CLASSIC Opinion Pieces, Classic Players.

[watson]

This one-on-one interview with the great Jack Blackman is a fabulous study of his wicket-keeping technique. He was the first keeper to not use the usual 'long-stop', he wore smaller cut-down kid gloves with very little padding, and only caught with his right hand when possible. He found keeping to off-spinners like Giffen, Turner, Spofforth, and Lohmann the most difficult aspect of his job.

The left-arm orthodox spinner J.J. Ferris was the most accurate bowler of note that he kept to. More so than Spofforth and Turner apparently which is hard to believe, especially Turner.

AN INTERVIEW WITH BLACKHAM

9 SEPTEMBER 1893

When Jonh McCarthy Blackham visited England in 1878 with the first Australian cricket team that ever landed on our sea girt isle his presence in the role of wicket-keeper commenced a new era in the department of the game. It was England that taught Australia how to bat and bowl, but it was reserved for our Colonial kith and kin to teach the Old Country how to keep wicket.

Of course, England has had her heroes — her Lytteltons, Pillings and Sherwins —who knew their business to perfection up to a certain point, but with the advent of Blackham came the abolition of the long-stop, which of course, was as good as a gift of an extra man in the field.

A terrible fellow Blackham looks behind the stumpe, when in the height of the battle he stands with his sleeves tucked up, his eyes flashing, aud his whole being alive at every point. But to meet him off the field (says the 'Morning Leader') is to meet the mildest-manner of men, with gentle voice, and most winning of dispositions. His eyes are soft, almost languid, and the swarthy bearded face strikes no terror into the heart of the interviewer.

'Will you tell me Mr Blackham when you first began to keep wicket in good class matches?

'Ah, that is a long time ago. I think it must have been in 1872 that I was first played for my wicket-keeping in a match between East and South Melbourne, That was afterwards called the century match, because of the number of centuries that were scored.'

'Now, Mr. Blackham, I want to find out some of the tricks of your trade. What sort of a solution, for instance, do you use for hardening your hands, and will you give me the recipe?

'My dear boy,' said the Australian, laughing, ' I use nothing whatever for my hands, and never did— excepting, of course, that I wash them with water occasionally like other people.'

'Then do you use any peculiar kind of glove?'

'Well, I may tell you that I don't use the regulation gloves, but I make no secret of the glove that I do wear. I will tell you precisely what I do. I send my ordinary kid glove — I wear a No. 8— down to Page the glove maker, and I have a glove made to fit my hand just like an ordinary glove.'

'What sort of padding do you use?

'I use very little padding at all. Fact is. I don't believe in padding. The nearer you can get to Nature the better. You want as little as possible between the skin and the ball. I would rather take punishment with my bare hands than use the thickly-padded gloves I see some men wear. With the regulation gloves it is impossible for the fingers to act promptly and properly. If there be a secret in my success you have it here.'

'I suppose, Mr. Blackham, in the coarse of your twenty-one years experience as a wicketkeeper you have come in for very bad knocks, if not serious injuries.'

'On the contrary.' said Blackham. 'I have only once got anything like a serious injury, and that was when a ball hit me in the chest and knocked me down. It was a dreadful blow, and I thought It had killed me. As it was, it laid me on my back for severed weeks, and I did not get over it for some time.'

'Now, tell me, Mr. Blackham, who is the fastest bowlers you have stood up to?

'I should say Jack Conway of South Melbourne, and by the way, thereby hangs a tale. Conway for a long time was the terror of all long-stops, and the first time I kept wicket to him they put on a long-stop called Woolf, another old schoolmate of mine, and one of the best long-stops in Australia. As the match progressed Conway noticed that none of the balls ever got the length of the long-stop, and he ordered Woolf to go and field leg. This, I believe, was not only the first time a wicket-keeper had taken Conway's deliveries without a long-stop, but I believe it was the first time that the long-atop had been abolished for fast bowling, either in Australia or England.'

'I understand, Mr. Blackham, that when you first visited England the long-stop was still in fashion.'

'Oh yes, the people were surprised to see me stand up to Spofforth without a long-stop, and I believe this led to the abolition of the long-stop in England. It is considered a bit of a disgrace now for a wicket-keeper to ask fer a long-stop, even to the fastest bowling.'

Did you ever know an English bowler as fast as Conway?'

'Oh, yes, I think so. I believe Mold to be as fast, if not faster, and from what I hear of Lockwood I should say he is quite as fast.'

'Can you tell me how many men you have stumped in one innings?'

'Let me think. I remember a match In Australia when I stumped or caught the first six men out of twelve. Of course it was only a second-class match,' said Blackham, modestly, and almost apologetically.

'What sort of bowler gives you most chance of stumping?

'Left-banded bowlers like Ferris, Peel, or Briggs, with a break from the leg side. They are very easy to take, and almost anybody could keep wicket to them.'

'And who are the most difficult men to take? Fast bowlers, I suppose?

'Oh no, fast bowlers are not half so difficult to take as those of medium pace and a big break back from the off like Giffen, Turner, Spofforth, or Lohmann. The most difficult balls to take are those that come between the bat and the off-stump, and perhaps the most difficult ball of all is that which comes over the middle stamp. As a rule you can't see It, and the best thing for the wicket-keeper to do is to point his hands to where he thinks the ball is coming, and at the same time raise himself up so that if be misses it will strike him on the body, and not on the head.'

'Now supposing, Mr. Blackham, a bowler sends up a very fast ball and the batsman just touches it without making it deviate from its line of flight. In such a case can you see the ball coming from the bat?'

'It's impossible to see the ball. That is where judgment comes in. All you can do is to place your bands where you think the ball coming, and it is wonderful how often you wIll catch it. A great mistake of yonng wlcketkeepers is that they don't try often enough. No matter how impossible it may look, every wicket-keeper worthy of the name should make an effort to catch and stop everything. I try everything, and if I succeed once now and again at what looks like an impossible thing, people say it is miraculous, but it is not. It is only the result of trying. Some of the best things I have bave ever done have just been by using my judgment and chancing it — in fact, going for the ball in the neck-or-nothing fashion.'

'Do yon take balls as easily with the left hand as the right?

'Well, now, it is strange that you have asked that question. I am going to tell you what must appear to be a curious thing. I never take a ball with my left hand at all. Everything goes in my right.

At times it may appear as if I were taking the ball with both hands but I simply use my right where the ball is held. I can give you no better proof of this than by telling you that my right-hand glove is always worn out before my left-hand one has begun to show wear.'

'Now what would you say were the essential qualities of a good wicket-keeper?

'I should say nerve, sight, and abstemiousness. To these, of course, must be added tbe judgment that comes from experience. The most difficult things in wicket-keeping are done by a kind of instinct; you don't have time to reason or to think tbe problem out. The whole thing is done in a flash, like taking a snap-shot at a running rabbit. Eye, hand, and brain most work together in perfect unison. These are the moral qualities that a wicket keeper requires; but as I said before, a proper glove is half the battle. Remember that the less padding you have the better.

'Do you ever make signs to a bowler to tell him how to vary his pace, or where to pitch his balls?

'Oh, yes, I do that, and when I can get a man to co-operate thus the results are sometimes marvellous. I have never had a bowler to work with me in this respect better than J. J. Ferris. By a little manoeuvring or a whispered word I have seen us get of the best batsman in England when everything else had failed. My long experience behind the wicket enables me very quickly to see what sort of bowling a batsman does not like, and of course I am not slow to communicate this to the bowlers. If it were possible for a man to pitch the ball exactly as I wished him batsmen would not stand half the time they do. Of course no bowler can pitch the ball exactly where he wishes it; but the most successful men I have known in this respect were Boyle and Ferris.'

Sheffield Telegraph.

09 Sep 1893 - AN INTERVIEW WITH BLACKHAM. - Trove

 

[jimmy101]

Rather incredible that when keeping Blackham took everything with his right hand only, with barely any protective gear and the thinnest of gloves.

Would it really have been possible for him to keep in the same fashion to fast bowlers of later generations, such as Larwood & Tyson?

 

[watson]

Rather incredible that when keeping Blackham took everything with his right hand only, with barely any protective gear and the thinnest of gloves.

Would it really have been possible for him to keep in the same fashion to fast bowlers of later generations, such as Larwood & Tyson?

Jack Blackham's FC career went from 1874 to 1895 and the fastest bowler that he apparently kept to was Jack Conway. I can't imagine Conway being overly fast, not like Ernie Jones (1892 - 1908) or Tibby Cotter (1902 - 1914). Blackham did have some exposure to Jones very late in his Test match career (1894), but it was minimal.

So it looks like Blackham standing back to the likes of Jones, Cotter, Larwood, or Tyson would have been a farely unique experience to him, and probably would have required an extra layer or two of padding in his gloves. I've read that Blackham did stand-back to Spofforth when he decided to increase his pace, so the technicalities of standing-back as opposed to standing over the stumps wouldn't have been too much of an issue. But Larwood or Tyson's 140-160 kph bullets would have taken some getting used to.

BTW here is some footage of Tibby Cotter bowling. At the 3 1/2 min mark we see a few practice balls, and at the 5 1/2 min mark we see a delivery in a real match. He seems faster and more round armed in actual match play.

 

[54321]

I'm sure most of you guys have probably seen this article of an interview with Kortwright, but it's a fantastic brief outlook into his era of cricket. It's a shame there were never any action photographs of the bowler supposedly faster than Larwood.

The name of CJ Kortright in cricket circles is almost legendary. Many people who saw him play consider he was the fastest bowler during a period that was notable for the number of speed men in England and Australia. A reference to the 1944 article in Wisden on fast bowlers by the late Sir Stanley Jackson bears out this fact. After a career beginning in 1889, the famous Essex amateur gave up county cricket 11 years before the first World War. At 77 he is still a keen observer of cricket, and in the belief that his views on bowlers past and present will not only throw much light on our present problems, but will also inspire the younger generation to take up fast bowling, the editor persuaded him to express his opinions in the pages of Wisden.

One of the questions my friends most frequently ask me is why there are so few fast bowlers today compared with the start of the century, and why the few there are attain comparatively small success. They seem to think there was some sort of magic about the old-time men of pace, and that I may be able to explain how it was obtained. Let me disillusion them at once. There is no magic in fast bowling; but, on the contrary, much hard work, coupled with intelligent methods, is the key to success.

I have little patience with modern bowlers who condemn these shirt-front wickets and ask how can they be expected to get men out when the pitch will not help. There were many such pitches in my playing days, the sort on which if we could bounce the ball bail high we thought ourselves pretty clever. Yet every county fielded two, sometimes three, genuinely fast bowlers, who were not discouraged by the wickets.

A basic principle of cricket which I feel is sometimes overlooked is that the prime object of a bowler is to get batsmen out. For this reason I do not favour the modern craze for such expressions as inswingers, outswingers, all sorts of spins and swerves. Some bowlers seem to concentrate on these dubious achievements so much that they forget to keep a length and to bowl at the stumps.

A striking sign of this tendency is the present cult of offspin bowling to a cluster of short-leg fielders, who would not have been allowed to stay in their suicidal positions by some of the old-time batsmen like Gilbert Jessop and Johnny Tyldesley. This style compares very poorly with the methods of Tom Richardson of Surrey, the finest bowler I ever saw. He used only two leg-side men, a mid-on and a deep fine-leg to save snicks, because he bowled consistently on the off-stump to that beautiful length, which meant that batsmen could never leave the ball alone.

Richardson's long easy run, fine action, accuracy and speed, coupled with a little break-back from the off, made him a bowler to be feared; and another man I greatly admired was Walter Brearley, who took a much shorter run, but achieved real pace through a splendid body action. Such men as these could take seven or eight wickets in an innings on plumb pitches, nearly all clean bowled, because they bowled a length, bowled with their heads, and bowled at the stumps. What is the use of swerves if you beat the batsman, beat the wicket-keeper, and everybody else? Bowlers like Richardson used to move the ball just that vital inch or two off the pitch, and they hit the stumps.

If England can find a real fast bowler who is willing to take a bit of advice from an old-timer, here is a wrinkle he might well remember. He should never forget to try bowling a fast yorker on the leg stump to a newly arrived batsman. It can be a deadly ball to face early in an innings; I have dismissed many top-class batsmen with it. I frequently used to advise the late Kenneth Farnes to pitch the ball farther up to the batsmen, because I considered that he wasted too much energy on pointless short deliveries, like many other modern pace bowlers.

Another encouragement which I would mention to bowlers and those aspiring to success with the ball is that they enjoy many advantages compared with those of the old days. They have a slightly smaller ball - easier to get the hand round - a wider crease, which helps in varying the angle of delivery, bigger stumps at which to aim. There is also the new leg-before-wicket law by which it is possible to get a decision from a ball pitching on the off side of the wicket, a boon to the modern bowler. Last but by no means least among present-day benefits is the high standard of umpiring in first-class cricket, one respect in which I admit the game has made a great advance since my days.

The umpires of today are very good and impartial. They watch the ball extremely closely and know the game thoroughly, so that any bowler can feel confident that he will get any decisions he has earned.

A young bowler should not be allowed to over-tax his strength and, although there is no reason why he should not bat well, it should always be remembered that his real task is to take wickets. I remember Alfred Shaw of Nottinghamshire telling me when I was a youngster why the best bowlers so seldom make runs. He said: After holding a bat for a long time we lose that freshness in ourselves, and that suppleness in the fingers, which helps so much in bowling. So it is better not to bat too much when one will soon have to bowl.

[Shaw, between1864 and 1897, took 2072* wickets for 11.97 runs each, much the lowest figure of the twenty bowlers who have taken over 2000 wickets in first-class cricket. - Editor]

Another thing a bowler should always remember is to mark out his run and stick to it, even at practice. Too many no-balls are delivered by men who should know better, and they represent free gifts to the opposing side.

Perhaps one of the greatest differences between modern and old-time bowling lies in the attitude towards the new ball and the method of gripping it. Personally, I didn't worry a great deal about how I held the ball in relation to the seam as long as I got a firm grip on it, and I think most of my contemporaries felt the same. We wanted to be accurate, and to make the ball move a little off the pitch through finger action. For that reason, fast bowlers often roughened a new ball by rubbing it in the dirt, to obtain a good grip. Now bowlers dirty their clothes in efforts to keep the ball shiny, but I feel sure they do not control it so well.

I do not think we shall get a plentiful supply of bowling talent again until the youngsters realise that there is no easy way to become a good bowler, and no secret either. The road to success lies in enthusiasm coupled with patience and willingness to devote as much time as possible to practice. I do not feel that young cricketers today are always prepared to take the trouble over their game that they should, possibly because there are so many counter attractions.

One of the clearest recollections of my early days is the little cricket we played at Brentwood school. This involved creeping out through a window at four in the morning, with any sort of makeshift gear, to play against the chapel wall until seven o'clock, the official time for rising. If discovered, we were in trouble, but I thought the game well worth the risk, and I was always ready for two-and-a-half hours of compulsory cricket practice when school was over for the day.

In those days almost invariably I was holding something to throw or bowl, if not a ball a sizeable stone, which I would hurl at a convenient tree or post. All this helped to develop a sense of distance and timing, and built up the muscles of hand, arm and shoulder. I was for ever wanting to project things farther or faster than any of my friends, and this I think accounted for the pace I was able to develop later as a bowler.

The present-day lack of enthusiasm for practice, especially in bowling and fielding, was brought home to me a few years ago when I tried to coach two youngsters in whom I was interested. They batted in the nets for about half an hour, then they wanted to be off to knock a ball about at some other game. As for bowling to somebody else or getting fielding practice - that mattered not at all.

Yet I would stress to all cricketers, especially the youngsters that if we are to develop great bowlers again, and especially fast bowlers, there must be much greater concentration on fielding. Any bowler is so much better with the support of a keen field, and every player in any side should impose an unwritten law on himself to field well even if he can do little else. I used to enjoy Free Foresters cricket immensely because it was played in a really sporting spirit and the standard of fielding was very high.

As a final word to budding fast bowlers, let me again emphasise that you should not be afraid to pitch the ball well up, and remember the value of the yorker on the leg stump against a newcomer. The first time I hit the stumps in county cricket was with that ball, in the Essex and Surrey match at The Oval in 1892. I bowled Billy Brockwell with a fast one which hit the base of the stumps and brought the bails forward, one breaking as it flew over my head. Another of my yorkers which remains in my memory rebounded from the bottom of the stumps and went back past me almost to the boundary.

[In the match to which Kortright refers, he took in all five wickets for 71 runs, three of them bowled, but Surrey, for whom Tom Richardson gained match figures of twelve for 100, won by 195 runs. - Editor]

My favourite story is rather hard to believe, but I vouch for its truth. Playing in a club match at Wallingford on a very small ground with a pitch perhaps best described as sporty, I bowled a ball which rose almost straight and went out of the ground, without a second bounce. I suggest that this made me the first man to bowl a six in byes! The ball was pitched right up to the batsman and on the wicket, so that it was undoubtedly within the striker's reach, and there was no question of wides being awarded.

Wisden - No magic in fast bowling

 

[the big bambino]

From 1948 wisden. Got his views just 4 years before he passed away.

 

[watson]

My favourite bit of that Kortright piece is where he bowled a good length ball that went for 6 byes out of the ground. The only other bowler that has done something similar (half volleyed the sight screen) is Jeff Thomson, once at Perth and once at the SCG. Tom Richarson and Bill Lockwood must have both been exceptional bowlers to keep Kortright out of the England XI.

My favourite story is rather hard to believe, but I vouch for its truth. Playing in a club match at Wallingford on a very small ground with a pitch perhaps best described as sporty, I bowled a ball which rose almost straight and went out of the ground, without a second bounce. I suggest that this made me the first man to bowl a six in byes! The ball was pitched right up to the batsman and on the wicket, so that it was undoubtedly within the striker's reach, and there was no question of wides being awarded.

 

[jimmy101]

My favourite bit of that Kortright piece is where he bowled a good length ball that went for 6 byes out of the ground. The only other bowler that has done something similar (half volleyed the sight screen) is Jeff Thomson, once at Perth and once at the SCG. Tom Richarson and Bill Lockwood must have both been exceptional bowlers to keep Kortright out of the England XI.

Roy Gilchrist achieved this ignominious feat also.

 

[watson]

Roy Gilchrist achieved this ignominious feat also.

I hadn't heard about Gilchrist, although I've heard about Tyson and Shoaib bowling '6 byes'. However, the only players that I've been able to find evidence of some kind for are Kortright and Thomson.

If you could find something for Gilchrist, Tyson, or Shoaib then that would be nice.

 

[watson]

There's no doubt that Kortright was monumentally fast, but the second fastest bowler of the pre-WW1 period was probably Ernie Jones.

I know that I'm going over the top in posting these > 75 year old newspaper articles, but this piece penned by Harold Larwood himself is brilliant. It's satirical, biting, caustic, and gives a window into the psycholgical effect that the Bodyline series had on Larwood personally. The whole thing is a really good read, but the anecdotal section about Kortright and Ernie Jones is the best bit of all;

LARWOOD'S "BODY-LINE"

Deeds of Former Bowlers Jones, Cotter & Gregory Justification of Leg Theory

By Harold Larwood, 22 June 1933

In the third instalment of his book, "Bodyline" Harold Larwood the Notts fast bowler, refers to the performances of Australian fast bowlers in England, and remarks that there was not a whimper from the English cricketers or the English press.

Larwood directs attention to remarks by M. A. Noble and J. W. Trumble in justification of fast-leg-theory.



I feel obliged to refer to the matter of a charge against my tactics in the portion of this book that is devoted to the future of fast-leg-theory in order to refute at the outset, tho notion that my bowling is unfair In any shape or form. If I insist still further by quoting from authority the reader must be kind enough to bear with me a little longer.

Thus M. A. Noble in the "Australian Cricketer," writing of me and my pace, etc, etc -

"It is all humbug to say that his tactics were unfair, or that he bowled at the man instead of the wicket. He didn't."

Have I no right to a perfectly clear conscience after such a decisive certificate from tho most trenchant, frank -I might also say biting writer on cricket among Australians, who has every qualification lo write about tho first class game?

Even with-out Noble's honest "All clear," I am perfectly satisfied, and sleep quite easy at nights.


WHAT TRUMBLE SAID

Then, I must repeat J. W. Trumble. An Australian of his long experience with no axe to grind, and who is not a personal friend of mine, though I have had the pleasure of meeting him, does not without very good reason write such phrases as :-

"The leg-theory attack rather ungenerously called 'body bowling...."

And again: "I consider it (leg-theory-bowling) quite legitimate and justifiable in Test cricket. It is absurd to suggest that the fast bowler in on-side bowling is deliberately bowling at the batsman with the intention of hitting him."

And again, writing of one of his own innings many years ago :- "I was hit about 20 times all over tho body by quick rising balls. I also had the difficulty to contend with, as with the leg theory attack, of steering clear of the close-in field waiting for catches. We must take the rough with the smooth. It is all in the game."


"DOWNRIGHT LIES"

Men of J. W. Trumble's stamp do not exaggerate, much less lie when they write of having been hit 20 times. Yet, compare that one Innings with thc sum total ot "hits'' recorded during the recent tour on three Australian batsmen, Woodfull, Oldfield, and Bradman, once each, and each time the hit was due to the batsman's fault. I claim that these facts be given full prominence when the public is discussing me and my tactics in Australia or anywhere else. They outweigh all the adverse statements in the press, most of which were exaggerations and some of which, I regret to-have to write it, were downright Iles.

Here I would like to add an extract from a book written by the late W. G. Grace which , I read some time back. It deeply concerns this very Important subject of physical injury by fast bowlers. In writing about the late Mr. C. E. Green of Essex Dr. Grace wrote:

"I can recall one match at Lord's, M.CC. and Ground V Yorkshire in 1870, when he (Mr. Green) stood up to Emmett and Freeman on one of the roughest, bumpiest wickets now and then on that ground 20 years ago. About every third or fourth ball kicked badly, and we were hit over the body; and had to dodge an occasional one with our heads. Shooters were pretty common on the same wicket and what with playing one ball and dodging another we had a lively and unenviable time of lt."

Judging from Dr. Grace's description nf that gamo of 63 years ago it seems to me that Bradman would not have enjoyed playing in it against Yorkshire.


AN AUSTRALIAN BOWLER

Perhaps modern Australian cricketers, and their idolaters. who write in their press may have heard of Ernest Jones of South Australia who was in his day one of the fastest of all bowlers. Indeed, I have heard it said that some years ago when a company of cricketers in Adelaide was discussing tho pace ot various bowlers, and the question arose as to which was tho absolute fastest someone turned to Jones for his opinion. His reply was laconic and instant. "Kortright was first, and I was second." said he, and went on with his tea. lt ls recorded of Jones that in England he managed to bowl through Dr. Grace's beard, and in the same season, 1896, in hitting Hon. F. S. Jackson over tho heart he damaged that gentleman's ribs. These are facts which modern Australians who were so vocal about me would do well to bear In mind. In that same year at Leeds Jones was so well wound up that the ball was flying round the Yorkshire-mans heads. At last he had the misfortune to hit one of them on tho head. Promptly was heard the shout: "Take the f__cker off, he'll kill him and he's got wife an' two chlldren t'home."


COTTER ANO GREGORY.

Have I not read that in the very first game of the 1905 tour in England Cotter of J. J. Darling's third team hlt Dr. Grace full pitch on tho chest In the first or second over. It would have been a knock-out for most men. At Trent Bridge they still talk of Cotter's great pace and shortness on the leg-side in the first Test of that tour as they do of Gregory's performance In the first Test of 1921 on the same ground when Ernest Tyldesley was struck and was almost carried off the field early In England's second Innings, towards the end of which a ball from Gregory touched the peak of Rhodes's cap. Was there then or in 1896, or In 1905 so much as a whimper from either the English cricketer, or the English press?

Old cricketers assure me that Jones and Cotter were taken as all in the day, and I am young enough to know that beyond complimentary talk and writings about their splendid pace and ability, Gregory and MacDonald had an absolutely fair deal throughout the tour of 1921 in England.

On that tour Frank Woolley made 95 and 93 against them in tho second Test at Lord's, and was hit all over the body. There was not a sound from tho barracker, and scarcely a murmur from tho press. Frank was even-more-silent than usual. He, no doubt could have said more than anyone! But in those days Test cricketers did not dash off to the microphone directly the days play was over to sell their souls and damage tho name and fame of the game as being mainly a money-making machine.


ALWAYS INTIMIDATING.

In this important matter I agree absolutely with tho colonial writer who, after observing that Bradman had said before his last lour that he could not let cricket interfere with his business, went on to write that the true answer to that statement is that Bradman should not be allowed to let his business interfere with the cricket of two countries.

I have purposely laid stress here upon tho deeds of former fast bowlers. I have not done so In a "tit-for-tat" spirit, but only in order to prove that very fast bowling always has been intimidating. It has always resulted in the batsmen being hit more or less, and to the very end of the game of cricket really fast bowling will always have that result. It is not in any ruthless spirit that I write that those who are afraid of being struck by a cricket ball should play some other game than cricket. We fast bowlers in our turn have to "face the music." . So we know what confronts batsmen who face us.

(To be continued.)

22 Jun 1933 - LARWOOD'S "BODY-LINE" - Trove

 

[Red]

It's said Kortright bowled a ball that rose from the bounce off the pitch and went over the boundary without hitting anything on the way.

If find this incredibly hard to believe, unless the ground was ridiculously small.

 

[Red]

My favourite bit of that Kortright piece is where he bowled a good length ball that went for 6 byes out of the ground. The only other bowler that has done something similar (half volleyed the sight screen) is Jeff Thomson, once at Perth and once at the SCG. Tom Richarson and Bill Lockwood must have both been exceptional bowlers to keep Kortright out of the England XI.

FWIW, even if a ball clears the rope in this fashion, it's 4 byes if it hasn't been touched by the batsman.

 

[watson]

It's said Kortright bowled a ball that rose from the bounce off the pitch and went over the boundary without hitting anything on the way.

If find this incredibly hard to believe, unless the ground was ridiculously small.

The story could be a shameless piece of promotion by Kortright, but no one at the time seems to have disputed it publically. Wisden even recalled the event in Kortright's obituary;

A man of splendid physique, standing six feet and possessing abundant stamina, Kortright took a long run and hurled the ball down at a great pace. He was fond of recounting the tale of a club match at Wallingford where, so he declared, he bowled a ball which rose almost straight and went out of the ground without a second bounce. This, he asserted, made him the first man to bowl a six in byes! He also claimed to have bowled Brockwell of Surrey with a yorker which rebounded from the bottom of the stumps and went back past Kortright almost to the boundary.

Charles Kortright | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

I'd reckon though that if the story is true then the ball must have hit a ridge or a bump in the wicket.

 

[the big bambino]

Red Hill. He mentions the ground, admits it was small and describes it as a club match which is why there wouldn't be a wisden or newspaper record of the event.

 

[Victor Ian]

There is no over the top in posting old articles. Best read in ages!

 

[watson]

There is no over the top in posting old articles. Best read in ages!

OK one more story then before I stop for a while.

This one is by Neville Cardus written in 1975 during the Lillee-Thomo series. The anecdote about the duel between Harold Larwood and E.A. McDonald is just great. And George Gunn wag for walking down the wicket to upper-cut a bouncer over third-man for 6.

Was McDonald as fast as Larwood? Possibly, probably.

Latest rice-pudding man


by Neville Cardus
Friday 24 January 1975
guardian.co.uk


It is easy to imagine, from the reports of the Test matches in Australia, that the fast, short-pitched, rising ball bowled by Thomson and Lillee is a newly-invented menace to the physical well-being of batsmen. Indeed, I expect to read, or hear, any moment a statement from some sociologist informing us that the fast bouncer and Thomson and Lillee are by-products of the present-day revival of violence everywhere, letter-bombs, bombs, hijacking, etc. Our sociologist could argue that Thomson and Lillee are hijackers, saying to the batsmen: "Surrender to us your wicket, or we'll put you in hospital."

Alas, there is nothing new under the sun, or the moon. The fast bouncer has like the poor and the jokes of BBC comedians, always been with us. When I was a small boy I saw the Australian bowler Cotter attacking England's batsmen at Old Trafford. I was terrified, mainly because I feared he might hurt my favourite cricketer, R. H. Spooner. In his first over two balls catapulted high above the head of the Australian wicket-keeper.

At Trent Bridge, in this same rubber of 1905, Cotter blasted his way through the England first innings, bombing Hayward, John Gunn and the usually imperturbable F. S. Jackson. John Gunn told me years afterwards, that at the outset of England's second innings, A. C. MacLaren was seen pacing up and down the dressing-room, padded-up, and muttering to himself: "I'll bloody well Cotter him." And MacLaren scored 140, dismissing Cotter's bouncers contemptuously from his presence.

But we need not go as far back as 1905 to seek out the advent of the fast bowler's bouncer, called bumpers then. Only yester-year the West Indians, Hall and Griffith, menaced cranium and thorax; Hall broke the left wrist of Cowdrey at Lord's in 1963 - and Dexter put Hall to the sword with the high disdain of MacLaren. Have the cricket reporters in Australia forgotten Gregory and Macdonald bowling ferocious bouncers in Armstrong's Australian team of 1921?

At Trent Bridge, Gregory with a bouncer knocked out Ernest Tyldesley, the ball hitting his head then falling on the stumps. After the match I saw Ernest Tyldesley's more famous brother J. T. Tyldesley, and I expressed to him my sympathy with Ernest in his bad luck at Trent Bridge. But J. T. was not at all sympathetic. "He was trying to hook and ran into the ball. When a batsman tries to hook he should move over to the offside, then if the ball is not at the right height to hook, he leaves it alone, and the ball passes harmlessly over his left shoulder."

At Leeds, in 1921, the Hon. Lionel Tennyson, with a split hand, assaulted Gregory violently. Stanley McCabe coped triumphantly even with Larwood's nuclear attack, the so-called "body-line", in Australia. We can sum up the contemporary England batsmen's fearsome notion of the bouncer, a general idea that a bouncer is not quite cricket, by pointing out that one of the great strokes in all the batsman's repertory is the hook. And the hook could not have been invented and perfected, except against the short-pitched bouncer.

In a Lancashire v. Nottinghamshire match at Old Trafford, in the late twenties, Larwood was bouncing them. He was horrifically explosive. At the close of Lancashire's innings, E. A. Macdonald, Lancashire's imported and most stylish - and fast and most dangerous of fast bowlers to batsmen's anatomy - went into the Notts' players" dressing-room, advising them to ring up the nearest infirmary for an ambulance. "I'll show you," he threatened, "what a fast bumper really is." And he did. Whysall was hurt and obliged to leave the field. George Gunn walked out of his crease to Macdonald"s fastest. A bouncer came to him on the offside; he actually cut under the ball, sending it over third-man's head, high over, for six. Macdonald stopped in his run to bowl as he saw George walking towards him, out of his crease. "Get back, George," commanded Macdonald, "or I'll knock your head off." George replied to the fastest of fast bowlers, "Ted, you couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding."

Ernest Jones, also Australian, sent a bouncer through the beard of W. G. Grace and was severely reprimanded verbally and by bat. At Old Trafford, in 1896, Ernest Jones bounced at fierce and lightning pace - and Ranjitsinhji scored 154, not out. In his retirement, Ranjitsinhji told me that one ball from Jones grazed his left ear, drawing blood. "I mistimed; I don't think I was seeing the ball very well that day."

As Compton remarked, over the radio the other day, the bouncer can be more or less controlled, given the technique. English batsmen, in recent years, have had little opportunity to practise against really fast stuff.

One of the most brightening exhibitions of fast bouncing bowling I have ever seen occurred at Old Trafford in 1948 during the England v. Australia Test match. Lindwall was awesome. He almost paralysed Compton's left arm, then, with a "no-ball" so much over the crease that he let the ball go its vicious way far down the pitch, he struck Compton's forehead as in fact Compton actually tried to hook (no running away!) and the missile flew off the edge of his bat. Compton staggered and was led from the field, his forehead bleeding. Stitches were sewn into the wound. He wanted to resume his innings but was advised by a doctor to rest awhile. Edrich (Bill), held the fort bravely, even as his kinsman did at Sydney the other week.

Compton - believe it or not - went to a net to find out if he could still see a quick ball, then resumed his Test match innings, stayed until close of play, and next morning carried his score to 145 not out. As Wisden recorded, Lindwall bowled bouncers with such force and dangerous aim that during this season of 1948 he knocked-out or hurt Compton, Todd, Washbrook (a great hooker), Keeton, Robertson and Watkins.

Bouncers of real pace are obviously not liked by ordinarily batsmen. But if bouncers are ever made illegal one of the imperial strokes will depart from batsmanship, much to the disappointment of the shades of A. C. MacLaren, Trumper, Jessop, Hendren and Hammond (who, in his early years, was a powerful and noble hooker). I am pretty sure that one or two batsmen still with us would be eager to tackle the short clanging bouncers of Thomson - Barry Richards, for instance, Clive Lloyd and, maybe, Greg Chappell.

Latest rice-pudding man | 1970-1979 | Guardian Century

 

[watson]

At the 7 minute mark exactly we see Ted McDonald's hitting a batsman with a bouncer off a full run-up...

 

[jimmy101]

Oh yes. McDonald looks quick. Perfectly smooth action that reminds me of Wes Hall's a little. At a rough guess McDonald's speed looks to be in the 140-145 kmh vicinity.

 

[Starfighter]

Funny you should say that. There's a documentary on bowlers out there with David Frith which describes a West Indian as having a 'deceptively soft an easy approach reminiscent of McDonald the Australian' the bowler in question being Michael Holding.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

That's this video:

 

[jimmy101]

I hadn't heard about Gilchrist, although I've heard about Tyson and Shoaib bowling '6 byes'. However, the only players that I've been able to find evidence of some kind for are Kortright and Thomson.

If you could find something for Gilchrist, Tyson, or Shoaib then that would be nice.

Unfortunately there is no hard evidence of this on Gilchrist's behalf. I did however find an old CW thread on Gilchrist where Swervy seems to have heard/read the same story I did:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/17200-who-s-heard-roy-gilchrist-2.html

The story also happens to be in Gilchrist's wikipedia entry (untrustworthy recourse I know). However, it's all very plausible that it never happened at all.