Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hilary Mantel, cricket fan
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Uday Rajan
May 16, 2013, 11:05:07 PM5/16/13
to
Read "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies" over the last year, and enjoyed those. The New York Times web page now has snippets of an interview with Hilary Mantel, including:
"What books might we be surprised to find on your shelves?
Stacks of books on cricket. I am fascinated by its history. It’s a story told in match statistics, but it’s also bred some stylish prose. My head is full of the ghosts of men in white playing games that were over before the Great War."
Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/books/review/hilary-mantel-by-the-book.html?hpw&_r=0
"What books might we be surprised to find on your shelves?
Stacks of books on cricket. I am fascinated by its history. It’s a story told in match statistics, but it’s also bred some stylish prose. My head is full of the ghosts of men in white playing games that were over before the Great War."
Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/books/review/hilary-mantel-by-the-book.html?hpw&_r=0
Gilly's Danda
May 17, 2013, 11:37:21 AM5/17/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:05:07 PM UTC-4, Uday Rajan wrote:
> Read "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies" over the last year, and enjoyed those. The New York Times web page now has snippets of an interview with Hilary Mantel, including:
>
>
>
> "What books might we be surprised to find on your shelves?
>
>
>
> Stacks of books on cricket. I am fascinated by its history. It’s a story told
> in match statistics, but it’s also bred some stylish prose. My head is full
> of the ghosts of men in white playing games that were over before the Great
> War."
Hum - over before the Great War. I wonder if this means that she's more a Grace or a Hobbs fan, or goes for Ranji over Fry. Does she think Trumper better than Armstrong? Barnes, Mailey, or the South African googly bowlers for her (and hence, the latter-day analogies of comparing Frank Tyson with FS Trueman)? Do you think she sees Frank Woolley as being in the same league as Hobbs, or more an early-day Ramprakash or Hick?
> Read "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies" over the last year, and enjoyed those. The New York Times web page now has snippets of an interview with Hilary Mantel, including:
>
>
>
> "What books might we be surprised to find on your shelves?
>
>
>
> Stacks of books on cricket. I am fascinated by its history. It’s a story told
> in match statistics, but it’s also bred some stylish prose. My head is full
> of the ghosts of men in white playing games that were over before the Great
> War."
Is there any way we can ask her these things? Perhaps in front of some Holbeins or something?
A
Uday Rajan
May 18, 2013, 1:16:16 AM5/18/13
to
Mailey, BTW, played his first Test in 1920. So Barnes over Mailey is easy, but likely Barnes over the South African leggies as well. Perhaps a Hugh Trumble or Wilfred Rhodes would top Barnes as well on craftmanship alone, being more conventional bowlers than Barnes.
Gilly's Danda
May 18, 2013, 3:14:52 PM5/18/13
to
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:16:16 AM UTC-4, Uday Rajan wrote:
<snip>
> Well, as long as we're completely speculating, I see Mantel's portrait of
> Thomas Cromwell as showing Cromwell to be a master craftsman rather than an
> artist, a Gavaskar rather than a Gower. Based on that, Hobbs over Ranji or
> Trumper. Although Hobbs before the WWI was quite a strokeplayer (ISTR Cardus
> quoting Rhodes as saying "Hobbs? Tha shoulda seen him afore th' war" or
> something like that), I'm assuming the craftsmanship still showed through.
Well, normal Cardus caveats should apply and all, but it's never been my impression that Hobbs was an especially slow player: he had his shares of 100s before lunch, and so on. I may be misremembering, but ISTR him thinking an innings of his wasn't much good because he kept hitting fours rather than running his singles or twos. Am I wrong in thinking that Hobbs believed that true batsmanship came from placement and quick singles - didn't he get to a point with Rhodes where he started running without calling? - rather than smashing the ball to the boundary?
Then again, John and Mike both saw him play (even though they probably sided with McLaren when he was reluctant to pick Hobbs before 1910), so they may remember more.
> Mailey, BTW, played his first Test in 1920. So Barnes over Mailey is easy,
> but likely Barnes over the South African leggies as well. Perhaps a Hugh
> Trumble or Wilfred Rhodes would top Barnes as well on craftmanship alone,
> being more conventional bowlers than Barnes.
Barnes was a bit of a difficult character, though, hence my query as to whether she'd prefer others who were more loyal to the side than simply produced great results. Trumble is a good pick. Perhaps Ranji Hordern would be classed with Bosanquet et al as a Tyson-esque flash in the pan rather than as a real favourite.
(And my bad re Mailey.)
A
<snip>
> Well, as long as we're completely speculating, I see Mantel's portrait of
> Thomas Cromwell as showing Cromwell to be a master craftsman rather than an
> artist, a Gavaskar rather than a Gower. Based on that, Hobbs over Ranji or
> Trumper. Although Hobbs before the WWI was quite a strokeplayer (ISTR Cardus
> quoting Rhodes as saying "Hobbs? Tha shoulda seen him afore th' war" or
> something like that), I'm assuming the craftsmanship still showed through.
Then again, John and Mike both saw him play (even though they probably sided with McLaren when he was reluctant to pick Hobbs before 1910), so they may remember more.
> Mailey, BTW, played his first Test in 1920. So Barnes over Mailey is easy,
> but likely Barnes over the South African leggies as well. Perhaps a Hugh
> Trumble or Wilfred Rhodes would top Barnes as well on craftmanship alone,
> being more conventional bowlers than Barnes.
(And my bad re Mailey.)
A
Uday Rajan
May 18, 2013, 3:58:41 PM5/18/13
to
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:14:52 PM UTC-4, Gilly's Danda wrote:
>
> Well, normal Cardus caveats should apply and all, but it's never been my
> impression that Hobbs was an especially slow player...
>
> Well, normal Cardus caveats should apply and all, but it's never been my
I wasn't referring to the speed of scoring so much as to Hobbs being a master craftsman in the conventional mould. Trumper was unconventional, and Ranji, as Ted Wainwright informs us (or rather informs Cardus) "ne'er played a Christian stroke in 'is life."
John Hall
May 18, 2013, 4:14:30 PM5/18/13
to
In article <606cbb04-45db-4417...@googlegroups.com>,
There is a story that Hobbs once said to a friend that he was at his
best before World War 1. His friend remonstrated that he had made masses
of runs after the war. "Maybe," Hobbs said, "but they were nearly all
made off the back foot."
Before the war, Hobbs was one of the quickest-scoring batsmen. After the
war that was generally no longer true - though there was one famous
occasion in 1919 when, with Surrey needing 96 to win in their second
innings with only 45 minutes of the match remaining, he and Jack
Crawford knocked off the runs without loss in just 32 minutes. That's
pretty impressive, even allowing for Kent having bowled far more overs
in that time than would happen today.
Even in his later career he certainly wasn't a slowcoach, but he
celebrated his fortieth birthday not long after the war finished, so
it's not surprising if he could no longer jump down the pitch to drive
in Trumperesque fashion as he had done in his younger days.
I'm sure that he valued placement and the quick single highly - though I
imagine that as he got older he can no longer have been quite so quick
between the wickets. With all of his long-term opening partners - Rhodes
and Sutcliffe for England and Hayward and Sandham for Surrey - good
running between the wickets was a feature. I believe it was said that
Hobbs and Rhodes were the best, and, as you say, that they were so
well-attuned to each other that they often didn't need to call.
I haven't heard the story about Hobbs downgrading an innings because it
consisted largely of boundaries and find it hard to believe. Though he
clearly must have been very fit - especially by the standards of the
cricketers of his time - to have played for as long as he did, I'm sure
that as he got older he wouldn't have wanted to run more than was
necessary, as his stamina must have had its limits.
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Gilly's Danda <finally...@gmail.com> writes:
>Well, normal Cardus caveats should apply and all, but it's never
>been my impression that Hobbs was an especially slow player: he
>had his shares of 100s before lunch, and so on. I may be
>misremembering, but ISTR him thinking an innings of his wasn't
>much good because he kept hitting fours rather than running his
>singles or twos. Am I wrong in thinking that Hobbs believed that
>true batsmanship came from placement and quick singles - didn't
>he get to a point with Rhodes where he started running without
>calling? - rather than smashing the ball to the boundary?
>
>Then again, John and Mike both saw him play (even though they
>probably sided with McLaren when he was reluctant to pick Hobbs
>before 1910), so they may remember more.
After that, how can I refuse to contribute. :)
>Well, normal Cardus caveats should apply and all, but it's never
>been my impression that Hobbs was an especially slow player: he
>had his shares of 100s before lunch, and so on. I may be
>misremembering, but ISTR him thinking an innings of his wasn't
>much good because he kept hitting fours rather than running his
>singles or twos. Am I wrong in thinking that Hobbs believed that
>true batsmanship came from placement and quick singles - didn't
>he get to a point with Rhodes where he started running without
>calling? - rather than smashing the ball to the boundary?
>
>Then again, John and Mike both saw him play (even though they
>probably sided with McLaren when he was reluctant to pick Hobbs
>before 1910), so they may remember more.
There is a story that Hobbs once said to a friend that he was at his
best before World War 1. His friend remonstrated that he had made masses
of runs after the war. "Maybe," Hobbs said, "but they were nearly all
made off the back foot."
Before the war, Hobbs was one of the quickest-scoring batsmen. After the
war that was generally no longer true - though there was one famous
occasion in 1919 when, with Surrey needing 96 to win in their second
innings with only 45 minutes of the match remaining, he and Jack
Crawford knocked off the runs without loss in just 32 minutes. That's
pretty impressive, even allowing for Kent having bowled far more overs
in that time than would happen today.
Even in his later career he certainly wasn't a slowcoach, but he
celebrated his fortieth birthday not long after the war finished, so
it's not surprising if he could no longer jump down the pitch to drive
in Trumperesque fashion as he had done in his younger days.
I'm sure that he valued placement and the quick single highly - though I
imagine that as he got older he can no longer have been quite so quick
between the wickets. With all of his long-term opening partners - Rhodes
and Sutcliffe for England and Hayward and Sandham for Surrey - good
running between the wickets was a feature. I believe it was said that
Hobbs and Rhodes were the best, and, as you say, that they were so
well-attuned to each other that they often didn't need to call.
I haven't heard the story about Hobbs downgrading an innings because it
consisted largely of boundaries and find it hard to believe. Though he
clearly must have been very fit - especially by the standards of the
cricketers of his time - to have played for as long as he did, I'm sure
that as he got older he wouldn't have wanted to run more than was
necessary, as his stamina must have had its limits.
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
0 new messages