Historical footage: Impressions of some greats

[fredfertang]

I doubt it would have been the pace that fazed Cowdrey - if that troubled him he'd have stayed at home and celebrated his 42nd birthday with his family rather than with Lillee and Thomson

 

[the big bambino]

That was going to be my point. Cowdrey faced Thommo and yet rated Adcock as fast. No one sensible rates a bowlers pace from where the keeper stands. Davis calculated Tate's speed as similar to Kasprowicz yet one had the keeper stand over the stumps while the other had his standing back in the speed flattering modern way.

 

[watson]

That was going to be my point. Cowdrey faced Thommo and yet rated Adcock as fast. No one sensible rates a bowlers pace from where the keeper stands. Davis calculated Tate's speed as similar to Kasprowicz yet one had the keeper stand over the stumps while the other had his standing back in the speed flattering modern way.

I do think that where the keeper stands does occasionally mean something. If Marsh stood back any less than 30 metres to Lillee in 1972, or Thomson in 1975 then the ball would have repeatedly gone over his head for 4 byes - even the straight ones. That is, where the keeper stands is an indicator of whether the bowler is express or merely quick.

Check this video out and just be glad that you're not Dennis Amiss;

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah seen it. Blistering. Think they stand back as far for guys like Dave Willey.

 

[Migara]

That was going to be my point. Cowdrey faced Thommo and yet rated Adcock as fast. No one sensible rates a bowlers pace from where the keeper stands. Davis calculated Tate's speed as similar to Kasprowicz yet one had the keeper stand over the stumps while the other had his standing back in the speed flattering modern way.

There had been a regression of human race with regards to reflexes during last few decades? Or was the bowler REALLY 135k? I would take the first because biology of the reflex arc has not changed much. But fitness levels do have.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

The video below contains some of the footage of India's first ever Test match.

Nissar looks pretty fast. Les Ames talks highly of Amar Singh. Looks like Amar relied heavily on variations like Fazal.

 

[watson]

Nice video Andy.

Mohammad Nissar seems to have the usual long run-up for a fast bowler, but Amar Singh only takes 5 or 6 paces. About the same as a spinner. This doesn't seem to matter as Les Ames thought that he was India's best bowler. As you say Andy, it would have been his 'variations' that created the good impression.

I was also interested to hear Les Ames admit that, "Frank Woolley was the best batsman in England although he was getting on a bit".

So again we see yet another example of Woolley being held in such high regard despite having a batting average no where as good as Sutcliffe or Hammond who also played in that Test match against India.

 

[the big bambino]

There had been a regression of human race with regards to reflexes during last few decades? Or was the bowler REALLY 135k? I would take the first because biology of the reflex arc has not changed much. But fitness levels do have.

What does this mean? If it has something to with bowling speeds in history then we've moved on since the 70s too. Yet of the 2 of us I'm safe in believing thommo was much quicker than mo akram

 

[the big bambino]

Watson I wouldn't pay any attention to what Ames says about Woolley. Both were from Kent and having read Ames he was something of a Kentish John Bull. He even picked Freeman in his all time world xi. I mean really. Zero cred when rating his fellow Kentish men.

As for amar Singh Hammond rated his pace off the wicket allied to seam and swing as dangerous an opening bowler he's seen. His run up is about the distance of Tates. Presently Mark Woods run up is quite short. In the clip above I love seeing Holmes stump go for a jog.

 

[watson]

Watson I wouldn't pay any attention to what Ames says about Woolley. Both were from Kent and having read Ames he was something of a Kentish John Bull. He even picked Freeman in his all time world xi. I mean really. Zero cred when rating his fellow Kentish men.

As for amar Singh Hammond rated his pace off the wicket allied to seam and swing as dangerous an opening bowler he's seen. His run up is about the distance of Tates. Presently Mark Woods run up is quite short. In the clip above I love seeing Holmes stump go for a jog.

Actually Tich Freeman was a remarkably good leggie and held in high regard by Arthur Mailey. After all, he did take a whopping 3776 FC wickets. Warne only took 1319 in comparison. So Ames' opinion does have a semblance of truth even though it's probably biased.

Also, there is no similarity between Mark Woods run-up and Amar Singh. They are completely different. Even Tate and Singh are completely different bowlers. Tate absolutely thumped his left foot into the turf after throwing his body into its delivery stride. There is no record that I can find to suggest that Amar Singh was anywhere hear as aggessive.

 

[the big bambino]

Please read again. I wasn't suggesting Wood was similar to anyone. Just that you don't need a long run to generate pace. (I saw Harmison here off 4 paces getting it to the mid 140s). I used Wood as an example.

Similarly you misunderstand the comparison with Tate was with distance of run up, not method. Though in reality you are kidding yourself if you don't see a similarity there either. Both relied on zip from the wicket allied to seam and swing. As for the Indian's aggression it is proven by Hammond and many others. The comparison with Tate is a logical and obvious one; whatever Tate does with his left foot notwithstanding.

 

[fredfertang]

From the small amount of film I've seen of him Ken Farnes had a short run, and by all accounts Eddie Gilbert (faster even than Larwood in Bradman's opinion) barely half a dozen paces

 

[Migara]

What does this mean? If it has something to with bowling speeds in history then we've moved on since the 70s too. Yet of the 2 of us I'm safe in believing thommo was much quicker than mo akram

What I mean is that bowlers from yester year were slower than modern era. The "right arm fast" has been used liberally to describe bowlers, who were fast medium at best. I don't belive the fact that a 135k bowler could succeed with keeper up to the stump, unless he bowls a metronomic front foot length and look for lbws, and bowler is pretty short. 6' 4" guy bowling at 135k and keeper standing up is recipe for disaster. Anything marginally short will decapitate the keeper. It's pretty hard enough to keep to a 6' 1" spinner who bowls flat leg breaks (Anil Kumble), as shown in many injuries sustained by keepers standing to him, with broken fingers. Imaging a fast medium fella doing it. Quality of keeping has not changed much over the years. So the best possible explanation is when you see some one was fast medium and keeper stood up to the wicket both in same sentence, either the bowler was not fast medium, or he has reduced his speed to suit the conditions.

Nah, at best Thommo was as quick as Akthar. That's what we know. If you believe and give lot of weight to anecdotes, then Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were quicker than Akthar.

I rather would like to say at their pomp Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were regarded as Pakistan's fastest ever bowlers. I would always believe what speed gun says more than opinions.

 

[watson]

From the small amount of film I've seen of him Ken Farnes had a short run, and by all accounts Eddie Gilbert (faster even than Larwood in Bradman's opinion) barely half a dozen paces

Ken Farnes bowling off a dozen paces to a packed slips cordon.

 

[smash84]

What I mean is that bowlers from yester year were slower than modern era. The "right arm fast" has been used liberally to describe bowlers, who were fast medium at best. I don't belive the fact that a 135k bowler could succeed with keeper up to the stump, unless he bowls a metronomic front foot length and look for lbws, and bowler is pretty short. 6' 4" guy bowling at 135k and keeper standing up is recipe for disaster. Anything marginally short will decapitate the keeper. It's pretty hard enough to keep to a 6' 1" spinner who bowls flat leg breaks (Anil Kumble), as shown in many injuries sustained by keepers standing to him, with broken fingers. Imaging a fast medium fella doing it. Quality of keeping has not changed much over the years. So the best possible explanation is when you see some one was fast medium and keeper stood up to the wicket both in same sentence, either the bowler was not fast medium, or he has reduced his speed to suit the conditions.

Nah, at best Thommo was as quick as Akthar. That's what we know. If you believe and give lot of weight to anecdotes, then Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were quicker than Akthar.

I rather would like to say at their pomp Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were regarded as Pakistan's fastest ever bowlers. I would always believe what speed gun says more than opinions.

I don't recall Makram as the fastest in Pak history. Even at the time he was rated as ordinary. Granted he was rated quick but definitely not as quick as zahid or the tearaway waqar

 

[watson]

What I mean is that bowlers from yester year were slower than modern era. The "right arm fast" has been used liberally to describe bowlers, who were fast medium at best. I don't belive the fact that a 135k bowler could succeed with keeper up to the stump, unless he bowls a metronomic front foot length and look for lbws, and bowler is pretty short. 6' 4" guy bowling at 135k and keeper standing up is recipe for disaster. Anything marginally short will decapitate the keeper. It's pretty hard enough to keep to a 6' 1" spinner who bowls flat leg breaks (Anil Kumble), as shown in many injuries sustained by keepers standing to him, with broken fingers. Imaging a fast medium fella doing it. Quality of keeping has not changed much over the years. So the best possible explanation is when you see some one was fast medium and keeper stood up to the wicket both in same sentence, either the bowler was not fast medium, or he has reduced his speed to suit the conditions.

Nah, at best Thommo was as quick as Akthar. That's what we know. If you believe and give lot of weight to anecdotes, then Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were quicker than Akthar.

I rather would like to say at their pomp Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were regarded as Pakistan's fastest ever bowlers. I would always believe what speed gun says more than opinions.

Here is the keeper standing-up to a young Jimmy Anderson (from the 3 minute mark) in a T20 game against Australia. Anderson doesn't look like he's holding back, so I assume that he's bowling in the mid 130s. That is, fast-medium.

Having read about, and seen the footage of Gregory, Tate, Allen, Farnes, Voce, McCormick, and Wall, I don't believe that there is much doubt that they all operated consistently in the mid 130s, or higher in the case of Gregory.

Bill Bowes is interesting as his action makes it difficult to judge. He did concentrate on swing, and I am reminded of Damien Fleming, so maybe around 130?

Larwood would have pushed the 140s, and on a good day hit the 150s.

 

[the big bambino]

Nah, at best Thommo was as quick as Akthar. That's what we know. If you believe and give lot of weight to anecdotes, then Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were quicker than Akthar.

I rather would like to say at their pomp Mo. Akram and Mo. Zahid were regarded as Pakistan's fastest ever bowlers. I would always believe what speed gun says more than opinions.

Your comment about keepers standing up has been dealt with. Sufficient to say Waqar has stumping dismissals to his credit.

I disagree with the impression you have of yourself. I say you only go by your opinions. After all you have no speed gun evidence from earlier eras. So I know your beliefs. Its just you have no rational reason for them. You intimated Adcock bowled at 125k. (Maybe Heine too). This in and before 1960. Yet within 3 years Charlie Griffith was terrorising England and by decade's end Lillee was bowling express and Thommo and Roberts were just around the corner, all hitting the 150k. Well that's big improvement in 3-10 years and you'd have us think that batsmen could adjust to the upscale in speed in so short time? They adjusted because there was little difference in speeds being attained by the bowlers.

You might think the way you do but you are bound by the consequences. If you think speeds increase as time goes by and base your argument on things like "fitness and modern training methods" then you are bound to argue that bowlers from the 70s would only be fast medium today. The speed gun should prove this. It doesn't. So the only evidence you have comparing bowling speeds across eras contradicts you.

You suffer generational jingoism that pays no respect to the past. Fair enough, but credibility suffers. If you implicitly argue that bowling speeds can increase by 25k in a decade then there's no reason to think they didn't increase by that much up to the time you say Adcock bowled at 125ks. So Tate, to continue your logical fallacy, bowled at 100ks: Or less. (Makes you wonder just how slow spinners were). Yet captains will always set the depth of their slips according to the pace of the bowler. So you'd think Tate's captain would set them at a depth similar to Kumble not Kasprowicz. Don't rely on angle of camera for a bolt hole either. Davis selected his picture with that in mind. To add to the contradiction you can only ignore bcos you can't it explain away, Hutton and Compton thought McCormick the fastest they faced outside of Tyson. He predated all of Trueman, Statham, Adcock, Heine, Lindwall amd Miller.

The experience of men who played at the highest level is paramount here. Much better than you looking at film and relying on your own eyes to evaluate. Don't you know how fallible the eyes are?

 

[watson]

Has anyone heard about these films of Ranji batting in the nets before? I'm trying to locate them on-line but having no luck so far;

The four films were sponsored by a combination (for advertising purposes) of the companies Lever Brothers, of Sunlight soap fame, and Nestlé, of infant food celebrity, and were first shown publicly on 7 February 1898 at the Alhambra Theatre, London, England. As test cricket matches were then still in progress in Australia and were very much in the news in England, the films were a major success.

There appears to have been a limited showing of these films in Australia. Philip Newbury presented them as part of his "Saturday Shilling Pops" shows in Melbourne at the end of May 1898, and in Sydney in October of that year. One may have been shown in Adelaide in July 1899. There are references to other showings of films with Ranji, but it is sometimes not possible to determine if any such film is from the Lever and Nestlé set or is one of the other films mentioned below.

The films were made with a Lumière cinématographe, as is evidenced by the one-per-frame-side circular sprocket holes visible in the copyright proof strips. The inside edge of one of these sprocket holes is just visible in the frame image below.


Prince Ranjitsinhji practising batting at the nets

This is the only one of the four films of which a copy survives.

The image on the right is of a frame from about 12.5 seconds into the film and shows Ranji in position waiting for the next ball.

It is a detail taken from a videotape copy of the actual film.

In the near background behind the practice nets is a light-coloured wall surmounted by a short picket fence. Behind this is a section of upward-sloping, open land before a high picket fence, one section of which is missing. And behind this is a small group of trees. Nothing but sky is visible beyond this.

The man wearing a bowler hat standing behind the net behind the stumps remains almost immobile throughout the film.

No bowler is in frame, and the only time the ball is obviously visible is as a blur on one frame before Ranji's fifth stroke.28

The inside edge of one of the sprocket holes is just visible as a black mark on the left edge of the frame near the feet of the behind-the-net observer.

The frame images provided for copyright registration are laterally inverted: Ranji was a right-handed batsman, as seen in the adjacent image.

Some of the following notes are taken from the British Film Institute's Film and TV Database entry for the film (with amendments).

The original film is 11.3 m (37 ft) in length [How many frames are there?], and plays for about 47 seconds.

The camera is positioned in the silly mid-off area, behind the side netting.

Ranjitsinhji plays the following strokes:
a drive towards extra cover,
a push on the leg side off the front foot,
a pull over mid-wicket,
a drive to extra cover,
a drive to extra cover.
A man comes into the picture to retrieve the ball.
Ranjitsinhji then plays to leg off the back foot,
a square drive,
a pull over mid-on,
a drive to extra cover,
and then moves into position for another drive.


Prince Ranjitsinhji practising batting at the nets
Image courtesy of the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia


The 1897-1898 cricket test match films

 

[watson]

Apparently the film of Ranji batting in 1897 is held by the British Film Institute. Trying to figure out how to watch it?

Prince Ranjitsinhji Practising Batting at the Nets, Association Cricket Ground Sydney Australia Dec 1897 (1897) | BFI

 

[fredfertang]

Don't make it easy do they? I expect the key will be some sort of payment