived at an age when he should be at his peak - that said you can't, as I am sure will be pointed out, make a judgment on the strngth of one photo - after all he may simply be giving a beneficiary four of the mark

Oh and lastly while I am generally about as skilful with a camera in my hand as I am with a cricket bat this particular image is piss poor to begin with

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Yeah, it depends on condition. A very quick search finds 1st ed available in 'poor' condition for well under 100 GBP

Just found and bought an "Acceptable" condition copy of the Bowlers & Fielders book for £20

[G.I.Joe]

On the subject of cricket images, this has got to be the worst effort by a reputed publication ever:

From the September 2006 issue of the Cricinfo magazine:

[SJS]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

Don't worry Mr Z there are 464 photographs in the book SJS is getting these from so he's only put up a fraction so far

I have to say SJS is a generous and selfless man - unless he has a very smart piece of scanning equipment he's putting a lot of strain on the spine of a valuable old book just to keep us entertained

Yes. It is an expensive book. I bought mine, in decent condition for 500 USD. And yes it does put a strain on the book since I have a flat bed scanner. I thought long and hard about it and then told myself whats the point in having these pictures if I cant share some of the joy I felt when I first opened the pages of the book with other cricket lovers.

Some of the prices mentioned here are a steal. Be the first to take it. Trust me its worth every penny though for me the batsmen's book was a greater pleasure. You have to look at the action photos of Trumper, WG etc and at least those who come here and talk rot about how those fellows being like club cricketers will be put to shame

[SJS]

I may be wrong but I do not recall any/much mention of one of the fastest (if not the fastest) bowler Australia has ever produced. Ernie Jones too has a solid claim in that short list of the fastest bowlers of all time.

CB Fry, that marvelous cricketer and one of the greatest all round sportsmen the world has ever seen writes in detail about this great bowler. Fry, a bum chum of Ranji. also puts to rest the widely held vies that Ranji regarded Jones as someone who has an ilegal action. According to Fry he was just alluding to his great pace when he called him "that chucker".

Jones, according to Fry was.....

"the best genuinely fast bowler Australia has ever had (who) was uncomfortably fast, so that when one got to the other end one felt inclined to let loose the painter against the drivable medium pacers. Hence Jones often deserved the wickets which were credited to someone else."

"...the distinctive factor in Australia's victory, as well as in the drawn matches, was the bowling of Ernest Jones. It was an era of Fast bowling, when the critical phase for the professed batsman was to escape an accident early in his innings from the fast bowler. This although all the medium fast bowling was of very high standards. Before the first Test match I said to Ranji that we should have trouble with the Australian bowling. Look at the magnificient medium pace bowlers (lively medium that is) - Hugh Trumble, Monty Noble and W Howell. All of them quite in the first standard. I added that I regarded Noble as quiyte the best of his kind I had ever played against. "Yes," said Ranji,"but the man we have to fear is that chucker." This reference to Ernest Jones does not mean that Ranji thought that Jones's action was unfair, but (just) that his pace was dangerous. As Ranji was a master craftsman in dealing with very fast bowling even on fiery wickets, his judgement of the situation is interesting. If he did not fear fast bowling for himself, he feared it for others.

"On the history of the series of Test Matches he was abundantly right. Jones did the damage, yet all the batsmen who played for England that year were strong players of fast bowling. Here in parenthesis I may remark that with the exception of Larwood, modern generation of batsmen have never seen anything like the fast bowling as this term was exemplified by E. Jones, Lockwood, Richardson, C.J. Kortright, Mold, S.M.J.Woods, J. Sharpe and one or two others of that era. Just as the batsmen of those days had no conception of leg break bowling as it is known now.

"Day in and day out Jones was the fastest of the fast but not faster than Kortright on his day. In the first Test match played at Nottingham that year the wicket was of perfect Nottingham Marl, just as good as nowadays. I made 50 in the first innings and was batting for an hour in the second, and I saw plenty of Jones's bowling. I never appeared a ball from him which appeared to be short, and never one much more than waist high. Yet when I went to look at the wicket at lunch-time on the first day the marks he had made with the ball were perfectly distinct and his usual length had been just about half way down the pitch ! I was fond of hooking the short ball but I did not get a single ball from him which I could hook. The simple fact was that Jones, with his pace, could pitch the ball half way down the pitch and still the ball was good length."

C.B. Fry in "Life Worth Living" (First Published in 1939)

Fascinating stuff. His remarks on Larwood's pace are very interesting as are the one's about batsmen of that era having no concept of the leg break of the late thirties (Grimmett, Orielly, Mailey etc)

[Goughy]

Very interesting stuff, though Im not sure I understand the logic of "Jones, with his pace, could pitch the ball half way down the pitch and still the ball was good length."

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Very interesting stuff, though Im not sure I understand the logic of "Jones, with his pace, could pitch the ball half way down the pitch and still the ball was good length."

Normally the good length is determined as a length where you are not able to decide very quickly whether to go forward or back as you can with half volleys or very short pitched stuff. What he means, in my opinion, is that although he was pitching half way down the wicket, because of his immense speed, the batsman still did not have the time to realise that it was that short. Also the fact that it did not rise as one expects such short fast balls to, it did not appear short enough to pull or hook.

I think it is basically a combination of very high speed and the tendency for the ball to keep low (relatively speaking) that makes him say that it was (appeared to be) good length. He uses "was" because as far as the batsmen were concerned it was like a good length ball since they couldn't take advantage of its being short.

[The Sean]

Fascinating to see that Fry felt that the Golden Age quicks were faster than all who came after WWI bar Larwood - meaning that he considered that collective to be quicker than Gregory, McDonald, Voce, Bowes, Farnes, Allen, Martindale etc. Very interesting indeed.

Ernie Jones has always seemed quite a character to me. Whereas I've always thought of Spofforth as the ancient (cricketing) world's Lillee - mixing fiery aggression with cleverness and variation, I have in my mind equated Jones with Merv Hughes - a big, moustachioed lump of a man who charged in and bowled his heart out, not with any great subtlety or analysis but with a lot of speed, stamina and determination.

His most famous delivery was not one which took a wicket. Indeed, accounts vary over exactly when (or even IF) it ever actually happened, and whether it was a short ball or a beamer. I am talking of course of the famous incident when Ernie bowled a ball which whistled straight through WG Grace's beard. While WG's face turned like thunder, Ernie's response: "Sorry Doc, she slipped."

[The Sean]

"...so that when one got to the other end one felt inclined to let loose the painter against the drivable medium pacers. Hence Jones often deserved the wickets which were credited to someone else."

The more things change, the more things stay the same - I reckon Wasim Akram and Jason Gillespie, to name but two, could have some sympathy for this.

[Manee]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Ernie Jones has always seemed quite a character to me. Whereas I've always thought of Spofforth as the ancient (cricketing) world's Lillee - mixing fiery aggression with cleverness and variation, I have in my mind equated Jones with Merv Hughes - a big, moustachioed lump of a man who charged in and bowled his heart out, not with any great subtlety or analysis but with a lot of speed, stamina and determination.

I feel out of my place with some cricket historians in this thread, but wasn't Spofforth's first wicket in Test cricket stumped?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Manee

I feel out of my place with some cricket historians in this thread, but wasn't Spofforth's first wicket in Test cricket stumped?

Cracking spot that!!

The Melbourne Argus had this to say

“He took a run of 10 or 12 yards, and amidst a somewhat bewildering movement of legs and arms, hurled the ball forward with a velocity and recklessness as to the consequences enough to make all timid people tremble for the safety of the batsman, the wicketkeeper and even the longstop ........................ Shaw manifestly did not like to have so hot a fire opened upon him, and the only person perfectly cool was the wicketkeeper Blackham"

So it sounds like the stumping says more about Blackham than it does about the "Demon"

[Manee]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

Cracking spot that!!

The Melbourne Argus had this to say

“He took a run of 10 or 12 yards, and amidst a somewhat bewildering movement of legs and arms, hurled the ball forward with a velocity and recklessness as to the consequences enough to make all timid people tremble for the safety of the batsman, the wicketkeeper and even the longstop ........................ Shaw manifestly did not like to have so hot a fire opened upon him, and the only person perfectly cool was the wicketkeeper Blackham"

So it sounds like the stumping says more about Blackham than it does about the "Demon"

Unfortunately, I refuse to believe that a bowler of near 90mph could have the keeper standing up lest he be Mcgrath-like in accuracy and possess little to no bounce.

[fredfertang]

On an 1870's pitch I would think that standing up to someone of "military medium" would be fraught with danger

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Manee

Unfortunately, I refuse to believe that a bowler of near 90mph could have the keeper standing up lest he be Mcgrath-like in accuracy and possess little to no bounce.

First of all, Spofforth did not bowl at 90 mph. He did bowl some very quick balls but most of the time he wasnt above fast medium.

Secondly, wicket keepers did not stand up to him all the time.

Finally, why do you assume he wasn't as accurate as McGrath ?