New Feature: Cricketing Myths by Patrick Ferriday

[the big bambino]

Well yeah no one actually writes a real time progress of the game but their recollections are nonetheless sound. When they write of bowlers having one or two short legs they are simply describing what they are seeing on the field. They are are placed there for the catches off rising balls off hips and ribs. While the lenght is short it is still fuller than the length that produces bumpers. Bumpers weren't mentioned except for specific periods in the 30s and 40s. They being bodyline and the the expression of Bradman's revenge via Lindwall and Miller. Even the 50s had little mention of bumpers. Tyson's series in 54/55 was reportedly achieved without resort to the severe exploitation of the bumper.

It took a while for cricket to exorcise its abhorrence of the short ball after bodyline. I think that is one of the reasons why the head high attack didn't really start until the arrival of Griffith in the 60s. The reaction to bodyline suppressed the tactical use of the head high bumper. However the use of shortlegs was common in the 30s (and 40s and possibly 50s) both before and after the Jardine series. I can only assume that the shorter length into the body as opposed to the head to produce catches was considered legitimate and uncontroversial. I'll add that shortlegs were employed by bowlers who achieved catches via in swing like Fred Root as well as taller faster men employing lift off a shorter length.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

And exactly what I was saying was that head-high bowling was not common compared to the 70s. I never mentioned short legs or denied their existance (otherwise, I wouldn't have seen Sid Barnes having a ball driven into his chest); it was exactly my point that chest-high bowling was what was meant by 'bumper' versus head-high bowling later; I also mentioned that 70s bowlers including Lillee tried to define their tactics as being chest-height bowling like what had been commonly used, but in fact they regularly sent the ball down at batsmen's heads.

And that your reference to some book or other is irrelevant for what I was saying.

The fact bowlers generally bowled fuller even for their short balls makes it easier for them to stand at a closer position like what one sees before WWII.

 

[Starfighter]

I remember seeing a list somewhere of instances of batsmen getting hit, from the late thirties or fourties maybe? It was quite evident that strikes on the upper part of the body were much rarer prior to the 1921 Ashes and there was quite a distinct peak in the early-mid thirties.

And exactly what I was saying was that head-high bowling was not common compared to the 70s. I never mentioned short legs or denied their existance (otherwise, I wouldn't have seen Sid Barnes having a ball driven into his chest); it was exactly my point that chest-high bowling was what was meant by 'bumper' versus head-high bowling later; I also mentioned that 70s bowlers including Lillee tried to define their tactics as being chest-height bowling like what had been commonly used, but in fact they regularly sent the ball down at batsmen's heads.

Basically you're saying Dennis Lillee is a tosspot who lied about the fact he aimed at batsmen's heads to hit them, not to get wickets. I can get behind such an opinion.

A recent book gives a representative example of the tactics employed.

Could I please know the title?

I remember a couple of years ago Charles Davis did an article where he talked about a series of about a dozen field charts from The Times(?) from circa 1893, where he mentioned that only one field resembled a modern one (the opening field for Mold) and had the Briggs field with mid and long off and on and a straight hit. I wonder what the other fields looked like, the archive is paywalled, and field settings I've seen mentioned in various books from the era aren't that weird.

 

[the big bambino]

And exactly what I was saying was that head-high bowling was not common compared to the 70s. I never mentioned short legs or denied their existance (otherwise, I wouldn't have seen Sid Barnes having a ball driven into his chest); it was exactly my point that chest-high bowling was what was meant by 'bumper' versus head-high bowling later.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I don't know why you thought I was. I was just saying there were reasons preventing the exploitation of the bouncer back then. But also that its not to say they didn't employ the short ball, just that they directed it to the upper body not the head.

I remember seeing a list somewhere of instances of batsmen getting hit, from the late thirties or fourties maybe? It was quite evident that strikes on the upper part of the body were much rarer prior to the 1921 Ashes and there was quite a distinct peak in the early-mid thirties.


Basically you're saying Dennis Lillee is a tosspot who lied about the fact he aimed at batsmen's heads to hit them, not to get wickets. I can get behind such an opinion.


Could I please know the title?

I remember a couple of years ago Charles Davis did an article where he talked about a series of about a dozen field charts from The Times(?) from circa 1893, where he mentioned that only one field resembled a modern one (the opening field for Mold) and had the Briggs field with mid and long off and on and a straight hit. I wonder what the other fields looked like, the archive is paywalled, and field settings I've seen mentioned in various books from the era aren't that weird.

Edging towards Darkness. I've seen the Davis article reconstructing the Briggs field. It was odd tstl. It was almost as if the bowler was trying to prevent singles to mid off and mid on so the batsman had to hit the ball over those fielders. Almost simplistically the bowler seems to have then set long on and long off for them.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I don't know why you thought I was. I was just saying there were reasons preventing the exploitation of the bouncer back then. But also that its not to say they didn't employ the short ball, just that they directed it to the upper body not the head.

You really didn't say that before though. I mentioned the 70s and you said that there was this book saying that the head wasn't deliberately aimed for after I'd said I'd reckoned that Lillee did sonetimes deliberately aim for it, as if to disagree and say no-one did it. I was distinguishing the two 'eras' and already said that people didn't aim for the head so much before.



I don't think people even these days instruct—that is, coach or teach formally—people to aim at the head. They'll either use the old terms or couch it in more poetic and less direct language ('give him a reminder', 'put him in his place', etc.) to avoid the fact that they are deliberately aiming at the head, particularly against poorer batsmen. I remember during the last Ashes series our bowlers continually bowling short to the English tailenders even though they could have ended it with a few well-directed yorkers.

 

[AndrewB]

I remember seeing a list somewhere of instances of batsmen getting hit, from the late thirties or fourties maybe? It was quite evident that strikes on the upper part of the body were much rarer prior to the 1921 Ashes and there was quite a distinct peak in the early-mid thirties.


Basically you're saying Dennis Lillee is a tosspot who lied about the fact he aimed at batsmen's heads to hit them, not to get wickets. I can get behind such an opinion.


Could I please know the title?

I remember a couple of years ago Charles Davis did an article where he talked about a series of about a dozen field charts from The Times(?) from circa 1893, where he mentioned that only one field resembled a modern one (the opening field for Mold) and had the Briggs field with mid and long off and on and a straight hit. I wonder what the other fields looked like, the archive is paywalled, and field settings I've seen mentioned in various books from the era aren't that weird.

The Charles Davis article is at http://www.sportstats.com.au/BlogArchive2017.htm#feb212017 .

 

[Red]

Basically you're saying Dennis Lillee is a tosspot who lied about the fact he aimed at batsmen's heads to hit them, not to get wickets. I can get behind such an opinion.

lol, righto, edgelord.

 

[the big bambino]

You really didn't say that before though. I mentioned the 70s and you said that there was this book saying that the head wasn't deliberately aimed for after I'd said I'd reckoned that Lillee did sonetimes deliberately aim for it, as if to disagree and say no-one did it. I was distinguishing the two 'eras' and already said that people didn't aim for the head so much before.


.

You’re being tedious. And quit quoting your misunderstanding as if I said it. I make no comment about Lillee. Just the older era played at a time when there was a heavy discouragement against bumpers. But pace bowlers still had a bob each way by bowling short at the body as the prevalent employment of short legs show.

 

[Starfighter]

You’re being tedious. And quit quoting your misunderstanding as if I said it. I make no comment about Lillee. Just the older era played at a time when there was a heavy discouragement against bumpers. But pace bowlers still had a bob each way by bowling short at the body as the prevalent employment of short legs show.

You're just misinterpreting what he's saying, tediously.

 

[the big bambino]

You're just misinterpreting what he's saying, tediously.

What? Are you trying to "get square" by crawling into a discussion that wasn't addressing you?

 

[Starfighter]

What? You really take a straight line in a race to the bottom don't you.

As far as I can see you agree significantly with respect to changes in tactics, yet somehow you keep making aggressive 'well actually' comments and badgering on points where he never disagreed with you, while not getting what he's saying with respect to Lillee.

 

[the big bambino]

As far as I can see you agree significantly with respect to changes in tactics, yet somehow you keep making aggressive 'well actually' comments and badgering on points where he never disagreed with you, while not getting what he's saying with respect to Lillee.

Butting in like you did is aggressive. I made it clear I had no point of disagreement. Which is followed by a post that claimed that "well actually" I did. If you were reading as intently as you were stalking you'd notice I wasn't commenting about Lillee so how can it be said I wasn't getting what he said? You're a bizarre person and might not get that people really don't want you tee boning a discussion to pick fights.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

You’re being tedious. And quit quoting your misunderstanding as if I said it.

If you don't want to be misunderstood, actually make it clear what part you are responding to rather than expecting somebody to be able to read your mind. You did not mention Lillee, but nor did you mention anything about Lindwall, Miller, the 30s—60s, etc. which would show that that was what you were talking about. Given I was mentioning multiple eras, don't just refer to book of tactics without mentioning what it is: they are not restricted to talking about the 30s and 40s. I mentioned aiming at the head and that it wasn't done earlier but was done later in spite of people's denials, and your post goes "this shows people didn't aim at the head" after I'd said that people did [in a particular era] without mentioning when it was you were talking about. Furthermore, people tend to read a page top to bottom, so if you are going to respond out of sequence, as it were, without adding details in as to which of the two eras you are addressing, there is a button to help make the point clearly.

 

[the big bambino]

If you don't want to be misunderstood, actually make it clear what part you are responding to rather than expecting somebody to be able to read your mind. You did not mention Lillee, but nor did you mention anything about Lindwall, Miller, the 30s—60s, etc. which would show that that was what you were talking about. Given I was mentioning multiple eras, don't just refer to book of .

I just want you to read what I wrote. I mentioned bodyline, Lindwall and Miller, Bradman, the 30s 40s and 50s, Fred Root, the prevalent tactic of fielding short legs in that era and Edging Towards Darkness. Did you not see that because you were so infatuated with your point about Lillee you just assumed I was challenging it? So I think your misunderstanding is quite clear in the light of you comments. If as you now admit I didn’t mention Lillee would it not have been prudent of you to ask if I was referring to him? What a dumpster fire this has become.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I just want you to read what I wrote. I mentioned bodyline, Lindwall and Miller, Bradman, the 30s 40s and 50s, Fred Root, the prevalent tactic of fielding short legs in that era and Edging Towards Darkness.

Actually, you wrote:

A recent book gives a representative example of the tactics employed. A lot of deliveries aimed at the region between thigh and ribs. But no mention of the head being deliberately aimed for.

Doesn't mention any of those things.

Did you not see that because you were so infatuated with your point about Lillee you just assumed I was challenging it?

They appear in sequence and it was a statement disaffirming aiming at the head following one affirming it. You say you wanted to respond to the earlier part, so you should have quoted it.

 

[the big bambino]

Did you say well “actually”.

Selective quoting isn’t clever. Or honest. I said all the things in my previous post at various points. I think I also mentioned Tyson as well. Go through and read them if you like. Clearly it’d be the first time.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

It is not selective quoting, it is quoting what started off this entire argument, and your actually making it clear what you were meaning occurred four posts later, and after you had said that I should go off and:

read the observations of those who actually watched whole matches

Which is a rather presumptuous thing to say.

It was only after I'd responded to that with a lengthy post that you responded with any detail, names, times, titles that would show that we were in agreement as to the difference between time periods and that the book you mentioned and time you meant was addressing the earlier time period rsther than the later one as you did not make this clear originally.


Accusing people of dishonesty, selective quotation and not reading anything is an easy thing to throw around; substantiation it may take a little more work.

 

[the big bambino]

It is not selective quoting, it is quoting what started off this entire argument, and your actually making it clear what you were meaning occurred four posts later, and after you had said that I should go off and:

Oh well then, my apologies.


Which is a rather presumptuous thing to say.

It was only after I'd responded to that with a lengthy post that you responded with any detail, names, times, titles that would show that we were in agreement as to the difference between time periods and that the book you mentioned and time you meant was addressing the earlier time period rsther than the later one as you did not make this clear originally.

Wait a second. So i did make it clear. I take back my apology. You did quote selectively

Accusing people of dishonesty, selective quotation and not reading anything is an easy thing to throw around; substantiation it may take a little more work.

When its proven its no longer an accusation.

Oh btw, when you say something like Ive seen a lot of film or somesuch and imply that it is somehow superior to the witness of jounos and test players then that is being a little presumptuous.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

a second. So i did make it clear. I take back my apology. You did quote selectively

No I did not. You did not provide any detail to disambiguate your position until after I had included a detailed response that stated my position.

The sequence goes:

There is a distinct lack of deliveries ...
And sorry Dennis Lillee...

^my noting the absence of head-high balls earlier and noting Lillee's attempt to rationalise his bowling as being the same.

A recent book gives a representative example of the tactics employed. A lot of deliveries aimed at the region between thigh and ribs. But no mention of the head being deliberately aimed for.

^ Your post. You did not quote the part of mine you were responding to, so it reads as a response to the last stement in the previous post. You did not mention any book title, names or times which would disambiguate it.

I'm going from watching what was actually filmed

^ My response, noting that I relied on visual evidence, not written evidence which can by faulted as I later explained.

Just think of the amount you haven't seen. Then you can read the observations of those who actually watched whole matches.

^ Your remark in response. Again, no mention of which time period, a book title, or any bowlers' names.

What's missing...

^ My detailed repsonse as to why I believe your previous post to be faulty.

Well yeah ...

^ The first post in which you actually included any detail, showing that we agree that head-height balls were not used as much earlier on. You did not mention the book title or its contents then either—it could have referred to the 30s or the 70s—and only gave its title in a response to another poster

When its proven its no longer an accusation.

And stating it's proven without actually proving it is not proof.

Oh btw, when you say something like Ive seen a lot of film or somesuch and imply that it is somehow superior to the witness of jounos and test players then that is being a little presumptuous.

When one watches films, one can see what people might mean by the employment of certain words, so that one can see that bowling bumpers at batsmen in the forties was different (in general) to bowling them these days, and one might get a chance to see different tactics in action. Memory may change between witness and writing, and as the top of this thread shows, people writing in retrospect who may be able to check multiple primary sources may not get things right either. Bill Bowes in 1961 stated that Statham leant a very long way back in his bowling action, which is not backed up by film; Malcolm Knox (speaking of agendas) quotes Bradman and Miller giving quite different accounts of certain deliveries Bradman claims to have got out to. After Meckiff was called for throwing in 1963, Australian newspaper reports state that English papers widely quoted Ted Dexter's opinion on the matter, even though he did not see the actual events and how many witnesses found them ambiguous and hence hard to back up Dexter's certain statements.

It is presumptuous to assume that I ignore or have not seen written sources. I know from experience with them that I would prefer to be see visual evidence rather than go solely on written accounts, which furthermore may vary in what details they decide to emphasise.

 

[trundler]

Think this dick measuring contest has been drawn out long enough. Call it a day, lads.