Some old bowlers...

[the big bambino]

Do you mean at the beginning of the vid? The editing of those old films isn't the best as we've seen with one frame spliced with a completely different bit of action the next. The only batsmen I see emerging from the race are Hobbs and Sutcliffe. They are the only batsmen I see in the film. The bloke bowling at the bottom of the screen looks like a spinner to me. I've checked the scorecard and Pegler did open the bowling (with Parker).

 

[Starfighter]

I can only go by what the film information is telling me, I don't have photos of any of Pegler, Parker or Gilligan bowling and they're often what I'd use (though a hapless batsman does usually equal Sutcliffe), I have one other clip of Gilligan bowling and it does look a bit different, although it was after his bad injury. It doesn't explain that other clip that I linked though, where you clearly see the same fast bowler but the score shown at 0:58 doesn't match up to any of the two tests Parker played in. I am now a little bit inclined that you may be right, but that linked video is a big question mark. It wouldn't be the first time I messed up here - while making the collage I released that the bowler I'd said was Morkel in a 1927/28 clip in the HF thread was actually Geary, and they look nothing alike.

Also I don't think the slower bowler is bowling actual leg spin. Widen says that Pegler bowled medium, but with a 'quick break from leg', so it sounds like he was cutting the ball, and the wrist is straight.

 

[andruid]

Clearly Chucking

 

[Starfighter]

On a side note a search for 'Sid Pegler cricketer' brings up a whole bunch of pictures of Chris ****ing Woakes and Yasir Shah.

 

[bagapath]

Best thread ever

 

[a massive zebra]

Do you mean at the beginning of the vid? The editing of those old films isn't the best as we've seen with one frame spliced with a completely different bit of action the next. The only batsmen I see emerging from the race are Hobbs and Sutcliffe. They are the only batsmen I see in the film. The bloke bowling at the bottom of the screen looks like a spinner to me. I've checked the scorecard and Pegler did open the bowling (with Parker).

I'm sure you're right. Number 11 definitely isn't Maurice Tate.

 

[Starfighter]

Quirky bowling action isn't it? Especially with the little heel twist before the start of his run-up.

I'm noticing a lot of the bowlers from pre-war times had short run-ups. Makes me think that those marathon run-ups were only really utilised on a large scale after WW2. Only Larwood seems to buck this trend.

Wes Hall immediately springs to mind when it comes to post-war bowlers with huge run-ups, apparently he used to run in from near the fence itself.

Manny Martindale & Jack Gregory seem to have had quite long run-ups.

I've counted a few runups over the years, although defining which steps you want to count (do preliminary strides count? I generally omit them) is a bit problematic. There is a relatively sudden, large increase in the sixties (which was also when the issue first really began to be whinged about in Wisden). I believe that it's mainly down to Hall and Trueman.

There were some reputed very long runs before, McCormick's was supposed to be 20 strides and Frank Tyson's more, although he only seemed to come in off 10-12 when he adopted his shorter run. However 15-16 seems to have been the general upper limit. Larwood was 14 steps, Gregory 12 at my count and Martindale 13. Some slower bowlers took even shorter runs, Bowes and Voce both ran only 8. Some faster bowlers also took very short runs, Miller's was only 10 and Walter Brearley is supposed to have ran only 8. Interestingly Cowie ran 11-12 despite generally only being ranked as 'fast-medium', though to my eye he could easily be faster than Bowes.

Unfortunately counting the strides in a runup isn't easy and the sources we have seem loathe to even estimate the length of fast bowlers' runs, only saying that they are 'long'. A medium pacer is generally described as having a run of 4-8 yards, and we are only told that fast bowlers bowled off 'much longer' runs. Brearley's run which was notable for its shortness was supposed to be 'much shorter' than Richardson's, and Spofforth was supposed to have bowled medium pace off a 'much shorter' run than when he was bowling full pace. Interestingly Spofforth's run is described by Grace as being sharply angled, appearing as if he were going to bowl to 'short leg' (square leg in the regular parlance of the time), and Knox's a well, supposedly starting 'near deep mid-off'.

When we come to the runs becoming longer I think we start at Trueman. The longest I've counted his is 16 strides which was at the top end (I think Lindwall ran 15 or so) but his particularly long, loping steps and prominent curve see to have influenced a lot of people - you see some crazily curved runs amongst English cricketers in the sixties but much less so elsewhere. He was also criticised for how log it took him to bowl his overs. However I think it's Wes Hall who deserves most of the blame. I've counted his full run at 22 strides and he's the first player whose runup I've actually seen all of to exceed 20. Coming into the late sixties - when runups first really came to Wisden's curmudgeonly attention, these get a lot more common, I think peaking in the late seventies and early-mid eighties. It was these times when you had Snedden jogging in off 22 paces to deliver some desultory 124 km/h seam up. The longest I've actually counted was McDermott's at 26 in 1988, the shear length being emphasised by him looking like he was running through sand (or treacle). The craze seems to have died out since then but lengths these days seem to be often around 15-18 strides, which would have been the maximum back before 1960 or so.

 

[jimmy101]

I know it'd be almost impossible to find out, but it would be cool to have a rough idea on how long the really, really old players run-ups were. I'm think Spofforth, Richardson, Kortright etc.

Otherwise it might be entirely plausible that Gregory & Larwood were the pioneers of long run-ups.

 

[the big bambino]

I can only go by what the film information is telling me, I don't have photos of any of Pegler, Parker or Gilligan bowling and they're often what I'd use (though a hapless batsman does usually equal Sutcliffe), I have one other clip of Gilligan bowling and it does look a bit different, although it was after his bad injury. It doesn't explain that other clip that I linked though, where you clearly see the same fast bowler but the score shown at 0:58 doesn't match up to any of the two tests Parker played in. I am now a little bit inclined that you may be right, but that linked video is a big question mark. It wouldn't be the first time I messed up here - while making the collage I released that the bowler I'd said was Morkel in a 1927/28 clip in the HF thread was actually Geary, and they look nothing alike.

Also I don't think the slower bowler is bowling actual leg spin. Widen says that Pegler bowled medium, but with a 'quick break from leg', so it sounds like he was cutting the ball, and the wrist is straight.

I have no idea what match the clip you link to is. The youtube commenters don't either. There is reference to Woolley bowling but there isn't any left arm spinner in the clip. The title of the clip refers to cricket 1940-49 so while it is dimly possible I don't think the bowler is Gilligan, though more likely if the match was in the 20s as one commenter to the you tube clip suggests.

I'm not pursuing this to show you up. Those old films are extremely hard to identify. I'll explain what got me to have a closer look. When you first identified Tate in your collage I was surprised as I never thought of him as a slinger but just thought to myself well you learn something everyday. Then you mentioned that Tate seemed to have changed his action over the years. Yet he always bowled with the same action throughout even after he started bowling seam as opposed to slow medium off breaks. So I had a look at the film clip. Following its story we have both teams taking team photos with the South Africans first. I take note of their wicket keeper who is padded up. Then the English team is shown. Hobbs and Sutcliffe are padded up. The toss must have already taken place and the choice of innings decided. Cricinfo says SA won the toss and put England in. (Despite that the film then shows the toss even though it must have taken place before the team photos). Then the teams emerge from the race. I look for the SA wk who looks just like the man padded up in the team photo. Hobbs and Sutcliffe then emerge behind them. What follows is film of Hobbs and Sutcliffe batting including Hobbs almost doing a Graeme Wood and running out Sutcliffe but he survives. The 2 bowlers shown do not look like Gilligan who can be seen clearly in the team photo and the toss. They do look remarkably like, in style, the 2 bowlers cricinfo said SA opened with; fast Parker and slow medium to slow Pegler. The slips look too shallow for Tate. Lastly the most striking thing is how different the play is to the introduction. The introduction gives you the impression of wickets falling everywhere as the Saffers were bowled out for 30. Yet we see no wickets falling. Just Hobbs and Sutcliffe on their way to their first hundred partnership. So all the play we see is that which immediately transpired after Gilligan and Taylor tossed which resulted in England being sent in.

I can see how the above might appear to be one upmanship. It isn't. I appreciate you finding these clips. I think you'd agree with me they are difficult to locate the exact play for a good number of reasons. This post shows just how much you have to look into some to clarify just what you are seeing.

 

[Starfighter]

The mystery clip clearly shows the same bowler as in the test match clip. I'm asking you, that since you have a better handle on batsmen and the like, where do you think it is from? It shows a fall of wicket, yet the score doesn't add up to the 1st or 2nd (this is where you wish that the English weren't cheap ****s and used proper scoreboards).

If it's Parker bowling, and I think you're right, the it must be from the 1st or 2nd test, and I don't know grounds very well but it looks a bit like Lord's. Parker only played 3 FC matches so it's not a big sample to choose from.


Also I did actually talk about the clip with someone IRL, and we did agree that it at least seemed odd that if it was Tate and Gilligan that they would have both changed their actions substantially (but not an impossible degree, they do have some resemblance) between this tour and the Ashes in 24/25. The problem is that Parker has a low action and Gilligan is described (and has, from the 24/25 clips I've seen) a low action. I'm bad with batsmen, though a capless one should have pegged Sutcliffe, you'll notice I've asked about batsmen in several posts in the HF thread (not that anyone replied of course)

 

[jimmy101]

I know it'd be almost impossible to find out, but it would be cool to have a rough idea on how long the really, really old players run-ups were. I'm think Spofforth, Richardson, Kortright etc.

Otherwise it might be entirely plausible that Gregory & Larwood were the pioneers of long run-ups.

Did a slight bit of research during my lunch break. Found this quote from this article: "The length of the run varied from sixteen steps as a young man, to nine when he was older." Fred Spofforth: The first aggressive fast bowler and one of the greatest ever

It's not an overstatement to suggest that Spofforth, and his action, was one of the biggest influences on pace bowling ever.

 

[jimmy101]

Tom Richardson is reported to have had a "relatively long run-up" in this wikivisually entry: Tom Richardson (cricketer)

Suggests to me that he might have had a slightly shorter runup than Spofforth.

 

[Starfighter]

Did a slight bit of research during my lunch break. Found this quote from this article: "The length of the run varied from sixteen steps as a young man, to nine when he was older." Fred Spofforth: The first aggressive fast bowler and one of the greatest ever

It's not an overstatement to suggest that Spofforth, and his action, was one of the biggest influences on pace bowling ever.

I wonder if sixteen refers to paces out, which would make it short by modern standards, or strides in, which would be long by the standards of the time.

Also, 'first aggressive fast bowler'? I think John Jackson and George Tarrant would be slightly miffed by the idea they weren't aggressive.

 

[jimmy101]

I wonder if sixteen refers to paces out, which would make it short by modern standards, or strides in, which would be long by the standards of the time.

Also, 'first aggressive fast bowler'? I think John Jackson and George Tarrant would be slightly miffed by the idea they weren't aggressive.

I would have thought paces out & strides in would have been the same, wouldn't they? When a fast bowler marks their run up, aren't they trying to replicate what they do when they actually bowl the ball?

Jackson & Tarrant were by all means worthy of the description. They were however both roundarm bowlers, which may have persuaded the author to not consider them.

 

[cnerd123]

I would have thought paces out & strides in would have been the same, wouldn't they? When a fast bowler marks their run up, aren't they trying to replicate what they do when they actually bowl the ball?

Sometimes bowlers measure their run up in normal length steps, because the length of their stride will vary as they run in. So they may take X number of steps to mark a run, but actually have a different number of steps as they run in to bowl.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes, and often when I see 'paces' I generally think of it as referring to measured steps, as if you were trying to estimate a length. Really it's a bit ambiguous.

I take my run as 21 paces out and about 14 in (a lot for someone who bowls 105 km/h, but that's bottom grade club cricket for you).

 

[the big bambino]

The mystery clip clearly shows the same bowler as in the test match clip. I'm asking you, that since you have a better handle on batsmen and the like, where do you think it is from? It shows a fall of wicket, yet the score doesn't add up to the 1st or 2nd (this is where you wish that the English weren't cheap ****s and used proper scoreboards).

I honestly can't identify anyone in the mystery clip. Or see a clear similarity with anyone in the Birmingham test clip. I am certain the batsmen in the Birmingham clip are Hobbs and Sutcliffe so the bowlers have to be Saffers.

 

[the big bambino]

I know it'd be almost impossible to find out, but it would be cool to have a rough idea on how long the really, really old players run-ups were. I'm think Spofforth, Richardson, Kortright etc.

Otherwise it might be entirely plausible that Gregory & Larwood were the pioneers of long run-ups.

I think Cardus said Gregory had a long run up and for the benefit of introducing him to a then modern audience, he compared him in style to Wes Hall.

 

[Starfighter]

Abe Waddington was another slinger. He also has possibly the most awkward entry to the crease of any pace bowler I've seen, turning a very sharp angle on his jump into his delivery stride. I can't help but think he might have been perhaps a little better had he entered straighter. He served Yorkshire very well for eight years, succeeding Hirst, but did fail completely in Australia, struggling with injury. He was also involved in what was a major incident in 1924 descriptions of which sound so tame that it might very well have passed unnoticed today, oh how the times have changed!

 

[Starfighter]

I think Cardus said Gregory had a long run up and for the benefit of introducing him to a then modern audience, he compared him in style to Wes Hall.

I wonder which part of those twos' actions Cardus was thinking of. You can see all of Gregory's run up here. It's obviously much shorter than Hall's and a bit more ragged too. That said I can't think of a bowler contemporary to Hall whose run would really compare in style to Gregory. I wonder if Cardus was thinking of the whirling style of delivery instead. They both bring their bowling arms quite high and sticking out a long way, but Hall has a much smoother and more obviously efficient entry to the crease, whereas Gregory has his famous 'hop' (really more of a jump with a very short stride) which I wonder if it contributed to his knee problems. Gregory also has a low slinging action hence his presence here while Hall's is upright and more conventional, though he still extends his shoulder more than most modern bowlers.

Despite the differences in the rest of their runs and actions their positions while in the air before back foot contact are remarkably similar.