why do we trust anything from cricket history before tv at all?

[Flem274*]

i would not be surprised if the cricketing narrative pre-tv is all crap.

all we have to go on are statistics and former players opinions. one of these can be manipulated and the dribble on commentary we hear from former players nowadays shows the latter is terrible and should just be ignored.

im going to take mitchell starc as an example, since he annoys his own fans by bowling 80% dribble and 20% perfect second new ball bowling yet averages 28, only 2 runs more than jason gillespie and the same as craig mcdermott.

if these ****s played pre-tv, they'd be bloody hard to separate using numbers and commentators mix up starc in odis vs starc in tests all the time. we know gillespie and mcdermott were far better, but it would be hard to show it before tv.

ian chappell is far more interested in the bounce at the waca and intent than actually having a good opinion, and i can't think of many commentators around the world with actually good and interesting opinions, so im not having a bar of their ratings of former cricketers when they can barely form a sentence better than 'the bowling side will really want to get a wicket!' (shaun pollock, cwc 2019)

some pom is going to mention atherton and hussain, the same atherton and hussain who get so excited by a mark wood 139kph ball (160kph on the pommie speed guns) they forget he's terrible.

then there's cricinfo, who generally just talk about south africa choking every 5 minutes if they don't have any posts from here to steal from and make into an 'article'.

can you actually imagine the narrative on virat kohli if he played before tv? you'd be convinced he's better than bradman by the way every commentator fawns over his every move. even now he's going to be the most egregiously overrated cricketer in history which is quite an achievement given he's a great player. simon doull should be executed for treason during his 'commentary stint' in the semi final.

we can make some broad conclusions on the past, but the sort of hair splitting player v player debates we get into are pretty pointless when you go back before tv. everything we know beyond bradman is the best, larwood was terrifying and a few other obvious things is probably just all crap fed to us by blokes who'd bore us to tears if they had to commentate on tv.

 

[Athlai]

How come you don’t capitalise anymore Phlegm, who hurt you

 

[Chewie]

its what all the cool kids do

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do we really know that McDermott and Gillespie were far better than Starc?

 

[Starfighter]

Well, it's partly subjectivity. I think Starc bowls a bit worse than his bowling average, but I think McDermott is overrated and was only a little better. I do think that Starc wouldn't get as many plaudits if wasn't left handed though.

But a good amount of what you are talking about is a very modern kind of media hype, which is also often an in the moment thing, whereas a lot of opinions we read about past players are retrospective, career covering ones. If Starc ends with about the same career as he has now I think people might in time form more realistic opinions. We can easily look back at Wood's average and see he's crap, for example, rather than fawning over the speed gun.
A lot of the opinions you hear on people like Larwood and Bradman were formed by people who actually played with and against them, and often without being in the forced cheer leading environment of the modern commentary box. The constant wanking off Kohli by the media is very much a product of media hype and his projected image abetted by the internet and TV. In Bradman's era you didn't have the television so it was much harder to let your personality do the talking and people had to actually come to the ground and watch you score runs, and see in Bradman's case see the constant supply of huge scores in the newspaper. Or you were bowling or fielding to him, if you were a player.

Hype certainly did occur, but I think that judgements tended to be based more off performance and descriptions thereof because you only had watching in person and reading newspaper reports as your way of judging, and there was less of a personality cult narrative to maintain.

 

[cnerd123]

Most of the video footage we have of past cricket is also just highlight reels. We don't have access to much, if any, full-match footage. So sure, players will look good if all you're watching is their highlights. It's hard to evaluate their real quality without watching all the 'boring' stuff in between.

 

[harsh.ag]

Batting and bowling techniques look a bit amateurish before 1960 odd.

 

[Starfighter]

Most of the video footage we have of past cricket is also just highlight reels. We don't have access to much, if any, full-match footage. So sure, players will look good if all you're watching is their highlights. It's hard to evaluate their real quality without watching all the 'boring' stuff in between.

I don't think that's really the issue. The opinions on Bradman and co weren't formed from watching newsreels, and nor are the modern ones that Flem talks about.

Batting and bowling techniques look a bit amateurish before 1960 odd.

I guarantee you get used to it, especially if you understand what's going on with respect to pitches, bowling tactics and technique etc. Plus if you form opinions watching everything from along the pitch on TV you only get that perspective. Those 'amateurish' techniques on soft, often irregular uncovered pitches make more sense when you realise how stiff the movements of modern players are, how much they reach out in front of their bodies and how they **** themselves at any seam movement.

 

[the big bambino]

That is the point. If you were able to show players of yesteryear the techniques on display today you'd wonder what they'd make of them. Even Ian Chappell commenting on the modern players getting hit so often is down to inadequate foot movement.

 

[harsh.ag]

Oh I agree, just saying it's not hard to fault someone who looks at footage from those days and goes "That's a whole different sport".

Bowlers with short run-ups, trying to extract as much movement as possible; batsmen playing as late as possible, trying to satisfy the twin constraints of protecting their bodies and not nicking it behind the stumps.

Watching Larwood is revelatory. Definitely the first modern bowler in his run up and approach and, unfortunately, ahead of his time in the sense the safety equipment wasn't there for it to be a completely fair fight.

 

[Starfighter]

Watching Larwood is revelatory. Definitely the first modern bowler in his run up and approach and, unfortunately, ahead of his time in the sense the safety equipment wasn't there for it to be a completely fair fight.

You've seen Ted McDonald no? He had a fine run up. Tim Wall and Ernie McCormick had very modern approaches too.

Very long runs didn't become a thing till the sixties really, though in the fifties they weren't quite as short as the thirties. No-one ever needed to run 24 steps like some in the eighties, which is why the super-sized ones have died out.

 

[cnerd123]

the full match footage isn't as necessary to evaluate the greatness of a player, but useful to evaluate the quality of individual performances. Like, it's easier to judge the quality of an innings or spell of bowling if you can see every single ball during it, and not just the boundaries and wickets.

Full match footage also helps us gain a better insight into the idiosyncrasies of individual players, and gives us more information on how their techniques and temperaments coped with different conditions, tactics and situations.

I often feel that I can't evaluate former players to the same level I can current ones because I usually don't have the ability to watch them construct an innings or bowl an entire spell. I suppose if you combine highlight packages with match articles, player profiles,and stats, it paints a pretty full picture. But I'd still much rather just watch an entire game and come to my conclusions.

 

[the big bambino]

Maybe we are seeing a trend back to shorter run ups for pace men with Archer and Bumrah (who ambles before getting into stride) as workloads are increasing .

 

[harsh.ag]

Searched for some Ted McDonald footage and Starfighter's on point.

Trippy sountrack notwithstanding.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Can't wait until 20 years from now when all the past footage is deepfakes.

 

[Starfighter]

Searched for some Ted McDonald footage and Starfighter's on point.

Yessss. My own personal compilation has at least one more clip than that guy's.

 

[Starfighter]

As examples of past apparent hyperbole; a lot of descriptions put Syd Gregory as being a very talented player yet his record is poor even for the era. Woolley was proclaimed as the best left-hander in the world for years but overall his record does not match up to his right handed peers (average of 40 vs over 50 for Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hendren etc) and his test record is notably worse again with an average of 33.

An interesting one I found is from the 1953 Ashes series when I spent time looking at old newspaper articles on Trove recently. After his performances against India the previous year there was a huge hype over Trueman's bowling and the Australian board went and asked for bouncer restrictions* and there were worries about excessive short pitched bowling and in the end he lost form and the conservative selectors only played him in one test. Not only that, but some thought that Statham was faster except I think for one spell.

*After years of bowling lots of them without retaliation. I find it funny how the Australian board were so 'give-but-can't-take' with bouncers but always threw the players under a bus on financial matters.

 

[trundler]

I'll just remind everyone Cardus was prone to straight up making **** up.

 

[Starfighter]

I'll just remind everyone Cardus was prone to straight up making **** up.

I came across some blogger once who had a big fondness for pointing out Cardus' fabrications. Had a lot of material to work with. I tend to go with the opinions of other writers if I can get them.

 

[trundler]

I came across some blogger once who had a big fondness for pointing out Cardus' fabrications. Had a lot of material to work with. I tend to go with the opinions of other writers if I can get them.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/match-report-the-neville-cardus-way-724477

Reckon you're talking about this guy.