Wisden- How important to Cricket is it?

[BoyBrumby]

Is the old Rothmans Football Yearbook still going? Guessing the ban on tobacco advertising probably did for it. Used to get it every year when I was a nipper. Wonder what happened to my old copies?

Blatant Wisden rip-off, anyway. IIRC they did one for rugby league too.

 

[PhoenixFire]

It's one of thise things that probably isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things today, but still needs to be kept there for traditions sake.

 

[GIMH]

Wisden is a unique resource having always been wholly independent of the game's governing bodies, and the views expressed by its editors down the years carry great weight - the Editorial in the 1934 edition dealing with Bodyline was and is a masterpiece of accurate reporting and sound judgment.

Please sum it up for us in 150 words

 

[fredfertang]

Wisden was deeply critical of it - the editor made it clear that he wasn't prepared to accept the argument that it was in any way comparable to the leg theory others had bowled before and he fervently advocated its abolition because:-

1. It was dangerous
2. It created ill feeling
3. It invited reprials
4. It was a destructive influence on the spirit of the game
5. It eliminated all the best shots in batting

The law had been altered in that bowling that constituted a "direct attack" on the batsmen had been outlawed but as Wisden pointed out that gave the umpire a very difficult interpretation task

By the time article came to be written (late 33) all the film (not just the newsreel clips) was back and English county cricket had seen it and the West Indies had used it in that summers Tests - Ames, Hendren and Hammond had all been hit badly on the head in the Tests - Jardine on the other hand had stood up on his toes to it, played an immaculate defensive shot to deliveries coming straight at his face and scored his only Test century - WAG

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I bought a second-hand copy of the 1983 Wisden the other day and thought it was interesting how much the book had changed in less than 20 years. The Notes by the Editor were the most interesting bit, but I can't say I was too impressed with some of the comment sections. There was an article supposedly celebrating a certain anniversary of India playing tests which amounted to nothing more than a very dry and superficial summary of the period. The match reports for the county games had an almost terse tone and weren't too enjoyable. As a statistical record it was as good as today, but not much else was that interesting. It also printed scorecards for higher standard overseas domestic stuff, but with no elaboration whatsoever.

I know you shouldn't really compare the two, but would I be right in saying it was more a statistical document with an authoritative editorial than a really 'good read' back then? I guess the rise of the internet has negated the former's value.

 

[fredfertang]

Even the editorial didn't start until the 26th edition

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Even the editorial didn't start until the 26th edition

Understandably, it was in its (comparatively) early stages. But this is 20 years ago, and the majority of the book is virtually unreadable.