• 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

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Initially when keepers started standing back they were subject to criticism bordering on ridicule - 'slip fielder in gloves' is a taunt one comes across pretty often to describe these keepers. So there was a time when the shoe was well and truly on the other foot. Instead of questioning the speed of the bowler if the keeper stood up, critics questioned the merits of the keeper if he stood back
 
Last edited:

the big bambino

International Captain
I suppose a possibly strained comparison can be made with baseball as catchers "stand up" to pitchers who routinely throw the 90mph+ speeds. Though they aren't normally expected to take the edge or have to account for the additional difficulties like stumps in the way, bounce off the ground and a batsman's fat arse. When those extra obstacles are taken into account you can understand why the preference to standing back occured.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
McGrath would be the "easiest" quick in the last 30 years to keep up at the stumps to.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
McGrath would be the "easiest" quick in the last 30 years to keep up at the stumps to.
The most accurate bowlers are also the easiest to keep to. So I guess a bowler like McGrath or Hadlee, except when bowling real express stuff, would be a great keeper's delight.

A bowler like the mercurial leg-spinner Doug Wright, for example, might have been more difficult to keep to, particularly for someone not familiar to the bowler than a medium fast to fast medium accurate bowler. Also with the quicker bowlers the signaling to the keeper became much more important so that an intentional short-pitched ball, for example, would be signaled to the keeper. Of course, the same applies to keeping to spinners at times. I remember both Farroukh Engineer and Kirmani bringing off spectacular stumpings off Prasanna of deliveries intentionally bowled full pitch down the legside. to a batsman who was coming out of his crease too often.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I think I can recall Gilchrist keeping up to the stumps to McGrath and Gillespie at times. Generally as a deterrant to a batsman getting down the wicket or batting a fair way out of his crease. If the quick bowler is accurate enough, the skill in itself (keeping up) is not overly difficult. However, there is greater risk of personal injury to the keeper off edges, and less chance of taking edges.

Modern keepers generally keep back because it's better percentage wise I think. Batsman nowadays use far less footwork that in days gone, and it's better to have more time to see and take an edge when standing back.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
A keep wouldve appreciated Afridi signalling his quicker one. What a blockbuster that one was. Then he did have a "mercurial" temperament so I'm sure the keep was as surprised as the batsman many times.

True abt Doug Wright. Paul Gibb had trouble with him. iirc I read syndicated excerpts from Alf Gover's book mentioning he had his keeper stand up after coming back from injury. It worked for him and the keeper stayed up even after Gover regained top speed. Once again he was a pace man who pitched it up.

However he became less and less successful. Finally someone gave him the tip that batsmen don't have to worry abt his short one anymore. So back went the keeper and Gover's best years for Surrey began. So there is another reason why Keepers shouldn't necessarily make it a practice to stand up to pace men all the time. Only as a tactical play.

Another reason I'm relating the Gover story is that I can't find an instance of him obtaining a wicket from stumping though he bowled many matches with the keeper up. So you can't ever be sure how often pace men from any era employed the tactic of having the keeper stand up just by checking his stumping stats.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Another reason I'm relating the Gover story is that I can't find an instance of him obtaining a wicket from stumping though he bowled many matches with the keeper up. So you can't ever be sure how often pace men from any era employed the tactic of having the keeper stand up just by checking his stumping stats.
No you cant but you can find out from some autobiographies as well as pen portraits by contemporaries
 

the big bambino

International Captain
So true. Unless for some hard to fathom reason you doubt everything people have witnessed and then recorded even though you haven't seen them youself...
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
McGrath would be the "easiest" quick in the last 30 years to keep up at the stumps to.
I don't know about that. His line was consistent and he wasn't the fastest of the great bowlers either but the bounce he could get off a length would make it hard to keep up to. I'm no wicket keeping expert but I'd have thought a skiddier bowler would be easier.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This whole stumping/pace argument is such nonsense

Furthermore, it is almost impossible to compare modern cricket with that of more than a hundred years ago i.e. whilst the rules and colour of clothing (in the longer format at least) havent changed greatly, virtually everything else
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Sounds about right. Waqar has stumping dismissals so keepers have stood up to him despite his pace and swing. Maybe his fuller length and accordingly less bounce made it possible for keepers to do that.
 
Last edited:

greg

International Debutant
To the wicket-keeping debate one could also add the changing practices in fielding positions. People scoff these days when one comes across references to players being "specialist" longstop fielders as a comment on the standard of wicket-keeping. When actually it perhaps should be seen more as a comment on the difficulty of what was required of a wicket-keeper in a different era.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I don't know about that. His line was consistent and he wasn't the fastest of the great bowlers either but the bounce he could get off a length would make it hard to keep up to. I'm no wicket keeping expert but I'd have thought a skiddier bowler would be easier.
If the bounce is consistent it is not an issue . The best keepers get up as the ball starts coming up after pitching so it is only a question of rising quicker for the bouncier tracks or those against bowlers who get more bounce. The better keepers will adjust automatically. Bowlers that get more bounce being more difficult to keep to is the same as saying the tracks with more bounce are more difficult for keepers standing up.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I don't know about that. His line was consistent and he wasn't the fastest of the great bowlers either but the bounce he could get off a length would make it hard to keep up to. I'm no wicket keeping expert but I'd have thought a skiddier bowler would be easier.
McGrath went with the cliche of "hitting the top of off" as his MO when bowling. As a keeper, that's pretty predictable, and you're taking the ball at waist-ish height, which is comfortable. So yeh, my point was to do with his consistency making it easy (easier).

I think bowlers who skid through are worse because they're a lot harder to take below your knees up at the stumps. At least when you're back to them the ones that keep really low can come to you after 2 bounces.
 

Biryani Pillow

U19 Vice-Captain
Until WW1 cricket was very much an 'off side' game - for example, Wilfred Rhodes was considered a great mid-off and mid-off was a hugely important position. In earlier days hits to leg were considered by many to be 'indecent', even unsporting. Bowlers generally bowled a line more inclined to the off side and the keepers had a clear view. Also most slow spinners looked to turn the ball away from the right handed batsman. If you read the likes of Strudwick or Tiger Smith on the subject they basically say this.

It would appear that, in the 1920s, fashions changed and off spinbecame more popular and quicker bowlers started to cultivate swing more and more and many found inswing much easier. Never having kept I suspect that off spin/inswing is harder to take as the ball goes into a blind area until passing the batsman so, for pace bowlers, keepers might start to stand back more. I think through the 50s this happened more and more and then the view of Alan Knott held sway and keepers stood back to some very medium pace bowlers. This has altered in the last 20 years I think and a keeper standing up is much more likely

I understand the Maurice Tate's keepers always stood up to him - he was very accurate and, I suspect, bowled generally around the 80mph mark (going by descriptions of players who played against him).

With regard to speeds down the ages - Hobbs played against Ernie Jones & Tibby Cotter and would have noted if they were quicker or slower than, say, Larwood or Constantine (he considered them of similar pace, taken over time). Hammond played against Larwood and Lindwall, Cowdrey against Lindwall and Lillee. That such players don't say otherwise suggests not to much (if any) difference in pace.

Hobbs actually said the best fast bowler he ever saw was Neville Knox - who had a very short career hampered by what today sounds like stress fractures.

As has be observed here, those considered quick from the 70s (when I started watching) would still be considered fast today. Seeing film of Chris Old I would now say he generally bowled in the mid 80s, sometimes a shade quicker, rather nippier than I recall.

Re Barnes - from reading a number of players comments (Strudwick, Smith, Hobbs, Noble and others) I'd suggest, c1911/12, he bowled in the low 80s, but with great control and spin, and could put down a 'surprise' ball that was somewhat quicker.
 
Last edited:

the big bambino

International Captain
Interesting comment about off side play. I'll have to read up on the style and line of bowling to check. I think keepers kept back to the fastest bowling back in the golden age as Richardson's and Lockwood's stats suggest in addition to stories about them.

I have never seen a picture where Barnes' keeper stands back. Always up and I'm sure he would have insisted on it. I have a picture in a Frith book showing Minnett cutting at Barnes. Keeper up slips well back. However the slips aren't as deep as those who fielded for Tate. Davis estimated Tate bowled around Kasper's pace based on the depths of his slips. Barnes I believe was slower. Around Kula and Asif's pace. Barnes was the greater bowler though.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Your mention of Cowdrey recalls the time he and Titmus played Lillee and Thommo in 74/75. Being a callous boy I couldn't wait and anticipated Lillee and Thommo killing both. However both batted with skill and courage and that was the moment that made me change my mind about cricket and its history. Well, I remember thinking, these old blokes can play...

Your point about him facing Lindwall and Miller and not finding Lillee and Thommo anymore intimidating is something I've also thought about. There are many other examples and tells you differences in speeds are negligible.

It also tells you that champions like Cowdrey and Lloyd traversed some decades which is a long time in sport, and coped well with the game's changes. They certainly live up to Bradman's maxim that a champion in one era would be a champion in any other.
 

Top