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.
i didnt think it would require much deduction to figure out that while sports is all about winning, its also all about competetive winning, not steamrolling around. Nobody wants to watch a boring 1-0 scoreline after 2 months of test cricket for a 5 test series. But no one wants to watch 5 consecutive innings victory by one team either.
Oh, and 961 is so harsh on Bradman. Let's just decide he was 1500.
If you want to convince me that Hobbs, who played cover drive with both feet in the air had the proper technique to deal with hostile fast bowling, i have a bridge to sell you outside the Queen's palace.
Oh and this doesnt take away from the fact that these fast bowlers were rare as a leg spinner is in international cricket. Today, every FC side has atleast one bowler operating in the 135kph zone. Sometimes more. Back then, every FC side had bowlers who were Hansie Cronje speed, the likes of Philander pace was rare and not every team posessed. This is why Hobbs and Sutcliffe ended up opening against spinners and military medium in most of their test matches!
ATG World XI
1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. S.R Tendulkar 5. W.R Hammond 6. G.S Sobers 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. D.W Steyn 11. G.D McGrath
Gregory, McDonald may've been the extremely rare fast men, but there is nothing in the copious volumes of work covering that era that suggests Gregory and McDonald went around breaking people's faces and hands. that was simply not cricket. To bowl a consistent barrage at the body with intent to injure & intimidate was not something Hobbs, Sutcliffe etc. ever faced. I wouldn't be a tad bit concerned about my well being facing Waqar Younis at his pomp if i knew he was gonna bowl at the stumps and or full and wide. I'd be trembling in fear if Ishant Sharma was going to bowl to me with the intent to target my head.
Find me passages from any book or article from the pre-war era, except for Bodyline, where bowlers were targeting the batsmen's body with intent to injure and caused injuries. I am yet to find anything more than a 'once a season' incident where someone broke a finger every few seasons or so.
So unless you want to conclude that every single English county batsman of the Hobbs era were orders of magnitude greater players of intimidatory bowling than the 70s-80s test players, the conclusion is simple: they did not get injured because they did not face physical intimidation.
Bodyline created such a hue and cry because of the intent to injure. What else do you think they were protesting ? Why would the Aussies be up in arms if the practice of targeting a batsman for injury was as common back then as it is now ?
Nobody cried bloody murder when Lillee and Thommo went around cracking skulls or the West Indies speed demons broke arms, heads and hands at will every single year for two decades. Why ? Because it was the norm, to be expected.
The lack of any evidence of sustained intimidatory bowling being remotely common back then and the hue and cry created due to bodyline's intimidatory bowling are proof enough of the players of that era being alien to the kind of physical barrage that was the norm of the post 60s era.
Last edited by Muloghonto; 03-03-2014 at 02:22 PM.
Messi scores on the rebound.
Founder of ESAS - Edgar Schiferli, the best associate bowler
A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
Member of JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS
when you're winning, you have friends
scores and dozens, real friends
when you're winning, never lonely
when you keep winning
It's a bit later than post war (1953) but the South African attack of Adcock and Ironside had absolutely no qualms about knocking the block off of the opposition batsmen. Bert Sutcliffe and Lawrie Miller in particular could testify to that. It certainly wasn't a new practice in the 1970s. Peter Heine, another quick of the same vintage was certainly not backwards about his intentions to hurt the opposition batsman, informing Trevor Bailey that "I want to hurt you."
I'm not a big cricket historian, so can't really comment on pre-war, but Adcock and Heine were fast and dangerous and willing to do what it took to get the batsmen out.
Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.
Vimes tells it how it is:
The practice didnt become an overnight sensation, because of the sense of 'fairplay and its just not cricket' still were strong but with the advent of professionalism, these restrictions were losened in the player's mind and by the time the late 50s/early 60s rolled around, the practice of trying to kill a batsman were becoming more frequent.
By the early mid 60s, the license to kill being granted to the likes of John Snow, Wes Hall, Charlie Griffiths and Fred Trueman made it the model to copy, which is why the generation that grew up idolizing these guys- the guys debuting from early mid-70s onwards, were so bloody hostile, along with the fact that there was an absurd glut of great super-fast bowlers, mostly west indian, in that era that made the propensity to target batsmen's heads alltogether commonplace.
Hobbs also faced Albert Cotter in 1905 on English wickets and remarked that he 'was the fastest bowler he ever faced'. Cotter took 121 wickets for the tour at 20.19. Historians were to later conclude that Cotter's slinging action made him also as fast as Larwood, That is, in excess of 140 kph.
IMO All those bowlers would have been at least as lethal as most fast bowlers around today.
Last edited by watson; 03-03-2014 at 02:48 PM.
“I'm writing a book on magic”, I explain, and I'm asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. “No”, I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic”. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.”
― Lee Siegel, 'Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)