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.
Last edited by the big bambino; 05-02-2013 at 04:14 AM.
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.
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.
Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)
And using a match four seasons after Marshall has retired is another joke.
Last edited by Migara; 06-02-2013 at 06:31 AM.
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'
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
Last edited by fredfertang; 06-02-2013 at 06:36 AM.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
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.
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)