SF Barnes

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Again with the Mold clip. He was rising 38 there at a time when the age of mortality in Britain was late 40's, don't think I'm venturing into dodgy territory in saying that the overwhelming majority of quick bowlers deteriorate after 30 years of age. He was called for throwing the year before and the bloke he was bowling to was 50+, I don't think it's controversial either to say he was bowling half-rat there.

AWTA. Migara giving me migraines here

[the big bambino]

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.

[fredfertang]

It's all Knotty's fault

[the big bambino]

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]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

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.

Yes I have read that; Tiger was not a fan, although Tiger was rarely a fan of anything the Don did

[the big bambino]

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.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

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.

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.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

Just checked Marshall's fc stats. Shows he picked up a wicket as stumped. There you go. Marshall wasn't fast. Just a spinner really. And got fat when he retired. No one with a physique like that could bowl fast. Glad we cleared that up.

EDIT. Others with stumpings to their list include Statham, Larwood, Hall, Procter as well as Botham. All fatties whose bowling reminded me of my gramps playing beach cricket. Btw can a bowler as tubby as Botham actually bowl quick? To say nothing of chubby spinner Imran K who also has a couple of stumpings to his credit.

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.

[Migara]

lso far from being unheard of pace bowlers back then could seam the ball as any contemporary reports of Richardson, Lockwood and Mold will reveal. Swing too if you read abt Hirst. But what would they know? I mean they were only there at the time.

The fastest of bowlers such as the Demon, Fred Spofforth imparted spin to the ball and this was the only way to make the ball deviate laterally for many decades even after test cricket started in the 1870'

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Migara

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.

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

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Migara

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.

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]

Originally Posted by marc71178

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.

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]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

They're not going to get any while 'keepers stand back

I have to say I 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

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]

Originally Posted by Migara

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.

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]

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