Change in stump size: a statistical analysis of its impact on batting

[Stephen A Devaux]

R.s.c. readers who have been following the thread, "THE DON VS. VIV
RICHARDS" may be aware that I have been maintaining that certain
historical conditions occurred which inflated the stats of some of the
"old-timers." For example, it is frequently pointed out that The Don
towered over his contemporaries, with a career average 40 points higher
than his nearest rival, George Headley. However, the data show that
The Don "fattened up" considerably off the inferior competition of
India, WI and South Africa, none of whom Headley ever batted against,
while the Don never had to bat against the best team that Headley
faced, viz., Australia. When apples are compared with apples, The Don
averaged 91 vs. England in the pre-war years, while Headley averaged
78: a much more credible gap.

However, I believe that by far the greatest impact to what I feel are
the inflated stats of the old-timers is due to a crucial rule-change
that is always either forgotten or ignored: everyone always trots out
the covered-wicket argument (and I certainly concede it had a
significant impact, especially regarding spin bowling).

But I believe the "forgotten change" was even more significant, namely,
the augmentation of the wickets by an inch in both width and height.
Since 1948, deliveries which caused no more than "oohs!" as they
whistled safely beside or above the oldtimers' stumps, now uproot the
lumber and send the would-be triple-centurion on his way with a paltry
few. Perhaps even more significant, the appeal for lbw which the '30s
umpire thoughtfully declined as "MIGHT have been too wide, or too
high," now brings a quick forefinger, with half an inch to spare!

Further, both bowler and batsman must adjust to the change: before, a
pace bowler had to aim a little further (six inches?) up the pitch if
he wanted to get a "bailer;" and a certain percentage of those
deliveries must have turned into half volleys. And now if the batsman
is to carefully avoid the pitfalls brought about by the larger wickets,
he must change his strokes, playing defensively to shortish deliveries
that could have been safely pulled to midwicket, but that, if missed,
might now find that extra inch of wicket.

I hypothesized that, if there was a significant impact, it would show
up initially as a fairly sudden increase in the percentage of bowled
and lbw dismissals. As time passed, and batsmen adapted to the new
conditions, the data would sink back toward the original percentages.
But one effect would remain: deliveries that previously resulted in
boundaries would now require even the best batsmen to be more cautious.
The impact of this, over the years, might be only four to six runs per
hundred deliveries; but it would add up, having an overall inhibiting
effect on career batting averages.

The problem, of course, was where to look for evidence of the impact of
this change. First of all, it's unclear EXACTLY when it was
implemented. According to John Hall, the new wicket size was mandated
for Tests in 1947, but "trials" started in the 1930's. Were some 30's
Test series played with the nine-inch-wide wickets? Which matches and
series, exactly, were played with the old Law and which with the new?
Probably, different countries implemented the new rule at different
times and for different levels of cricket. Were there series where
some Test grounds used one rule and other Test grounds used another?

To try to minimize "randomly varying" conditions, I decided to limit
the sample to Ashes Tests played in England. I chose four pre-war
series ('26-'38) and four post-war series ('48-'61). The following
were the results of the sample (Source: CricInfo archives).




TOTAL TOTAL PCT. TOTAL PCT. OVERALL PCT.
YEAR DISMISSALS BOWLED BOWLED LBW LBW WKT-RELATED

1926 96 26 27.1% 7 7.3% 34.4%

1930 139 37 26.6% 13 9.4% 36.0%

1934 152 44 28.8% 11 7.2% 36.1%

1938 116 39 33.6% 16 13.8% 47.4%

1948 152 46 30.3% 13 8.6% 38.9%

1953 162 39 24.1% 26 16.0% 40.1%

1956 152 34 22.4% 24 15.8% 38.2%

1961 158 36 22.8% 21 13.3% 36.1%


A number of observations are evident from the data:

1. The three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) saw a
remarkably consistent rate of wicket-related dismissals, averaging
35.6%.

2. The three series from '48-'56 (n = 466 dismissals) also saw a
remarkably consistent rate of wicket-related dismissals, but this time
averaging 39.1%. What happened to cause a (consistent) 10% increase
in the likelihood of being bowled or lbw?

3. Both the three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) and the
last three series examined (from '53-'61; n = 472 dismissals) saw a
remarkably consistent rate of lbw dismissals, but with the later series
almost twice as high (8.0% vs. 15.0%). Whether wicket size or umpires'
eyes, SOMETHING had happened!

4. As often the case with statistical studies, the anomalies are the
most interesting aspects. Surprisingly, the two most anomalous years
are '38 and '48, the two series before and after the mandated change in
wicket size. In fact, 1938 is SO different, not just from the other
three pre-war series but from ALL the other series, as to defy
explanation. Something strange happened in '38, and it wasn't just
Lenny scoring 364 "in the nighttime." The likelihood of being bowled
went from the 27.6% average of the previous 3 series to 33.6%, an
increase of 21.7%. Additionally, the chance of being adjudged leg
before went from 8.0% to 13.8%, a 73% increase! Overall the likelihood
of a wicket-related dismissal went from the average of 35.6% to 47.4%,
a jump of 33%! I can find only two explanations:
1. CricInfo has a misprint: the stats are actually for the year
1968, not 1938, and batsmen and umpires were busy smoking between
sessions.
2. Something about the GAME, specifically, the match-up between
batsman and bowler, had changed. Something bearing DIRECTLY on bowled
and lbw dismissals.

I have no other direct evidence, but I'd bet crullers to carats that
the '38 series WAS THE FIRST TIME ENGLAND IMPLEMENTED THE LARGER
WICKETS FOR THE ASHES!!

Suddenly, the '48 series stats also make sense! By then, the batsmen
were adjusting to the larger wickets. They were able to reduce bowled
dismissals from 33.6% to 30.3%, still high compared to '26-'34 (27.6%),
but moving in the right direction. And with lbw dismissals down (8.6%
vs. 8.0% in '26-'34 and 13.8% in '38), all wicket-related dismissals
were back to 38.9%, well down from '38 (though still considerably
higher than the 35.6% of the first three series in the sample).
In fact, the 38.9% figure representing the post-war norm for the series
through '61, with an average ('48-'61) of 38.3%. The only change was
that lbw's were much more likely, although bowled dismissals had
dropped below the '26-'34 period. This seems to me likely to have been
caused primarily by batsmen's tactics. The fact that the combined
wicket-related percentages remained at the higher level suggests that
the fundamental battle between batsman and bowler was stabilizing at
the new level.

One more item of interest: There is even evidence to suggest that The
Don may have been affected by the rule change. After '34, he never
scored another double century in England. Although two not outs in '38
allowed him to maintain an average of 108.5 for his six innings in the
series, half (two) of his dismissals were bowled. And in '48, he was
lbw once and bowled twice in 7 dismissals. Between the two series, he
had 5 wicket-related dismissals out of 11, or 45%. This contrasts with
just 4 out of 15 (all bowled), or 27% for '30-'34. Of course, here
we're dealing with a very small "n," too small to suggest that, in
Bradman's youth, that delivery from Hollies might have just slipped
past the stumps, with only an "Ooh!" from the crowd...

There is still lots of room for more evidence and analysis. I would
LOVE to find out whether or not my hypothesis about '38 is correct.
And, of course, it might be possible for Aslam or someone else with a
better data retrieval and analysis system than my "manual" one to
collect other information about changes in percentages of wicket-
related dismissals decade by decade, or whatever. but I've wasted
enough time on this for now...

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

[John Hall]

In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

[A fascinating analysis which, in the interests of avoiding too much
repetition I've snipped.]

>
>
> TOTAL TOTAL PCT. TOTAL PCT. OVERALL PCT.
>YEAR DISMISSALS BOWLED BOWLED LBW LBW WKT-RELATED
>
>1926 96 26 27.1% 7 7.3% 34.4%
>
>1930 139 37 26.6% 13 9.4% 36.0%
>
>1934 152 44 28.8% 11 7.2% 36.1%
>
>1938 116 39 33.6% 16 13.8% 47.4%
>
>1948 152 46 30.3% 13 8.6% 38.9%
>
>1953 162 39 24.1% 26 16.0% 40.1%
>
>1956 152 34 22.4% 24 15.8% 38.2%
>
>1961 158 36 22.8% 21 13.3% 36.1%
>

Thanks for all the work which must have gone into the above.

>
>A number of observations are evident from the data:
>
>1. The three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) saw a
>remarkably consistent rate of wicket-related dismissals, averaging
>35.6%.
>
>2. The three series from '48-'56 (n = 466 dismissals) also saw a
>remarkably consistent rate of wicket-related dismissals, but this time
>averaging 39.1%. What happened to cause a (consistent) 10% increase
>in the likelihood of being bowled or lbw?

My take on the stats is rather different. Apart from the rogue year of
1938, it looks to me as if all the years are consistent with having come
from the same distribution as far as "total wicket-related" dismissals
are concerned, with an average of 36-7%. Perhaps someone with more
expertise could apply the appropriate statistical test of significance?

>
>3. Both the three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) and the
>last three series examined (from '53-'61; n = 472 dismissals) saw a
>remarkably consistent rate of lbw dismissals, but with the later series
>almost twice as high (8.0% vs. 15.0%). Whether wicket size or umpires'
>eyes, SOMETHING had happened!

Yep. It might have been a change in the willingness of umpires to give
batsmen out lbw. Or it may be related to the fact that matches in
England in the earlier period tended to be spin-dominated; apart from
Larwood, the leading bowlers of this period were mostly spinners -
White, Verity for England, Mailey, Grimmett, O'Reilly for Australia. By
contrast, in the later period the attacks tended to be pace-dominated,
with the notable exception of Laker and Lock in 1956 (and to a lesser
extent Benaud in 1961) - Bedser, Trueman, Statham, Bailey for England,
Miller, Lindwall, Johnston, Davidson, McKenzie for Australia. Since
seam/swing bowlers and spinners tend to take their wickets in different
ways, this could easily account for any difference in the percentage of
lbw (and indeed bowled) between the two periods. There was also a big
difference in the degree of "batsman friendliness" of the pitches in the
two periods. I wouldn't be surprised if the average score per innings
was almost one hundred runs less in the latter period. More movement off
the seam might well account for more lbws.

>
>4. As often the case with statistical studies, the anomalies are the
>most interesting aspects. Surprisingly, the two most anomalous years
>are '38 and '48, the two series before and after the mandated change in
>wicket size. In fact, 1938 is SO different, not just from the other
>three pre-war series but from ALL the other series, as to defy
>explanation. Something strange happened in '38, and it wasn't just
>Lenny scoring 364 "in the nighttime." The likelihood of being bowled
>went from the 27.6% average of the previous 3 series to 33.6%, an
>increase of 21.7%. Additionally, the chance of being adjudged leg
>before went from 8.0% to 13.8%, a 73% increase! Overall the likelihood
>of a wicket-related dismissal went from the average of 35.6% to 47.4%,
>a jump of 33%! I can find only two explanations:
> 1. CricInfo has a misprint: the stats are actually for the year
>1968, not 1938, and batsmen and umpires were busy smoking between
>sessions.
> 2. Something about the GAME, specifically, the match-up between
>batsman and bowler, had changed. Something bearing DIRECTLY on bowled
>and lbw dismissals.
>
>I have no other direct evidence, but I'd bet crullers to carats that
>the '38 series WAS THE FIRST TIME ENGLAND IMPLEMENTED THE LARGER
>WICKETS FOR THE ASHES!!

Could be.

>
>Suddenly, the '48 series stats also make sense! By then, the batsmen
>were adjusting to the larger wickets. They were able to reduce bowled
>dismissals from 33.6% to 30.3%, still high compared to '26-'34 (27.6%),
>but moving in the right direction. And with lbw dismissals down (8.6%
>vs. 8.0% in '26-'34 and 13.8% in '38), all wicket-related dismissals
>were back to 38.9%, well down from '38 (though still considerably
>higher than the 35.6% of the first three series in the sample).
>In fact, the 38.9% figure representing the post-war norm for the series
>through '61, with an average ('48-'61) of 38.3%. The only change was
>that lbw's were much more likely, although bowled dismissals had
>dropped below the '26-'34 period. This seems to me likely to have been
>caused primarily by batsmen's tactics. The fact that the combined
>wicket-related percentages remained at the higher level suggests that
>the fundamental battle between batsman and bowler was stabilizing at
>the new level.
>
>One more item of interest: There is even evidence to suggest that The
>Don may have been affected by the rule change. After '34, he never
>scored another double century in England.

Even the Don was not immune to the effects of age. Certainly by 1948 I
don't think he would have had the stamina for the really long innings.
That might not have been the case in 1938, but his failure to get a
double ton in that series may be no more than chance. Don't forget that
the larger wicket will presumably also have been in force i9n county
matches, but it didn't prevent his averaging 115.66 for the tour as a
whole, the best average ever recorded for an English season.

> Although two not outs in '38
>allowed him to maintain an average of 108.5 for his six innings in the
>series, half (two) of his dismissals were bowled. And in '48, he was
>lbw once and bowled twice in 7 dismissals. Between the two series, he
>had 5 wicket-related dismissals out of 11, or 45%. This contrasts with
>just 4 out of 15 (all bowled), or 27% for '30-'34. Of course, here
>we're dealing with a very small "n," too small to suggest that, in
>Bradman's youth, that delivery from Hollies might have just slipped
>past the stumps, with only an "Ooh!" from the crowd...

I agree that the sample size is too small to allow one to draw any
conclusions. And there are such imponderables as the predominant line
that the bowlers were bowling. In one series they may have been bowling
a line outside off-stump in an attempt to get catches by the keeper and
slips, in another series they might have been aiming at the stumps in an
attempt to get bowled and lbw dismissals, or as a defensive measure to
avoid Bradman's off-side strokes.

>
>There is still lots of room for more evidence and analysis.

Yep :)

> I would
>LOVE to find out whether or not my hypothesis about '38 is correct.
>And, of course, it might be possible for Aslam or someone else with a
>better data retrieval and analysis system than my "manual" one to
>collect other information about changes in percentages of wicket-
>related dismissals decade by decade, or whatever. but I've wasted
>enough time on this for now...

To summarise my thoughts, I think that, even if you can show a
statistically significant change in method of dismissal between your two
periods, there are too many potential variables to confidently ascribe
the change to any single one of them. This is particularly so over so
long a span as 35 years. In particular the long interval caused by WW2
must have seen many changes. I think that, although it would reduce your
sample size, it might be better to compare just the last Ashes series in
England before the change in wicket size with the first one after it.
This would reduce, though not entirely eliminate, the impact of other
variables. Of course, if one of those summers happened to be dry and the
other wet, there's yet another major variable at once entering the
equation.

Incidentally, the change in height of the wicket, from 27 to 28 inches,
came in everywhere in 1931, AIUI. It was only the change in width
(admittedly the more important change) which was optional between 1931
and 1947. Until one knows which two Eng-Au series the latter change fell
between, it's impossible I think to draw any conclusions from the stats.
If anyone has access to a complete run of Wisdens for the years in
question, it would probably be possible to find out when the change
occurred for Tests in England. BTW, taking the two changes together, I
make it that the area of the wicket was increased by one-sixth.

A thought-provoking article. Thanks for posting.
--
John Hall

"To be an Englishman is to belong to the most exclusive club there is."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

[Joshua Saunders]

In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>R.s.c. readers who have been following the thread, "THE DON VS. VIV
>RICHARDS" may be aware that I have been maintaining that certain
>historical conditions occurred which inflated the stats of some of the
>"old-timers." For example, it is frequently pointed out that The Don
>towered over his contemporaries, with a career average 40 points higher
>than his nearest rival, George Headley. However, the data show that
>The Don "fattened up" considerably off the inferior competition of
>India, WI and South Africa, none of whom Headley ever batted against,

He "fattened it up" by around 10% against these nations. Headley on the
other hand "fattened up" his average by playing borderline Test and indeed
sub-Test class players from England. In his one series against Australia
(who played a full Test lineup), Headley averaged 37.33.

>while the Don never had to bat against the best team that Headley
>faced, viz., Australia. When apples are compared with apples, The Don
>averaged 91 vs. England in the pre-war years, while Headley averaged
>78: a much more credible gap.

No this is pure and total sophistry. Don faced the best England players at
ALL times, and on one occasion a tactic that forced changes to Law 42 (the
one about FAIR PLAY). Headley faced mediocre and downright appalling
England teams. The reason the gap is credible, is that you can't believe
Bradman was that much better. Well, he was.

>However, I believe that by far the greatest impact to what I feel are
>the inflated stats of the old-timers is due to a crucial rule-change
>that is always either forgotten or ignored: everyone always trots out
>the covered-wicket argument (and I certainly concede it had a
>significant impact, especially regarding spin bowling).
>
>But I believe the "forgotten change" was even more significant, namely,
>the augmentation of the wickets by an inch in both width and height.
>Since 1948, deliveries which caused no more than "oohs!" as they
>whistled safely beside or above the oldtimers' stumps, now uproot the

You've got no evidence at all that Bradman was the sort of player to be
affected by such a rule change. Such evidence, is of course, impossible to
compile. All you've got is a weak surmising about what could have been,
maybe.

>lumber and send the would-be triple-centurion on his way with a paltry
>few. Perhaps even more significant, the appeal for lbw which the '30s
>umpire thoughtfully declined as "MIGHT have been too wide, or too
>high," now brings a quick forefinger, with half an inch to spare!

Nonsense.

>Further, both bowler and batsman must adjust to the change: before, a
>pace bowler had to aim a little further (six inches?) up the pitch if
>he wanted to get a "bailer;" and a certain percentage of those
>deliveries must have turned into half volleys.

Well yes, some bowlers might aim to get it just short of a length and turn
out a half volley. But I submit, such bowlers are not of Test class.

>And now if the batsman
>is to carefully avoid the pitfalls brought about by the larger wickets,
>he must change his strokes, playing defensively to shortish deliveries
>that could have been safely pulled to midwicket, but that, if missed,
>might now find that extra inch of wicket.
>
>I hypothesized that, if there was a significant impact, it would show
>up initially as a fairly sudden increase in the percentage of bowled
>and lbw dismissals.

And I hypothesise, if there was a significant impact, they would have
changed the dimensions back.

>As time passed, and batsmen adapted to the new
>conditions, the data would sink back toward the original percentages.

Umm, why? Surely a larger wicket means a greater percentage of dismissals
involving the wicket, for as long as the wicket is larger?

>But one effect would remain: deliveries that previously resulted in
>boundaries would now require even the best batsmen to be more cautious.

Oh rubbish. The effect is so marginal as to be at the level of psychology.

> The impact of this, over the years, might be only four to six runs per
>hundred deliveries; but it would add up, having an overall inhibiting
>effect on career batting averages.

It might, otoh, be a lot less than 4-6 runs per 100 deliveries. It might
be zero.

>The problem, of course, was where to look for evidence of the impact of
>this change. First of all, it's unclear EXACTLY when it was
>implemented. According to John Hall, the new wicket size was mandated
>for Tests in 1947, but "trials" started in the 1930's. Were some 30's
>Test series played with the nine-inch-wide wickets? Which matches and
>series, exactly, were played with the old Law and which with the new?

Well until you work this out, you really can't say too much about how
BRadman "appears" to be so much better. I do wonder where the likes of
Hammond, Suttcliffe, McCabe and Trumper fit into all this though.
Presumably this mob would have averaged between 20 and 40 in Tests, if
they were played with "real" sized wickets. You think?

>Probably, different countries implemented the new rule at different
>times and for different levels of cricket. Were there series where
>some Test grounds used one rule and other Test grounds used another?
>
>To try to minimize "randomly varying" conditions, I decided to limit
>the sample to Ashes Tests played in England. I chose four pre-war
>series ('26-'38) and four post-war series ('48-'61). The following
>were the results of the sample (Source: CricInfo archives).
>
>
>
>
> TOTAL TOTAL PCT. TOTAL PCT. OVERALL PCT.
>YEAR DISMISSALS BOWLED BOWLED LBW LBW WKT-RELATED
>
>1926 96 26 27.1% 7 7.3% 34.4%
>
>1930 139 37 26.6% 13 9.4% 36.0%
>
>1934 152 44 28.8% 11 7.2% 36.1%
>
>1938 116 39 33.6% 16 13.8% 47.4%
>
>1948 152 46 30.3% 13 8.6% 38.9%
>
>1953 162 39 24.1% 26 16.0% 40.1%
>
>1956 152 34 22.4% 24 15.8% 38.2%
>
>1961 158 36 22.8% 21 13.3% 36.1%
>
>
>A number of observations are evident from the data:
>
>1. The three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) saw a
>remarkably consistent rate of wicket-related dismissals, averaging
>35.6%.

Yes.

>2. The three series from '48-'56 (n = 466 dismissals) also saw a
>remarkably consistent rate of wicket-related dismissals, but this time
>averaging 39.1%. What happened to cause a (consistent) 10% increase
>in the likelihood of being bowled or lbw?

Huh? You're misreading your own figures. In the period 48-56, compared
with 26-34 the chance of being out bowled DECREASED, whilst the chance of
being out LBW INCREASED. If you're REALLY serious about grouping the two
together, I respectfully submit, that for this sample size, there is no
significant difference between the period 26-34 and 48-56.

>3. Both the three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) and the
>last three series examined (from '53-'61; n = 472 dismissals) saw a
>remarkably consistent rate of lbw dismissals, but with the later series
>almost twice as high (8.0% vs. 15.0%). Whether wicket size or umpires'
>eyes, SOMETHING had happened!

Well it wasn't wicket size, because the rate of bowleds went down. More
likely it was a change in convention about how far beyond doubt one had to
be before the batsman could reasonably be given out. Remember also, this
was Hutton and Bailey and Barrington, (etc etc) era of standing around in
front of the stumpsall day, boring the crowd to death.

>4. As often the case with statistical studies, the anomalies are the
>most interesting aspects. Surprisingly, the two most anomalous years
>are '38 and '48, the two series before and after the mandated change in
>wicket size. In fact, 1938 is SO different, not just from the other
>three pre-war series but from ALL the other series, as to defy
>explanation. Something strange happened in '38, and it wasn't just
>Lenny scoring 364 "in the nighttime." The likelihood of being bowled
>went from the 27.6% average of the previous 3 series to 33.6%, an
>increase of 21.7%.

Representing JUST 7 bowled dismissals in that '38 series, itself
represented by some extremely dismal tailenders in that series (O'Reilly
batting at 8 or 9, for goodness sake).

>Additionally, the chance of being adjudged leg
>before went from 8.0% to 13.8%, a 73% increase! Overall the likelihood
>of a wicket-related dismissal went from the average of 35.6% to 47.4%,
>a jump of 33%! I can find only two explanations:
> 1. CricInfo has a misprint: the stats are actually for the year
>1968, not 1938, and batsmen and umpires were busy smoking between
>sessions.
> 2. Something about the GAME, specifically, the match-up between
>batsman and bowler, had changed. Something bearing DIRECTLY on bowled
>and lbw dismissals.
>
>I have no other direct evidence, but I'd bet crullers to carats that
>the '38 series WAS THE FIRST TIME ENGLAND IMPLEMENTED THE LARGER
>WICKETS FOR THE ASHES!!

Wouldst thou just? Bradman (and let's not forget, that's who this is all
about) was out twice bowled in '38. And in '34. And in 48. And in 30. In
fact, every series he played in England, he was out twice bowled. I
suggest, whatever affect the change in wicket size had, it's effect was on
mortals, and not on Bradman. And that's assuming you can show that the
wicket was actually bigger in the 1938 series FOR THE FIRST TIME (and as a
gentle hint, you haven't done so yet).

By way of comparison, in Bodyline and 46/7 Bradman was out bowled 4 times,
and in 36/7 he was out bowled 3 times. I guess the stumps were just bigger
in Australia in those days, hmmm?

>Suddenly, the '48 series stats also make sense! By then, the batsmen
>were adjusting to the larger wickets.

Arrant nonsense.

>They were able to reduce bowled
>dismissals from 33.6% to 30.3%, still high compared to '26-'34 (27.6%),

"high"? Not statistically significant.

>but moving in the right direction. And with lbw dismissals down (8.6%
>vs. 8.0% in '26-'34 and 13.8% in '38), all wicket-related dismissals
>were back to 38.9%, well down from '38 (though still considerably
>higher than the 35.6% of the first three series in the sample).
>In fact, the 38.9% figure representing the post-war norm for the series
>through '61, with an average ('48-'61) of 38.3%. The only change was
>that lbw's were much more likely, although bowled dismissals had
>dropped below the '26-'34 period. This seems to me likely to have been
>caused primarily by batsmen's tactics.

This last sentence, I agree with.

> The fact that the combined
>wicket-related percentages remained at the higher level suggests that
>the fundamental battle between batsman and bowler was stabilizing at
>the new level.
>
>One more item of interest: There is even evidence to suggest that The
>Don may have been affected by the rule change. After '34, he never
>scored another double century in England.

True. After '34, his highest scores in England were 173 not out, 144 not
out, 138, 103 and 102 not out. Wonder why he never scored a double again,
hmmm?

>Although two not outs in '38
>allowed him to maintain an average of 108.5 for his six innings in the
>series, half (two) of his dismissals were bowled.

Same number as in 30, 34 and 48, as I said above.

> And in '48, he was
>lbw once and bowled twice in 7 dismissals. Between the two series, he
>had 5 wicket-related dismissals out of 11, or 45%. This contrasts with
>just 4 out of 15 (all bowled), or 27% for '30-'34. Of course, here
>we're dealing with a very small "n," too small to suggest that, in
>Bradman's youth, that delivery from Hollies might have just slipped
>past the stumps, with only an "Ooh!" from the crowd...

Umm, Bradman played on. He played onto his stumps, not the outer edge of
his off stump. The ball rolled off the stumps in front of the wicket...

>There is still lots of room for more evidence and analysis. I would
>LOVE to find out whether or not my hypothesis about '38 is correct.

Yes....

>And, of course, it might be possible for Aslam or someone else with a
>better data retrieval and analysis system than my "manual" one to
>collect other information about changes in percentages of wicket-
>related dismissals decade by decade, or whatever. but I've wasted
>enough time on this for now...

Hmmm. Even if the change in the size of the wickets was a factor, and
assuming that they were first tried in '38, it STILL only produced a one
off "blip" and thereafter produced a handful more such dismissals (and in
the 50s, fewer bowleds, and more LBWs, hardly the expected result). I
suppose you are questioning how many more times Bradman might have been
out bowled. And considering the adjustment to the size of the stumps was
about 10%, I suppose it's fair to say that over time, he could (even would
have been) have been out bowled 10% more often. But how you resolve that
this might have cut his average by 40%, is hard to grasp.

Josh

[Mike Holmans]

>In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[stuff on his theory about stump sizes and Bradman's average and
Headley's]

and

Joshua Saunders <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> felt like disagreeing. Rather
aggressively and petulantly given Steve's hard work in digging up stats
and attempting to put them to reasonable and logical use, I thought, but
never mind.

I happen to think that Steve's theory about the introduction of bigger
stumps carving down Bradman's average is baloney. I know there are lots
of examples of elderly gentlemen in bath chairs making double hundreds
in Tests, such as Graham Gooch's 333 (and 123* in the same match) at the
age of 87, but actually, it's rare. Most players make their very big
hundreds early in their career, and the Don was mortal in that respect
too. Bradman didn't make a first-class triple hundred after the 1935-6
season.

But on the other hand, it isn't really good enough to say "Bradman was
God" and there's an end on it.

The original question, or at least quite an early question, in this
thread was whether Bradman would have averaged 99.94 in Test cricket if
he'd been playing today, or, rather, at the same time as King Viv, who,
the record books tell us, averaged substantially less. (And Viv's
biggest Test innings, bar the 208 in 1984 at the MCG, were all in the
early part of his career.)

One thing that would certainly ruin his average these days is the speed
of the bowling today. I am not talking about a trivial difference of 2%,
like Andy Roberts bowling at 93 mph when Larwood only managed 91, but of
28%. In Bradman's day, there were about 720 balls a day in Tests; in
Viv's era, it was about 520.

Some damn fool has just reached for his statistics books and is now
tracking down some figures which will compare Bradman's runs/100 balls
with Viv's, because he thinks it proves something important. It doesn't.

You don't play Test Matches on a strike rate, or by numbers of overs and
balls received. You play them by time. It's a day by day, session by
session, sometimes hour by hour game. Scoring landmarks go by the
wayside. It used to be fairly common for people to get centuries before
lunch. Not an everyday occurrence, but not so's people would get all
fired up about it. Today, though, it's pretty remarkable, since you're
doing it in 30 overs rather than 40.

I don't think Bradman would have scored his runs faster than he did, but
since he would have had effectively less time, he wouldn't have been
able to score as many. I would say that you could chop him down to 75 or
so.

There is, of course, a whole different argument about whether today's
circumstances could reproduce the background, childhood, adolescence,
training opportunities (or lack of), coaching structure, competitive
structure, economic conditions etc which led to Bradman being who he
was, with the talents he had, expressed in the way that they were, and
therefore whether it is even possible for a "Bradman" to be playing
today. But that's the argument for saying you can't compare people from
different eras, I suppose, and cricket nuts will always try and do it.
Pointlessly of course, since none can ever compare with Worplesdon.

Cheers,

Mike

The exciting AFU FAQ, and many other things, may be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <xa4N+ZAz...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> Mike Holmans

<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[stuff on his theory about stump sizes and Bradman's average and
>Headley's]
>
>and
>
>Joshua Saunders <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> felt like disagreeing.
Rather
>aggressively and petulantly given Steve's hard work in digging up
stats
>and attempting to put them to reasonable and logical use, I thought,
but
>never mind.

Hey, if you can't take Josh disagreeing agressively with you, you'd
better either (1) never write anything controversial, or (2) never
criticize Bradman (or SWaugh, or SWarne, or a number of others). One
has to take it in the spirit of good-natured exchange.

>
>I happen to think that Steve's theory about the introduction of bigger
>stumps carving down Bradman's average is baloney.

WHY, YOU SLIMEY WORM! YOUR MOM WEARS ARMY BOOTS!

> I know there are lots
>of examples of elderly gentlemen in bath chairs making double hundreds
>in Tests, such as Graham Gooch's 333 (and 123* in the same match) at
the
>age of 87, but actually, it's rare. Most players make their very big
>hundreds early in their career, and the Don was mortal in that respect
>too. Bradman didn't make a first-class triple hundred after the 1935-6
>season.

Yes, I quite agree. A few years ago, I did an analysis on how age
affected players. It was quite significant. There were exceptions.
(Clive Lloyd, for instance, got substantially better with age!) But
Worrell's stats suffered in comparison with the other W's because he
played much longer, and Headley was probably helped because he lost the
later part of his career to the War. Bradman *may* have been helped
thus, also, although his post-war performances weren't too shabby. Len
Hutton, Keith Miller and Compton, OTOH, lost a lot of their best years
to the war, yet had great careers.

>But on the other hand, it isn't really good enough to say "Bradman was
>God" and there's an end on it.

Aetheist!

(Interesting stuff about time to score snipped!)

But that's the argument for saying you can't compare people from
>different eras, I suppose, and cricket nuts will always try and do it.
>Pointlessly of course, since none can ever compare with Worplesdon.

Finally, someone sees the light!

>Cheers,
>
>Mike

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <5vs65e$n2$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au> Joshua Saunders

<jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
>
>In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>R.s.c. readers who have been following the thread, "THE DON VS. VIV
>>RICHARDS" may be aware that I have been maintaining that certain
>>historical conditions occurred which inflated the stats of some of
the
>>"old-timers." For example, it is frequently pointed out that The Don
>>towered over his contemporaries, with a career average 40 points
higher
>>than his nearest rival, George Headley. However, the data show that
>>The Don "fattened up" considerably off the inferior competition of
>>India, WI and South Africa, none of whom Headley ever batted against,
>
>He "fattened it up" by around 10% against these nations. Headley on
the
>other hand "fattened up" his average by playing borderline Test and
indeed
>sub-Test class players from England. In his one series against
Australia
>(who played a full Test lineup), Headley averaged 37.33.

One series more, I believe, than The Don played against Aus bowling.
(And in Aus.) I might point out that the Don's average vs. WI in that
series was ALSO way down (low 70s, I believe. And in Aus.)

But I begin to see where I am at fault here. I am the equivalent of
the Darwinist who argues with a religious creationist. NO amount of
evidence or logic will ever be enough to shake the credence of
believer, for the be
lief does not lie in evidence, but in faith. The "missing link" will
always remain missing, because it MUST do so in order to avoid doubt.

This is NOT to say that enough evidence HAS been raised to determine
that Bradman would be only an "average" great, if he played today. But
it IS to say that, even if such conclusive evidence WERE provided, it
would stil
l be dismissed, on SOME pretext, by those whose faith is strong. And I
can only say that, in a way, I envy them. This agnostic world of
relativism is often so ambiguous...

Basically, the "cricket Darwinists" position is:

1. When one has an indigenous population (1930s cricketers)...

2. ...which replicates with greater or lesser exactitude (copying of
styles and skills, thus creating what Richard Dawkins, in his books
"The Selfish Gene," "The Extended Phenotype," and "The Blind
Watchmaker," terms "me
mes")...

3. ...while engaged in a struggle for "survival" (careers in cricket
competition)...

4. ...and into which greater and greater elements of competition are
introduced ([a] much larger population, with more diverse
"genes/memes," via introduction of India, Pakistan, and WI to the
"stagnant" "gene/meme pool"
of pre-WW II cricket; [b] greater importance (competitive difficulty)
of "surviving" due to increased professional (monetary) rewards which
allow a larger pool of good players to concentrate on cricket vs. other
careers)
...

5. ...then the "strains" that represent improvements (e.g., better
bowling action) will "reproduce" in increasingly greater
"efficiency"...

6. ...and will compete against each other to eliminate the weaker
sisters (faster cheetahs eating clumsier gazelles; quicker gazelles
starving slower cheetahs; batsmen developing Bradmanesque technique to
flog bowlers who
are merely Larwoodesque, while Marshalls, Lillees, and Wasims "cull
the herd" of the mere Chapmans, Barnetts, and Kippaxes)...

7. ...while maintaining equilibrium of the overall population, even
though the speed of the cheetah and the elusiveness of the gazelle BOTH
increase over time (and, indeed, even reducing the difference in speed
between th
e two, so that the diffence between the Bradman cheetah and the Farnes
gazelle becomes less of a chasm over time)...

8. ...and thus improve the "skill" level of the entire population.

There is undeniable evidence of this Darwinian process occurring in
other sports, where there ARE clear standards which can be measured and
weighed. Unfortunately, the fact that such clear standards do not
exist in crick
et allows the credulousness of the believers to be unfalsifiable.

Yet, even in cricket, there is clear evidence that this natural-seeming
process has occurred. Not the sort of evidence that would ever turn a
creationist into a Darwinist, but evidence nonetheless.

1. The rise of the new "populations" to far surpass the old ones.
(Yes, Aus is back on top now, but they sure weren't for two decades
there. And England have been surpassed by all but NZ and Zim. Yet the
Darwinian proce
ss suggested above has probably improved the technique of the auld
enemies, too.)

2. The "compacting" of the extremes of performance. (The precise point
that the "creationists" like to argue, the extreme performance of
Bradman, is, of course, evidence of the Darwinian process in cricket:
cheetahs that
are MUCH faster than gazelles are much more likely to occur when the
two populations are first introduced to each other, before the
"culling" has had a chance to take effect.)

3. The appearance of MANY bowlers on many teams considered to be of
extreme velocity, versus the solitary Larwood, with his lack of stature
(one objective measurement of him we have) and 27-odd runs per wicket
(the other
) suggesting nothing particularly special.

4. The acknowledged improvement in fielding, granted by almost every
knowledgeable observer who watched the game over the 50s-80s era.
(Again, notice, when we can compare the discipline to something other
than an oppose
d competitor [viz., diving and grasping successfully a ball travelling
through the air], we again deduce the level has improved.)

5. The initial increase in wicket-related dismissals following the
increase of stump size to its current status, followed by the reduction
to previous levels as equilibrium was attained through batsmen's
improvements and
adjustments to the more difficult environment.

Again, all this is evidence, but not nearly conclusive enough. I heard
an old cheetah being interviewed the other day on the Nature channel.
He was maintaining that gazelles today are no faster than in his youth.
In fac
t, one gazelle was said to be able to run at over 90 mph.
Unfortunately, no videocam had been around to capture it, or I'm sure
the evidence would have supported this old cheetah's memory...

But enough! I'm wasting my time with this religious argument. I'm
sure the believers will be unmoved, and always will be...

{Snip}

>>When apples are compared with apples, The Don
>>averaged 91 vs. England in the pre-war years, while Headley averaged
>>78: a much more credible gap.
>
>No this is pure and total sophistry.

Hm. Trying to use historical statistics, and whittle them down so as
to compare, as much as possible, like with like, is "pure and total
sophistry." I would have thought that repeating over and over "Bradman
is the best
because he had the best average!" was more the Protagoras method, but
what do I know?

>Don faced the best England players at
>ALL times, and on one occasion a tactic that forced changes to Law 42
(the
>one about FAIR PLAY). Headley faced mediocre and downright appalling
>England teams.

Again, "downright appalling" is a pretty absurd exaggeration, don't you
think? When one considers, again, that Headley faced Voce, Farnes, and
Hollies in the WI, as well as Larwood and Verity in England, and that
Bradman,
in Tests, never faced Grimmett, O'Reilly and Ironmonger (whose average
per wicket, BTW, was about 10 runs LESS than the vaunted Larwood's;
O'Reilly's was about 5 less), the difference is surely much smaller
than those wh
o have been screeching about "99.94 to 60.83" would have us believe.
In fact, if we throw in the fact that Aussie Tests were timeless...
And, of course, the sun's rays are more direct in the Caribbean than in
Melbourne,
Sydney, Brisbane... And Australia has more species of poisonous
spiders...

>The reason the gap is credible, is that you can't believe
>Bradman was that much better. Well, he was.

Ah. That settles it, then. You're right.

{Snip}

>>But I believe the "forgotten change" was even more significant,
namely,
>>the augmentation of the wickets by an inch in both width and height.
>>Since 1948, deliveries which caused no more than "oohs!" as they
>>whistled safely beside or above the oldtimers' stumps, now uproot
the

>You've got no evidence at all that Bradman was the sort of player to
be
>affected by such a rule change.

And nor were any of the bowlers who bowled against him, I presume?
Strange, this game of cricket, where we can fiddle around with a basic
rule like wicket size and have no impact on the players. Why don't we
make the wicket ten inches high then? Or, better still, leave it out
altogethe
r and save money on stumps, bails and umpires (who would not be needed
for lbw)? Or maybe use a tennis ball?

>Such evidence, is of course, impossible to
>compile.

Very difficult, indeed. Which is why the "religious believers" can
maintain their faith.

> All you've got is a weak surmising about what could have been,
>maybe.

Based on what tends to happen in such situations, generally, and HAS
HAPPENED in similar sports situations, where objective comparison
(timers, tape measures) was possible.

>
>>lumber and send the would-be triple-centurion on his way with a
paltry
>>few. Perhaps even more significant, the appeal for lbw which the
'30s
>>umpire thoughtfully declined as "MIGHT have been too wide, or too
>>high," now brings a quick forefinger, with half an inch to spare!

>Nonsense.

Really? You don't think that changing the size of the wicket increased
the likelihood of an lbw? Quite apart from what the stats below say
(and they DO support this!), you think umpires ignored the fact that
the wicket
was bigger and that therefore a ball which might have missed the
smaller stumps would now hit them? Interesting. Do you think that
umpires today are STILL assuming the stumps are 8 x 27? I'd never
thought of that! You
may be right! That would certainly explain a lot!

>>Further, both bowler and batsman must adjust to the change: before,
a
>>pace bowler had to aim a little further (six inches?) up the pitch if
>>he wanted to get a "bailer;" and a certain percentage of those
>>deliveries must have turned into half volleys.
>
>Well yes, some bowlers might aim to get it just short of a length and
turn
>out a half volley. But I submit, such bowlers are not of Test class.

Not today, certainly.

>>And now if the batsman
>>is to carefully avoid the pitfalls brought about by the larger
wickets,
>>he must change his strokes, playing defensively to shortish
deliveries
>>that could have been safely pulled to midwicket, but that, if missed,
>>might now find that extra inch of wicket.
>>
>>I hypothesized that, if there was a significant impact, it would show
>>up initially as a fairly sudden increase in the percentage of bowled
>>and lbw dismissals.
>
>And I hypothesise, if there was a significant impact, they would have
>changed the dimensions back.

Interesting hypothesis. Surely the purpose was TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT in re-establishing equilibrium between bowler and batsman,
precisely BECAUSE of Bradman's mega-scores? Or perhaps the lumber
business just need
ed a subsidy? Tell me, why do you think they made the change?

>>As time passed, and batsmen adapted to the new
>>conditions, the data would sink back toward the original percentages.

>
>Umm, why? Surely a larger wicket means a greater percentage of
dismissals
>involving the wicket, for as long as the wicket is larger?

Not necessarily. Ultimately, I would expect a change in tactics, to
play more cautiously to deliveries that might hit the (larger) wicket.
This would result in fewer scoring strokes and runs per 100 deliveries.
But afte
r an initial jump, I would expect equilibrium to return, with
wicket-related dismissals at only a slightly elevated level.

>>But one effect would remain: deliveries that previously resulted in
>>boundaries would now require even the best batsmen to be more
cautious.
>
>Oh rubbish. The effect is so marginal as to be at the level of
psychology.

Really! Well, since you say so. I wonder, though, how much difference
in bounce, on average, will each inch of length make for a fast bowler?
It's clearly not one to one. I'd suspect that, to REDUCE rise, after
66 feet, by one inch, must require somewhere between 3-4 inches of
additional length. In other words, today's good length ball bounces
over the stumps
, while yesterday's "bailer' becomes perilously near a half volley.

>> The impact of this, over the years, might be only four to six runs
per
>>hundred deliveries; but it would add up, having an overall inhibiting
>>effect on career batting averages.
>
>It might, otoh, be a lot less than 4-6 runs per 100 deliveries. It
might
>be zero.

Might be. Like the "missing link", unprovable, thus untrue, I guess.

>> Were some 30's
>>Test series played with the nine-inch-wide wickets? Which matches
and
>>series, exactly, were played with the old Law and which with the new?

>
>Well until you work this out, you really can't say too much about how
>BRadman "appears" to be so much better. I do wonder where the likes of
>Hammond, Suttcliffe, McCabe and Trumper fit into all this though.
>Presumably this mob would have averaged between 20 and 40 in Tests, if
>they were played with "real" sized wickets. You think?

Since you ask:
Considering not just the wickets, but improved fielding, pace bowling,
etc., I'd guess 38-45ish. I don't think any of them exploited the
weaknesses of their contemporaries nearly as well as Bradman did.

I WAS serious about grouping them, since one thing that stops the
wicket from being hit is having your leg in front of it. In the case
of a legitimate lbw decision, it's the ONLY thing. And the sample
size, with the con
sistency of the measured results in both cases, seems to me to indicate
a significant difference. Maybe someone who knows more about
statistical manipulation than I do can tell us. But if you say I can't
do this, I won'
t.

>>3. Both the three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) and the
>>last three series examined (from '53-'61; n = 472 dismissals) saw a
>>remarkably consistent rate of lbw dismissals, but with the later
series
>>almost twice as high (8.0% vs. 15.0%). Whether wicket size or
umpires'
>>eyes, SOMETHING had happened!
>
>Well it wasn't wicket size, because the rate of bowleds went down.

ONLY because someone's bloody leg was in the way!

>More
>likely it was a change in convention about how far beyond doubt one
had to
>be before the batsman could reasonably be given out. Remember also,
this
>was Hutton and Bailey and Barrington, (etc etc) era of standing around
in
>front of the stumpsall day, boring the crowd to death.
>
>>4. As often the case with statistical studies, the anomalies are the
>>most interesting aspects. Surprisingly, the two most anomalous years
>>are '38 and '48, the two series before and after the mandated change
in
>>wicket size. In fact, 1938 is SO different, not just from the other
>>three pre-war series but from ALL the other series, as to defy
>>explanation. Something strange happened in '38, and it wasn't just
>>Lenny scoring 364 "in the nighttime." The likelihood of being bowled
>>went from the 27.6% average of the previous 3 series to 33.6%, an
>>increase of 21.7%.
>
>Representing JUST 7 bowled dismissals in that '38 series, itself
>represented by some extremely dismal tailenders in that series
(O'Reilly
>batting at 8 or 9, for goodness sake).

I can't win! If it had shown up in '30, it'd have been Ironmonger! In
the late 80's, Jones! In '97, Blewett!

Funny. When I first raised the issue of stump size back in the THE DON
VS VIV thread, you pointed out how seldom the Don was lbw or bowled!
The fact is, that's true. But, for wahtever reason, the rate almost
doubled fr
om '38 on!

>>Suddenly, the '48 series stats also make sense! By then, the batsmen
>>were adjusting to the larger wickets.
>
>Arrant nonsense.

Since you say so. Very convincing.

>>They were able to reduce bowled
>>dismissals from 33.6% to 30.3%, still high compared to '26-'34
(27.6%),
>
>"high"? Not statistically significant.

Since you say so...

>>but moving in the right direction. And with lbw dismissals down
(8.6%
>>vs. 8.0% in '26-'34 and 13.8% in '38), all wicket-related dismissals
>>were back to 38.9%, well down from '38 (though still considerably
>>higher than the 35.6% of the first three series in the sample).
>>In fact, the 38.9% figure representing the post-war norm for the
series
>>through '61, with an average ('48-'61) of 38.3%. The only change
was
>>that lbw's were much more likely, although bowled dismissals had
>>dropped below the '26-'34 period. This seems to me likely to have
been
>>caused primarily by batsmen's tactics.
>
>This last sentence, I agree with.

>>One more item of interest: There is even evidence to suggest that

The
>>Don may have been affected by the rule change. After '34, he never
>>scored another double century in England.
>
>True. After '34, his highest scores in England were 173 not out, 144
not
>out, 138, 103 and 102 not out. Wonder why he never scored a double
again,
>hmmm?
>
>>Although two not outs in '38
>>allowed him to maintain an average of 108.5 for his six innings in
the
>>series, half (two) of his dismissals were bowled.
>
>Same number as in 30, 34 and 48, as I said above.

But on a much smaller "n," resulting in a much higher percentage of
wicket-related dismissals, which I did not notice you mentioning.
(Maybe I missed it.)

>> And in '48, he was
>>lbw once and bowled twice in 7 dismissals. Between the two series,
he
>>had 5 wicket-related dismissals out of 11, or 45%. This contrasts
with
>>just 4 out of 15 (all bowled), or 27% for '30-'34. Of course, here
>>we're dealing with a very small "n," too small to suggest that, in
>>Bradman's youth, that delivery from Hollies might have just slipped
>>past the stumps, with only an "Ooh!" from the crowd...
>
>Umm, Bradman played on. He played onto his stumps, not the outer edge
of
>his off stump. The ball rolled off the stumps in front of the
wicket...
>
>>There is still lots of room for more evidence and analysis. I would
>>LOVE to find out whether or not my hypothesis about '38 is correct.
>
>Yes....

>> but I've wasted

>>enough time on this for now...
>
>Hmmm. Even if the change in the size of the wickets was a factor, and
>assuming that they were first tried in '38, it STILL only produced a
one
>off "blip" and thereafter produced a handful more such dismissals (and
in
>the 50s, fewer bowleds, and more LBWs, hardly the expected result).

Again, since lbw's ARE bowleds (except you have a chance of the umpire
giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt), it's EXACTLY the result I
would have expected, from batsmen learning to keep the bowler out after
bowled
dismissals suddenly skyrocketed.

>suppose you are questioning how many more times Bradman might have
been
>out bowled. And considering the adjustment to the size of the stumps
was
>about 10%, I suppose it's fair to say that over time, he could (even
would
>have been) have been out bowled 10% more often. But how you resolve
that
>this might have cut his average by 40%, is hard to grasp.
>
>Josh

Again, not 40% based on one thing. 40% or so, based on:

1 NOT averaging 201 vs. South Africa.

2. NOT averaging 173 vs. India.

(Are those really so hard even for a fundamentalist believer to
accept?)

3. Facing 4 WI quicks, ALL OF WHOM are, IM unprovable O, faster and
more accurate than the FASTEST Bradman faced.

4. Facing Waqar, and Wasim, and Hadlee, and Willis, and Kapil, and
Imran.

5. Facing superior fielders which (a) held their catches better and
(b) cut off boundaries better.

That's it. But I know I'm wasting my time. I give up.

[John Hall]

In article <xa4N+ZAz...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>,

Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>One thing that would certainly ruin his average these days is the speed
>of the bowling today. I am not talking about a trivial difference of 2%,
>like Andy Roberts bowling at 93 mph when Larwood only managed 91, but of
>28%. In Bradman's day, there were about 720 balls a day in Tests; in
>Viv's era, it was about 520.

True. But the Don's two triple centuries were made in 4-day Tests, and
5x520 is not very much less than 4x720.
--
John Hall
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

[Christian Kelly]

John Hall wrote:
>
> In article <xa4N+ZAz...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>,
> Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >One thing that would certainly ruin his average these days is the speed
> >of the bowling today. I am not talking about a trivial difference of 2%,
> >like Andy Roberts bowling at 93 mph when Larwood only managed 91, but of
> >28%. In Bradman's day, there were about 720 balls a day in Tests; in
> >Viv's era, it was about 520.
>
> True. But the Don's two triple centuries were made in 4-day Tests, and
> 5x520 is not very much less than 4x720.

I notice our revisionists make no allowance for other changes, such as
the modern practice of covering pitches.

Wonder why that might be :-)

--

Cheers

Christian Kelly

"His manuscript was both good and original, but the part that was good
was not original, and the part that was original was not good."

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <342880...@edn.gu.edu.au> Christian Kelly
<C.K...@edn.gu.edu.au> writes:

>I notice our revisionists make no allowance for other changes, such as

>the modern practice of covering pitches.
>
>Wonder why that might be :-)

Mainly because everyone else screams so much about it as to make it
cliche. OTOH, stump size change is either unknown (mostly!),
forgotten, or ignored.

Some people seem to assume that batsmen in the 20's and 30's were
always batting in quagmires. Undoubtedly it happened occasionally.
But, you know, the players came off in those days when it started to
rain! And they usually waited until the wicket was tolerably dry
before they went back out. Did the lack of covers cause bad wickets?
Absolutely! But even with today's covered wickets, unplayable strips
crop up periodically. Witness this year's 6th Ashes Test, or the horror
that was used in the Port-of-Spain Test in the last Aussie tour.

I absolutely grant (in fact, have published stats to show!) that spin
bowling has declined greatly due to covered wickets. But if someone
wants to claim that covered wickets have helped batting stats more than
they've been hurt by: (1) The "maturing" of bowling skills from WI,
India, and Pakistan; (2) The greatly improved fielding; (3) The
pressures of year-round cricket; (4) The access to livable salaries due
to the growth of cricket professionalism; (5) The use of better
training and medical techniques; (6) The natural process of evolution
within a replication discipline; (7) THE LARGER STUMP SIZE!
...then let them produce some evidence, other than the tautologous
argument about batting averages, anecdotal ramblings, and religious
mantras.

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

[Steve Shadbolt]

ap...@ix.netcom.com(Stephen A Devaux) wrote:

>In <342880...@edn.gu.edu.au> Christian Kelly
><C.K...@edn.gu.edu.au> writes:
>
>>I notice our revisionists make no allowance for other changes, such as
>
>>the modern practice of covering pitches.
>>
>>Wonder why that might be :-)
>
>Mainly because everyone else screams so much about it as to make it
>cliche. OTOH, stump size change is either unknown (mostly!),
>forgotten, or ignored.
>
>Some people seem to assume that batsmen in the 20's and 30's were
>always batting in quagmires. Undoubtedly it happened occasionally.
>But, you know, the players came off in those days when it started to
>rain! And they usually waited until the wicket was tolerably dry
>before they went back out.

Not strictly true, in the late 60s in an England / Aus test (Derek
Underwoods 1st test ?). The whole pitch was flooded during the
morning and the spectators were roped in to mop up the outfield, when
play resumed Underwood took 7 wickets in a couple of hours and was
virtually unplayable.

Australia was even worse as the rain used to leave the surface and
just beneath soaked but the base bone dry. This made the pitches
lethal just after the rain. They did however dry fairly quickly and
the pitch improved. There was the famous match where Bradman caught
England on such a wicket and told his bowlers not to take all the
English wickets because he did not want to have to bat on it. When
all the wickets fell he reversed the batting order to allow the wicket
time to dry before the recognised batsmen came in. Australia eneded
up winning easily.

>Did the lack of covers cause bad wickets?
>Absolutely! But even with today's covered wickets, unplayable strips
>crop up periodically. Witness this year's 6th Ashes Test, or the horror
>that was used in the Port-of-Spain Test in the last Aussie tour.

Agreed but I think that uncovered wickets made it much more of a
problem.

>
>I absolutely grant (in fact, have published stats to show!) that spin
>bowling has declined greatly due to covered wickets. But if someone
>wants to claim that covered wickets have helped batting stats more than
>they've been hurt by: (1) The "maturing" of bowling skills from WI,
>India, and Pakistan; (2) The greatly improved fielding; (3) The
>pressures of year-round cricket;

Not sure I agree with this one in effect cricket was year round for
test players in the 30s tours lasted 7 or so months because of the
travelling, this wasn't every year of course.

>(4) The access to livable salaries due
>to the growth of cricket professionalism; (5) The use of better
>training and medical techniques; (6) The natural process of evolution
>within a replication discipline; (7) THE LARGER STUMP SIZE!
>...then let them produce some evidence, other than the tautologous
>argument about batting averages, anecdotal ramblings, and religious
>mantras.

I tend to agree, it's not really possible to compare Cricket now and
in the 30s. Its certainly not possible to say what Bradmans or
Headley's average would be if they were playing today. However
Bradman was so far ahead of his contempories that any unbiased
observer must agree that he was / is the best batsman who has ever
played the game.
>

Steve Shadbolt
shad...@logica.com
These are my opinions not Logica's

[John Hall]

In article <60cdob$2f7$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>,
Joshua Saunders <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
>In article <606eab$g...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,

>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[Heavily snipped. I'll just pick up on a couple of points.]

>>
>>Again, "downright appalling" is a pretty absurd exaggeration, don't you
>>think? When one considers, again, that Headley faced Voce, Farnes, and
>>Hollies in the WI, as well as Larwood and Verity in England, and that
>

>"the team RES Wyatt took (34/5 to WI) was not within 6 or 7 players of
>their strongest" - Martin Tyler.

The following players played 4 or more Tests against Australia in the
previous series, and so could have been expected to form the core of a
touring party to WI if the strongest possible one was to be taken:

Leyland, Sutcliffe, Walters, Hendren, Ames, Verity, Wyatt (c), Hammond.
The effect of Bradman seems to have been that, whilst the batting was
fairly fixed, only Verity amongst the bowlers played in 4 or more
matches that summer. Farnes played in only the first two Tests, but I
surmise he was subsequently injured, as he headed the averages with 10
wickets at 22.80. Verity had 24 at 24.00. Bowes, who played in 3
matches, took 19 at 25.42. Nobody else averaged under 40. Neither
Larwood nor Voce were considered that summer, because of the
repercussions of Bodyline.

I would therefore say that the first-choice England attack of the time
would contain Verity, Farnes and Bowes (plus Larwood and Voce had they
been available). Of these 5, only Farnes went on the WI tour, and he
only played in 2 of the 4 Tests (injured?). [Of the leading batsmen,
Sutcliffe and Walters did not tour, but the others (Leyland, Hendren,
Ames, Wyatt, Hammond) did.]
>
>The English teams in those series were very weak. At no stage did their
>concurrent strength at any time match that which Australia was facing
>through the 30s. Yes Voce was a good bowler, and so was Rhodes, but Voce
>was making his debut, and Rhodes was 52.

It was the previous tour, in 1929-30, that Voce and Rhodes went on. I
would say that the 1929-30 side was certainly weak, and that that of
1934-5, though quite strong in batting, was weak in bowling.

> Larwood played WI in 2 Tests. At
>all times, Bradman faced the best English bowlers they could find. At no
>time did HEadley do the same.

Well, I think he probably did in the series in England in 1939 (though
at this point the best England could find, with the exception of Verity,
were less good than the best attack of the late twenties or early
thirties), and possibly in 1933 (but England were without Larwood and
Voce, and possibly Bowes, in the aftermath of Bodyline), but he
certainly didn't in either 1929-30 or 1934-5.

I don't think there's any doubt that the England attacks that Bradman
faced were substantially stronger than those faced by Headley. This was
particularly so in 1928-9, 1930 and 1932-3.

[Re the change in size of the wicket]

>
>>precisely BECAUSE of Bradman's mega-scores? Or perhaps the lumber
>>business just need
>>ed a subsidy? Tell me, why do you think they made the change?
>

>I have no idea exactly why they brought in the change. Maybe for 5 day
>Tests?

Four-day Tests superseded 3-day Tests in England, at least against
Australia, in 1930, largely because high scoring was making it difficult
to get a result in 3 days.

> Do we even know when it was brought in?

A sight of the minutes of the annual meetings of the ICC and of the
various meetings of the MCC around this period would be interesting in
this regard. However, I believe the change was the result of the high
scoring of the previous few years, largely but not solely by Bradman
(Ponsford and Hammond in particular had also posted some imposing
scores, and Victoria had twice topped the thousand in an innings during
the 1920s).

The change in height of the wicket from 27 to 28 inches was brought in
everywhere in 1931. The more significant change in width from 8 to 9
inches was first introduced in the same year, but was optional till
1947. Given the leading role of MCC/England with regard to the Laws, I
suspect that the change was introduced in England itself at once.
(Anyone who has access to the 1931 and/or 1932 Wisdens could probably
find out for sure.)
--
John Hall
"The Roman Conquest was, however, a *Good Thing*."
From "1066 and All That"
by W.C.Sellar (1898-1951) and R.J.Yeatman (1897-1968)

[Joshua Saunders]

In article <606eab$g...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,

And Don still averaged double Headley. They did have Learie in those
days....

(snip the "Josh is a blind zealot" crap, and I'm an amateur Darwinist
(though unfalsifiable). if you're interested in that, I'm sure Steve can
provide one fitted to your own particular discussion)

>>>When apples are compared with apples, The Don
>>>averaged 91 vs. England in the pre-war years, while Headley averaged
>>>78: a much more credible gap.
>>
>>No this is pure and total sophistry.
>
>Hm. Trying to use historical statistics, and whittle them down so as
>to compare, as much as possible, like with like, is "pure and total
>sophistry." I would have thought that repeating over and over "Bradman
>is the best
> because he had the best average!" was more the Protagoras method, but
>what do I know?

No, it's sophistry becaues as you PERFECTLY well know, Headley faced
England attacks that were weaker than the ones Bradman faced.

>>Don faced the best England players at
>>ALL times, and on one occasion a tactic that forced changes to Law 42
>(the
>>one about FAIR PLAY). Headley faced mediocre and downright appalling
>>England teams.
>
>Again, "downright appalling" is a pretty absurd exaggeration, don't you
>think? When one considers, again, that Headley faced Voce, Farnes, and
>Hollies in the WI, as well as Larwood and Verity in England, and that

"the team RES Wyatt took (34/5 to WI) was not within 6 or 7 players of

their strongest" - Martin Tyler.

The English teams in those series were very weak. At no stage did their

concurrent strength at any time match that which Australia was facing
through the 30s. Yes Voce was a good bowler, and so was Rhodes, but Voce

was making his debut, and Rhodes was 52. Larwood played WI in 2 Tests. At

all times, Bradman faced the best English bowlers they could find. At no
time did HEadley do the same.

>Bradman,
> in Tests, never faced Grimmett, O'Reilly and Ironmonger (whose average
>per wicket, BTW, was about 10 runs LESS than the vaunted Larwood's;
>O'Reilly's was about 5 less), the difference is surely much smaller
>than those wh
>o

He DID face them, however in Shield matches, and did fine against them.

> have been screeching about "99.94 to 60.83" would have us believe.

Except facing the attacks England sent to the West Indies in the 30s,
Bradman would have averaged a lot more than that.

>>The reason the gap is credible, is that you can't believe
>>Bradman was that much better. Well, he was.
>
>Ah. That settles it, then. You're right.

Yes, you can't believe it.

>>>But I believe the "forgotten change" was even more significant,
>namely,
>>>the augmentation of the wickets by an inch in both width and height.
>>>Since 1948, deliveries which caused no more than "oohs!" as they
>>>whistled safely beside or above the oldtimers' stumps, now uproot
>the
>
>>You've got no evidence at all that Bradman was the sort of player to
>be
>>affected by such a rule change.
>
>And nor were any of the bowlers who bowled against him, I presume?
>Strange, this game of cricket, where we can fiddle around with a basic
>rule like wicket size and have no impact on the players. Why don't we
>make the wicket ten inches high then? Or, better still, leave it out
>altogethe
>r and save money on stumps, bails and umpires (who would not be needed
>for lbw)? Or maybe use a tennis ball?

Did I suggest using a tennis ball? Go on, did I? The size of the wicket
changed marginally. The game, did not.

>>Such evidence, is of course, impossible to
>>compile.
>
>Very difficult, indeed. Which is why the "religious believers" can
>maintain their faith.

And Darwin believed in a flat earth?

>> All you've got is a weak surmising about what could have been,
>>maybe.
>
>Based on what tends to happen in such situations, generally, and HAS
>HAPPENED in similar sports situations, where objective comparison
>(timers, tape measures) was possible.

That's RIGHT! Now you're getting it! Bradman is an OUTLIER, the sort that
can't be accounted for by drawing parallels with korfball or curling.

>>>lumber and send the would-be triple-centurion on his way with a
>paltry
>>>few. Perhaps even more significant, the appeal for lbw which the
>'30s
>>>umpire thoughtfully declined as "MIGHT have been too wide, or too
>>>high," now brings a quick forefinger, with half an inch to spare!
>
>>Nonsense.
>
>Really? You don't think that changing the size of the wicket increased
>the likelihood of an lbw? Quite apart from what the stats below say
>(and they DO support this!), you think umpires ignored the fact that

The stats support NOTHING, until you tell us when the size of teh stumps
were changed. :-)

>the wicket
>was bigger and that therefore a ball which might have missed the
>smaller stumps would now hit them? Interesting. Do you think that
>umpires today are STILL assuming the stumps are 8 x 27? I'd never
>thought of that! You
>may be right! That would certainly explain a lot!

And so a ball that is going to hit the outer half inch of the off stump
has no doubt about it? :-)

>>>Further, both bowler and batsman must adjust to the change: before,
>a
>>>pace bowler had to aim a little further (six inches?) up the pitch if
>>>he wanted to get a "bailer;" and a certain percentage of those
>>>deliveries must have turned into half volleys.
>>
>>Well yes, some bowlers might aim to get it just short of a length and
>turn
>>out a half volley. But I submit, such bowlers are not of Test class.
>
>Not today, certainly.

Not then, either. Unless England was playing WI...

>>>up initially as a fairly sudden increase in the percentage of bowled
>>>and lbw dismissals.
>>
>>And I hypothesise, if there was a significant impact, they would have
>>changed the dimensions back.
>
>Interesting hypothesis. Surely the purpose was TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
>IMPACT in re-establishing equilibrium between bowler and batsman,

Well, why? The aim was not to tip the balance in favour of the bowler, and
apparently was brought in with covered pitches. If more than one factor
was introduced, as seems likely, you can hardly tell which factor affected
what...

>precisely BECAUSE of Bradman's mega-scores? Or perhaps the lumber
>business just need
>ed a subsidy? Tell me, why do you think they made the change?

I have no idea exactly why they brought in the change. Maybe for 5 day
Tests? Do we even know when it was brought in?

>
>>>As time passed, and batsmen adapted to the new
>>>conditions, the data would sink back toward the original percentages.
>
>>
>>Umm, why? Surely a larger wicket means a greater percentage of
>dismissals
>>involving the wicket, for as long as the wicket is larger?
>
>Not necessarily. Ultimately, I would expect a change in tactics, to
>play more cautiously to deliveries that might hit the (larger) wicket.
>This would result in fewer scoring strokes and runs per 100 deliveries.
>But afte
>r an initial jump, I would expect equilibrium to return, with
>wicket-related dismissals at only a slightly elevated level.

So let's get this straight. If Bradman batted through the cusp of this
change, he'd be affected. But if he played his whole career in an era of
larger stumps (equilibrium) he wouldn't be affected, but he'd be brought
back to the pack.

>>> The impact of this, over the years, might be only four to six runs
>per
>>>hundred deliveries; but it would add up, having an overall inhibiting
>>>effect on career batting averages.
>>
>>It might, otoh, be a lot less than 4-6 runs per 100 deliveries. It
>might
>>be zero.
>
>Might be. Like the "missing link", unprovable, thus untrue, I guess.

Well hang on a minute, how well constructed was your figure of 4-6? I mean
is that figure provable? Is zero? Is any figure? You started pulling
figures out of nowhere, it's just I'm not allowed to do it without getting
equated with creationists.

>>Well until you work this out, you really can't say too much about how
>>BRadman "appears" to be so much better. I do wonder where the likes of
>>Hammond, Suttcliffe, McCabe and Trumper fit into all this though.
>>Presumably this mob would have averaged between 20 and 40 in Tests, if
>>they were played with "real" sized wickets. You think?
>
>Since you ask:
>Considering not just the wickets, but improved fielding, pace bowling,
>etc., I'd guess 38-45ish. I don't think any of them exploited the
>weaknesses of their contemporaries nearly as well as Bradman did.

But Bradman wouldn't be able to do it nowadays. I see. Todays bowlers have
no weaknesses. Yeah, that's what I thought.

>>>
>>> TOTAL TOTAL PCT. TOTAL PCT. OVERALL PCT.
>>>YEAR DISMISSALS BOWLED BOWLED LBW LBW WKT-RELATED
>>>
>>>1926 96 26 27.1% 7 7.3% 34.4%
>>>
>>>1930 139 37 26.6% 13 9.4% 36.0%
>>>
>>>1934 152 44 28.8% 11 7.2% 36.1%
>>>
>>>1938 116 39 33.6% 16 13.8% 47.4%
>>>
>>>1948 152 46 30.3% 13 8.6% 38.9%
>>>
>>>1953 162 39 24.1% 26 16.0% 40.1%
>>>
>>>1956 152 34 22.4% 24 15.8% 38.2%
>>>
>>>1961 158 36 22.8% 21 13.3% 36.1%
>>>

>>Huh? You're misreading your own figures. In the period 48-56, compared
>>with 26-34 the chance of being out bowled DECREASED, whilst the chance
>of
>>being out LBW INCREASED. If you're REALLY serious about grouping the
>two
>>together, I respectfully submit, that for this sample size, there is
>no
>>significant difference between the period 26-34 and 48-56.
>
>I WAS serious about grouping them, since one thing that stops the
>wicket from being hit is having your leg in front of it. In the case
>of a legitimate lbw decision, it's the ONLY thing. And the sample
>size, with the con
>sistency of the measured results in both cases, seems to me to indicate
>a significant difference. Maybe someone who knows more about
>statistical manipulation than I do can tell us. But if you say I can't
>do this, I won'
>t.

You're welcome to try. :-)

>>>3. Both the three series from '26-'34 (n = 387 dismissals) and the
>>>last three series examined (from '53-'61; n = 472 dismissals) saw a
>>>remarkably consistent rate of lbw dismissals, but with the later
>series
>>>almost twice as high (8.0% vs. 15.0%). Whether wicket size or
>umpires'
>>>eyes, SOMETHING had happened!
>>
>>Well it wasn't wicket size, because the rate of bowleds went down.
>
>ONLY because someone's bloody leg was in the way!

Or umpires started giving them out.

>>>4. As often the case with statistical studies, the anomalies are the
>>>most interesting aspects. Surprisingly, the two most anomalous years
>>>are '38 and '48, the two series before and after the mandated change
>in
>>>wicket size. In fact, 1938 is SO different, not just from the other
>>>three pre-war series but from ALL the other series, as to defy
>>>explanation. Something strange happened in '38, and it wasn't just
>>>Lenny scoring 364 "in the nighttime." The likelihood of being bowled
>>>went from the 27.6% average of the previous 3 series to 33.6%, an
>>>increase of 21.7%.
>>
>>Representing JUST 7 bowled dismissals in that '38 series, itself
>>represented by some extremely dismal tailenders in that series
>(O'Reilly
>>batting at 8 or 9, for goodness sake).
>
>I can't win! If it had shown up in '30, it'd have been Ironmonger! In
>the late 80's, Jones! In '97, Blewett!

Yawn. It's totally irrelevant until we find out when the size of the
stumps changed....

>>Wouldst thou just? Bradman (and let's not forget, that's who this is
>all
>>about) was out twice bowled in '38. And in '34. And in 48. And in 30.
>In
>>fact, every series he played in England, he was out twice bowled. I
>>suggest, whatever affect the change in wicket size had, it's effect
>was on
>>mortals, and not on Bradman. And that's assuming you can show that the
>>wicket was actually bigger in the 1938 series FOR THE FIRST TIME (and
>as a
>>gentle hint, you haven't done so yet).
>>
>>By way of comparison, in Bodyline and 46/7 Bradman was out bowled 4
>times,
>>and in 36/7 he was out bowled 3 times. I guess the stumps were just
>bigger
>>in Australia in those days, hmmm?
>
>Funny. When I first raised the issue of stump size back in the THE DON
>VS VIV thread, you pointed out how seldom the Don was lbw or bowled!
>The fact is, that's true. But, for wahtever reason, the rate almost
>doubled fr
>om '38 on!

Yeah.

>>>Suddenly, the '48 series stats also make sense! By then, the batsmen
>>>were adjusting to the larger wickets.
>>
>>Arrant nonsense.
>
>Since you say so. Very convincing.

Well we still dunno when the stump size was changed. How can you make this
surmise without the evidence?

>>>Although two not outs in '38
>>>allowed him to maintain an average of 108.5 for his six innings in
>the
>>>series, half (two) of his dismissals were bowled.
>>
>>Same number as in 30, 34 and 48, as I said above.
>
>But on a much smaller "n," resulting in a much higher percentage of
>wicket-related dismissals, which I did not notice you mentioning.
>(Maybe I missed it.)

Is 2 out of 4 significant? I mean really...

>>> but I've wasted
>>>enough time on this for now...
>>
>>Hmmm. Even if the change in the size of the wickets was a factor, and
>>assuming that they were first tried in '38, it STILL only produced a
>one
>>off "blip" and thereafter produced a handful more such dismissals (and
>in
>>the 50s, fewer bowleds, and more LBWs, hardly the expected result).
>
>Again, since lbw's ARE bowleds (except you have a chance of the umpire
>giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt), it's EXACTLY the result I

No, LBWs are NOT bowleds.

>would have expected, from batsmen learning to keep the bowler out after
>bowled
> dismissals suddenly skyrocketed.
>
>>suppose you are questioning how many more times Bradman might have
>been
>>out bowled. And considering the adjustment to the size of the stumps
>was
>>about 10%, I suppose it's fair to say that over time, he could (even
>would
>>have been) have been out bowled 10% more often. But how you resolve
>that
>>this might have cut his average by 40%, is hard to grasp.
>>
>>Josh
>
>Again, not 40% based on one thing. 40% or so, based on:
>
>1 NOT averaging 201 vs. South Africa.
>
>2. NOT averaging 173 vs. India.

Which takes it down to 87 odd, we know. or about a 10% decrease (goodness
knows what he'd hit against Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka or the Indians on a flat
track)

>(Are those really so hard even for a fundamentalist believer to
>accept?)
>
>3. Facing 4 WI quicks, ALL OF WHOM are, IM unprovable O, faster and
>more accurate than the FASTEST Bradman faced.

I have no problem with this, I do insist that they would have been unable
to place 3 short legs 2 b squares a d b square and a fine leg. Bradman
didn't get hit all through Bodyline. His tactic was to try and back away
and cut the ball thru the vacant off side. A diet of continual bouncers,
with 2 fielders behind square, would have been tough, but not impossibly
difficult. Even then, the modern Australian cricketer plays only 1/4 of
his cricket against WI. I'm interested to learn how Bradman averaging
(goodness knows what, 20 maybe Steve?) against WI would have affected his
average when there are still weak attacks around.

>4. Facing Waqar, and Wasim, and Hadlee, and Willis, and Kapil, and
>Imran.

Oh come on. You're talking about how much more cricket he would play. Yes
he would play more cricket, against more varied opposition, some of which
he would struggle against, and most of which he would dominate.

>5. Facing superior fielders which (a) held their catches better and
>(b) cut off boundaries better.

Running faster between wickets to get full value for the shots....

Josh

[Joshua Saunders]

In article <xa4N+ZAz...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>,

Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk.DELETE> wrote:
>
>>In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>[stuff on his theory about stump sizes and Bradman's average and
>Headley's]
>
>and
>
>Joshua Saunders <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> felt like disagreeing.

Did he just?

>Rather
>aggressively

Ooh! How rude!

> and petulantly

We're always having trouble with that boy....

>given Steve's hard work in digging up stats
>and attempting to put them to reasonable and logical use, I thought, but
>never mind.

I thought too. What a @#$%#@$@

>I happen to think that Steve's theory about the introduction of bigger
>stumps carving down Bradman's average is baloney.

Well I thought it was arrant nonsense, but look where it got me?

>I know there are lots
>of examples of elderly gentlemen in bath chairs making double hundreds
>in Tests, such as Graham Gooch's 333 (and 123* in the same match) at the
>age of 87, but actually, it's rare. Most players make their very big
>hundreds early in their career, and the Don was mortal in that respect
>too. Bradman didn't make a first-class triple hundred after the 1935-6
>season.
>

>But on the other hand, it isn't really good enough to say "Bradman was
>God" and there's an end on it.

No.

>The original question, or at least quite an early question, in this
>thread was whether Bradman would have averaged 99.94 in Test cricket if
>he'd been playing today, or, rather, at the same time as King Viv, who,
>the record books tell us, averaged substantially less. (And Viv's

>biggest Test innings, bar the 208 in 1984 at the MCG, were all in the
>early part of his career.)

Well I've never agreed that he would...

(snip)

>I don't think Bradman would have scored his runs faster than he did, but
>since he would have had effectively less time, he wouldn't have been
>able to score as many. I would say that you could chop him down to 75 or
>so.

Oooh, that low? You still get all the time you want for a first innings in
almost all cases.

>There is, of course, a whole different argument about whether today's
>circumstances could reproduce the background, childhood, adolescence,
>training opportunities (or lack of), coaching structure, competitive
>structure, economic conditions etc which led to Bradman being who he
>was, with the talents he had, expressed in the way that they were, and
>therefore whether it is even possible for a "Bradman" to be playing

>today. But that's the argument for saying you can't compare people from

>different eras, I suppose, and cricket nuts will always try and do it.
>Pointlessly of course, since none can ever compare with Worplesdon.

Except Bradman. :-)

Josh

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <342a54d5.13245001@news> shad...@logica.com (Steve Shadbolt)
writes:

>
>>
>>Some people seem to assume that batsmen in the 20's and 30's were
>>always batting in quagmires. Undoubtedly it happened occasionally.
>>But, you know, the players came off in those days when it started to
>>rain! And they usually waited until the wicket was tolerably dry
>>before they went back out.
>
>Not strictly true, in the late 60s in an England / Aus test (Derek
>Underwoods 1st test ?). The whole pitch was flooded during the
>morning and the spectators were roped in to mop up the outfield, when
>play resumed Underwood took 7 wickets in a couple of hours and was
>virtually unplayable.

Interesting. The 60's are usually regarded as post-covered wicket.
Could this have been earlier? Or perhaps water had seaped under the
covers? Like I said, covered wickets didn't guarantee good wickets.

>Australia was even worse as the rain used to leave the surface and
>just beneath soaked but the base bone dry. This made the pitches
>lethal just after the rain. They did however dry fairly quickly and
>the pitch improved. There was the famous match where Bradman caught
>England on such a wicket and told his bowlers not to take all the
>English wickets because he did not want to have to bat on it. When
>all the wickets fell he reversed the batting order to allow the wicket
>time to dry before the recognised batsmen came in. Australia eneded
>up winning easily.
>

>> Witness this year's 6th Ashes Test, or the horror
>>that was used in the Port-of-Spain Test in the last Aussie tour.
>
>Agreed but I think that uncovered wickets made it much more of a
>problem.

>I tend to agree, it's not really possible to compare Cricket now and

>in the 30s. Its certainly not possible to say what Bradmans or
>Headley's average would be if they were playing today. However
>Bradman was so far ahead of his contempories that any unbiased
>observer must agree that he was / is the best batsman who has ever
>played the game.
>>

I don't think I'm biased, and I do think that Bradman was the greatest
"giant of batting," one without whom the game would be much poorer. I
would evn grant that he MIGHT be the greatest of all time. But I also
think that someone could knowledgeably and rationally disagree with
that opinion...

[Joshua Saunders]

In article <60baam$m...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>In <342880...@edn.gu.edu.au> Christian Kelly
><C.K...@edn.gu.edu.au> writes:
>
>>I notice our revisionists make no allowance for other changes, such as
>
>>the modern practice of covering pitches.
>>
>>Wonder why that might be :-)
>
>Mainly because everyone else screams so much about it as to make it
>cliche. OTOH, stump size change is either unknown (mostly!),
>forgotten, or ignored.

Or irrelevant. :-) The reason everyone knows about covered v uncovered
pitches, is because the change did have a definite effect on the game that
was acknowledged by all. Changing the stump size apparently had little
effect on the game, but hey, it was enough to halve Bradman's average...

>Some people seem to assume that batsmen in the 20's and 30's were
>always batting in quagmires. Undoubtedly it happened occasionally.
>But, you know, the players came off in those days when it started to
>rain! And they usually waited until the wicket was tolerably dry

>before they went back out. Did the lack of covers cause bad wickets?

>Absolutely! But even with today's covered wickets, unplayable strips

>crop up periodically. Witness this year's 6th Ashes Test, or the horror

>that was used in the Port-of-Spain Test in the last Aussie tour.

Yes I agree with all this.

>I absolutely grant (in fact, have published stats to show!) that spin
>bowling has declined greatly due to covered wickets. But if someone
>wants to claim that covered wickets have helped batting stats more than
>they've been hurt by: (1) The "maturing" of bowling skills from WI,
>India, and Pakistan;

As opposed to the presence of bowling weak nations such as New Zealand,
Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe?

>(2) The greatly improved fielding;

As opposed to the greatly improved running between the wickets?

>(3) The
>pressures of year-round cricket;

The affect this has had, is on bowlers, and it hasn't been beneficial.

>(4) The access to livable salaries due
>to the growth of cricket professionalism;

Umm yes, just imagine how hard Bradman would try if it was all for a buck!

>(5) The use of better
>training and medical techniques;

Undoubtedly these have helped cricketers, especially bowlers.

>(6) The natural process of evolution
>within a replication discipline;

This is wishy-washy nonsense.

>(7) THE LARGER STUMP SIZE!

Zzzz.

>...then let them produce some evidence, other than the tautologous
>argument about batting averages, anecdotal ramblings, and religious
>mantras.

Yes, Bradman would have been brought back to the pack through a natural
process of evolution. He wouldn't have taken any particular toll of weak
bowling (never mind SWaugh averaging 362 against SL, we'll exclude that
series in 50 years time, so why not do it now), he would keep hitting
catches that brilliant modern day types would swoop upon, and pace would
be his ultimate weakness, coz he only ever faced fast medium stuff.

Josh

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <2nflIMAb...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall

<ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>[Heavily snipped. I'll just pick up on a couple of points.]

Good idea! The messages with Josh were getting awfully long. I know
he'll read this -- EVERYONE on rsc reads John's threads!

>>>
>>>Again, "downright appalling" is a pretty absurd exaggeration, don't
you
>>>think? When one considers, again, that Headley faced Voce, Farnes,
and
>>>Hollies in the WI, as well as Larwood and Verity in England, and
that

>>

>>The English teams in those series were very weak.

CONSIDERABLY stronger than the S. African and Indian attacks that
Bradman feasted on. And again, although we know Larwood's reputation,
it really doesn't hold up. Take away six short legs and two lng legs,
and his runs/
per/wicket performance was pretty deplorable, MUCH worse than Farnes,
Voce and Hollies.

>>At no stage did their
>>concurrent strength at any time match that which Australia was facing
>>through the 30s. Yes Voce was a good bowler, and so was Rhodes, but
Voce
>>was making his debut, and Rhodes was 52.

Gosh, that's right! I guess I was confused. I had THOUGHT that this
was the same Rhodes who pretty much won the Ashes from Aus in the
previous series. But obviously I was mistaken, 'cause he'd have been
49 then, obviou
sly too old. (Wasn't their a guy named Ironmonger who took about 73
Test wickets, at about 18 runs per, between ages 47-53, at about the
same time? Naw, couldn't be! After all, this was the era of great
cricketers! Ca
n you imagine a 50 year-old-bowler playing now? But I suppose I'll be
hearing about how much better condition senior citizens kept themselves
in back then!)

There's no doubt but that the English tours to WI were A BIT weaker in
bowling than the tours to Aus, mainly due to the absence of Verity and
Allen. Verity was BY FAR the best bowler of the era. So the 91 to
78.2 compar
ison may be SLIGHTLY slanted to favor Headley: but not nearly as much
as the 99.94 to 60.82 comparison is slanted in Bradman's favor by his
fattening up on India and S. Africa, and his not having to face his own
Aus team.
Factoring out the matches that weren't against England from both
Bradman's and Headley's records gives the best comparison.

>Well, I think he probably did in the series in England in 1939 (though
>at this point the best England could find, with the exception of
Verity,
>were less good than the best attack of the late twenties or early
>thirties), and possibly in 1933 (but England were without Larwood and
>Voce, and possibly Bowes, in the aftermath of Bodyline), but he
>certainly didn't in either 1929-30 or 1934-5.
>
>I don't think there's any doubt that the England attacks that Bradman
>faced were substantially stronger than those faced by Headley. This
was
>particularly so in 1928-9, 1930 and 1932-3.

Again, "substantially" is a strong term. Voce, Rhodes, Farnes, Hollies
all toured WI. George batted well against Verity in England, but WI
never won any of those Tests.

Verily, Headley, in WI innings, faced Verity, Hedley, with no winnings!

>[Re the change in size of the wicket]
>>

>>>precisely BECAUSE of Bradman's mega-scores? Or perhaps the lumber
>>>business just need
>>>ed a subsidy? Tell me, why do you think they made the change?
>>
>>I have no idea exactly why they brought in the change. Maybe for 5
day
>>Tests?
>

>Four-day Tests superseded 3-day Tests in England, at least against
>Australia, in 1930, largely because high scoring was making it
difficult
>to get a result in 3 days.
>

>> Do we even know when it was brought in?
>

>A sight of the minutes of the annual meetings of the ICC and of the
>various meetings of the MCC around this period would be interesting in
>this regard. However, I believe the change was the result of the high
>scoring of the previous few years, largely but not solely by Bradman
>(Ponsford and Hammond in particular had also posted some imposing
>scores, and Victoria had twice topped the thousand in an innings
during
>the 1920s).
>
>The change in height of the wicket from 27 to 28 inches was brought in
>everywhere in 1931. The more significant change in width from 8 to 9
>inches was first introduced in the same year, but was optional till
>1947. Given the leading role of MCC/England with regard to the Laws, I
>suspect that the change was introduced in England itself at once.
>(Anyone who has access to the 1931 and/or 1932 Wisdens could probably
>find out for sure.)
>--
>John Hall

Indeed, John, This is more info than I had before. In a previous
posting, you remarked that it might be of greatest value to compare the
series immediately before and after the change(s). With the matter
still not defin
ite, we can't do that. But here is my best attempt, comparing each
county's tours in the 30's with what came before. From what you say,
we can presume the height was 28 inches from '31 on, while the width is
still problematic.

TOTAL TOTAL PCT. TOTAL PCT. OVERALL PCT.
YEAR DISMISSALS BOWLED BOWLED LBW LBW WKT-RELATED

(Aus tours)
1930 (5T) 139 37 26.6% 13 9.4% 36.0%

1934 (5T) 152 44 28.8% 11 7.2% 36.1% (+ 0%)

1938 (5T) 116 39 33.6% 16 13.8% 47.4% (+31%)

(S. Africa tours)
1929 (5T) 139 52 37.4% 8 5.8% 43.2%

1935 (5T) 137 44 32.1% 24 17.5% 49.6% (+15%)

(NZ tours)
1931 (3T) 61 17 27.9% 7 11.5% 39.3%

1937 (3T) 91 25 27.5% 14 15.4% 42.9% (+ 9%)

(WI tours)
1928 (3T) 89 22 24.7% 12 13.5% 38.2%

1933 (3T) 90 26 28.9% 10 11.1% 40.0% (+ 5%)

(Indian tours)
1932 (1T) 38 18 47.4% 4 10.5% 57.9%

1936 (3T) 83 24 28.9% 12 14.5% 43.4% (-25%)

Some interesting things:

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the worse teams showed a greater propensity
for suffering wicket-related dismissals. But this should have meant a
decrease on follow-up tours (when, presumably, the new nations should
have been improving). Instead, the wicket-related dismissals rose
substantially on the second tour for all but India (whose one-off Test
in '32 was probably an aberration from the point of view of the number
of tourists who were bowled), and Australia, who did not experience a
rise in '34, but then SHOT up by 31% in 1938. Whether this was a case
of "delayed reaction," or due to a later implementation of wicket
augmentation (either height, width, or both) for the Ashes, perhaps due
to Australian objections, may not be important; the fact is, the same
pattern emerged for Aus, in even more dramatic fashion, as for SA, NZ
and WI.

John, you were right. This was a revealing exercise. The increase in
wicket size was implemented to redress the advantage that the batsmen
seemed to be getting. It seems to have worked, primarily through
increased lbw decisions. (I know, someone's going to maintain that
there's no relationship between wicket size and lbw decisions! Strange
though that argument is, it's really irrelevant for the purpose of
determining if batting got more difficult or not -- whatever the reason
for it, a greater propensity for giving batsmen out lbw HAD to make
batting harder, didn't it?)

I feel that, unless someone shows that the tendency toward
wicket-related dismissals was a RANDOM one when compared to the
more-or-less simultaneous increase in wicket-size, I have now produced
enough evidence to strongly suggest a connection. At least, enough to
satisfy my own curiosity, until a more exacting study, based on the
certain knowledge of the wicket size for each match, can be conducted.
I'm sure this evidence will not convince those who will continue to
point to the "missing link." Quelle domage.

Please excuse me while I get back to my life...

[John Hall]

In article <60f9ib$k...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>In <2nflIMAb...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
><ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>
>>[Heavily snipped. I'll just pick up on a couple of points.]
>
>
>Good idea! The messages with Josh were getting awfully long. I know
>he'll read this -- EVERYONE on rsc reads John's threads!
>
>>>>
>>>>Again, "downright appalling" is a pretty absurd exaggeration, don't
>you
>>>>think? When one considers, again, that Headley faced Voce, Farnes,
>and
>>>>Hollies in the WI, as well as Larwood and Verity in England, and
>that
>
>>>
>>>The English teams in those series were very weak.
>
>CONSIDERABLY stronger than the S. African and Indian attacks that
>Bradman feasted on.

Yes, but I thought we were now comparing Bradman v England with Headley
v England, so Bradman's performances v SA and India are not relevant in
this context. IIRC, only considering Tests v England brings Bradman's
average down to a pathetic 91.

> And again, although we know Larwood's reputation,
>it really doesn't hold up. Take away six short legs and two lng legs,
>and his runs/
>per/wicket performance was pretty deplorable, MUCH worse than Farnes,
>Voce and Hollies.

We can apply your argument above: 15 of Larwood's 21 Tests were against
by far the toughest opponents, Australia. In 12 of them Bradman was
playing. I'm too idle to check, but I suspect that Farnes, Voce and
Hollies played a greater percentage of their Tests against the weaker
sides. And even leaving 1932-3 aside, Larwood played an important role
in Englands successful tour in 1928-9, modest though his figures may
look.

>
>>>At no stage did their
>>>concurrent strength at any time match that which Australia was facing
>>>through the 30s. Yes Voce was a good bowler, and so was Rhodes, but
>Voce
>>>was making his debut, and Rhodes was 52.
>
>Gosh, that's right! I guess I was confused. I had THOUGHT that this
>was the same Rhodes who pretty much won the Ashes from Aus in the
>previous series. But obviously I was mistaken, 'cause he'd have been
>49 then, obviou
>sly too old.

To say he "pretty much won the Ashes" is a bit of an exaggeration. And
there's a big difference in playing one Test at home with playing
through a whole series in a hot country away from home. And at that age,
3 years can make a lot of difference. Rhodes retired at the end of the
next English season after this tour, so presumably thought he was now
past it.

>
>There's no doubt but that the English tours to WI were A BIT weaker in
>bowling than the tours to Aus, mainly due to the absence of Verity and
>Allen. Verity was BY FAR the best bowler of the era. So the 91 to
>78.2 compar
>ison may be SLIGHTLY slanted to favor Headley: but not nearly as much
>as the 99.94 to 60.82 comparison is slanted in Bradman's favor by his
>fattening up on India and S. Africa, and his not having to face his own
>Aus team.

We can never know for sure (if we could, our current exercise would lose
its charm). My best guess is that against comparable bowling Bradman's
average would be about 25 points superior to Headley's.

> Factoring out the matches that weren't against England from both
>Bradman's and Headley's records gives the best comparison.

>

>>[Re the change in size of the wicket]
>>

>>The change in height of the wicket from 27 to 28 inches was brought in
>>everywhere in 1931. The more significant change in width from 8 to 9
>>inches was first introduced in the same year, but was optional till
>>1947. Given the leading role of MCC/England with regard to the Laws, I
>>suspect that the change was introduced in England itself at once.
>>(Anyone who has access to the 1931 and/or 1932 Wisdens could probably
>>find out for sure.)
>

This is really what we need (but I'm not volunteering :)
Until then, it's all supposition. The changes in bowled/lbw dismissals
could also be due to any one of a number of other factors (some of which
I mentioned in a previous post).

>I'm sure this evidence will not convince those who will continue to
>point to the "missing link." Quelle domage.
>
>Please excuse me while I get back to my life...

:)
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

[John Hall]

In article <60emmh$2...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>In <342a54d5.13245001@news> shad...@logica.com (Steve Shadbolt)
>writes:
>>
>>>

>>>Some people seem to assume that batsmen in the 20's and 30's were
>>>always batting in quagmires. Undoubtedly it happened occasionally.
>>>But, you know, the players came off in those days when it started to
>>>rain! And they usually waited until the wicket was tolerably dry
>>>before they went back out.
>>

>>Not strictly true, in the late 60s in an England / Aus test (Derek
>>Underwoods 1st test ?). The whole pitch was flooded during the
>>morning and the spectators were roped in to mop up the outfield, when
>>play resumed Underwood took 7 wickets in a couple of hours and was
>>virtually unplayable.
>
>Interesting. The 60's are usually regarded as post-covered wicket.
>Could this have been earlier? Or perhaps water had seaped under the
>covers? Like I said, covered wickets didn't guarantee good wickets.

No, it was the Oval Test in 1968 (not Underwood's first, BTW). At that
stage in England, though not overseas, Test pitches were only covered
overnight and if/when play had been abandoned for the day.

Covers certainly don't guarantee good wickets, but *efficient* covers
should guarantee that pitches don't become wet during the course of the
match.

This might be an opportune moment to take up the point that has been
made that Bradman was not a good player on wet wickets. This is
generally accepted to be true, but as his average shows, wet wickets
even in the days of uncovered pitches were not common. Of Bradman's 37
Tests v England, the only ones I can identify where he had to bat on wet
wickets are Brisbane 1928-9 (2nd inns), Trent Bridge 1930 (1st inns),
Lord's 1934 (both innings), Brisbane 1936-7 (2nd inns), Sydney 1936-7
(1st inns).

[Kip]

Joshua Saunders <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in article
<60cdob$2f7$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>...

> In article <606eab$g...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In <5vs65e$n2$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au> Joshua Saunders
> ><jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
> >>In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
> >>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>R.s.c. readers who have been following the thread, "THE DON VS. VIV
> >>>RICHARDS" may be aware that I have been maintaining that certain
> >>>historical conditions occurred which inflated the stats of some of the
> >>>"old-timers." For example, it is frequently pointed out that The Don
> >>>towered over his contemporaries, with a career average 40 points
higher
> >>>than his nearest rival, George Headley. However, the data show that
> >>>The Don "fattened up" considerably off the inferior competition of
> >>>India, WI and South Africa, none of whom Headley ever batted against,

I have posted a more complete list before but thought it applicable to post
this abbreviated version again. It is broken down in plus/minus 10 year
periods and the bowled and lbw wickets have been grouped for reference to
the stump size altercation.

Years Percentage Wkts bowled &
bowled & LBW LBW per match
1877 to 1887/88 42.33 14.11
1888 to 1898/99 44.33 15.16
1899 to 1909 40.66 13.59
1909/10 to 1912/13 45.52 14.90
1919/20 to 1929/30 41.07 12.24
1930 to 1939 41.56 12.25
1945/46 to 1955/56 41.38 12.45
1955 to 1965 39.14 11.96
1965/66 to 1975/76 32.50 10.08
1976 to 1986 34.17 10.29
1986/87 to date 33.92 10.10
Totals 1377 36.91 11.25

Here I quote from my previous post: "It seems that in fact more wickets
fell being bowled or lbw in the early years and that there seems to be a
gradual decline of being dismissed in these manners. Having said this one
must take into account that all matches are included and therefore one may
have the liberty to deduce that the real reason there has been a decline is
that there are no longer just a few sides dominating world Test cricket as
was the case in the early years." end quote. Now it must be said that if
you go back in the ranks (ie. from first class to club cricket, club
cricket to under 19's, under 19's to under 16's, under 16's to under 13's)
there is a definite increase in the amount of wickets that fall by means
of being bowled (and thus said - but to a lesser degree - lbw as well).
The amount of times a player at the lowest level gets a nick and is taken
by the keeper or slips is minute. Which brings me back to a point I made
then and that is that the standards have risen. Added to this the game is
more competitive today then it was then. In days gone by when a batsmen
hit a superb cover drive, the fielders applauded (and rightly so one may
say) but today most teams will chase down the ball and attempt to save a
run or two and one is seeing more and more often that, unless the ball is
perfectly placed, what would have been four in crickets early years now
only goes for two (or possibly three). When one starts adding all of these
one's and two's they can add up to a lot of runs as the limited overs game
has shown us. Given that the above statement is true then it is only fair
to say that although Bradman was a class batsmen in his day, he would not
have averaged the majestical 99 today. However you can't replace class, no
doubt he would have made runs (more than most I think) in the middle in
todays game but quite substancially less than that 99.

To quote again from my earlier post: "Statistics can be argued in more ways
than one (as a commentator once remarked, while I was scoring at Newlands,
"Statistics can tell you a lot of things, sometimes even the truth),
however one thing the stats do tell us is that the standard of cricket
(world wide) has dramatically increased (in the batting, bowling and
fielding departments) and this afterall, for those of us who of lovers of
the game, is the greatest prize." end quote
Kind Regards Kip
<end>

[Kip]

--
Klaus-Peter Münch (Kip)
pre...@icon.co.za

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <AMVEotA2...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall

<ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <60f9ib$k...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>In <2nflIMAb...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
>><ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>We can never know for sure (if we could, our current exercise would
lose
>its charm). My best guess is that against comparable bowling Bradman's
>average would be about 25 points superior to Headley's.

Charm! Is that waht you call it? I feel like Ahab chasing the giant
wicket!

>
>>>The change in height of the wicket from 27 to 28 inches was brought
in
>>>everywhere in 1931. The more significant change in width from 8 to 9
>>>inches was first introduced in the same year, but was optional till
>>>1947.

>>But here is my best attempt, comparing each

>>

>>John, you were right. This was a revealing exercise.

(SNIP)

>> At least, enough to
>>satisfy my own curiosity, until a more exacting study, based on the
>>certain knowledge of the wicket size for each match, can be
conducted.
>
>This is really what we need (but I'm not volunteering :)
>Until then, it's all supposition.

>--
>John Hall

I have discovered a way to determine stump size from photos. If a
photo is from the arc of mid-on to mid-off, it is easy to measure the
wicket's height vs. width and determine from the ratio whether the
width was 8 inches or 9 (about 3.5:1 versus about 3:1). Determining
whether the height had been increased (3.5:1 versus 3.4:1) is a bit
more dificult, and seems to require a more "behind the bowler's arm"
shot, or a clear close-up.

I tried this with a book I have called "From Botham to Grace", and it
works quite well. All photos prior to the '30s have the small wickets,
all from the '50s on have the large one. A shot of Larwood bowling in
'30 is clearly the small wicket, while one of O'Reilly (date and place
unnamed) is definitely a 28" X 8" wicket. A shot of "Headley at
Chelmsford in '39" looks to be the narrow wicket, too (it's certainly
the taller), so maybe there WAS variance at different f-c grounds.

If anyone has a book that covers any series from the '30s, it should be
possible to start compiling this important historical data, series by
series and Test by Test, for storage in CricInfo.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <01bccabe$93ccc9c0$Loca...@precise.Icon.co.za> "Kip"

<pre...@icon.co.za> writes:
>
>Joshua Saunders <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in article
><60cdob$2f7$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>...

>> In article <606eab$g...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
>> Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >In <5vs65e$n2$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au> Joshua Saunders
>> ><jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
>> >>In article <5vkl8d$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>> >>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>R.s.c. readers who have been following the thread, "THE DON VS.
VIV
>> >>>RICHARDS" may be aware that I have been maintaining that certain
>> >>>historical conditions occurred which inflated the stats of some
of the
>> >>>"old-timers." For example, it is frequently pointed out that The
Don
>> >>>towered over his contemporaries, with a career average 40 points
>higher
>> >>>than his nearest rival, George Headley. However, the data show
that
>> >>>The Don "fattened up" considerably off the inferior competition
of
>> >>>India, WI and South Africa, none of whom Headley ever batted
against,
>

Kip, I absolutely agree with your points, and envy your ability to
rapidly retrieve this data! However, for strict comparison purposes,
the data's value is limited in that it doesn't divide the info into
countries: not only are some countries more susceptible to
wicket-related dismissals, but also umpiring consistency varies.

This much seems true from your data: In the 20's, w-r dismissals
dropped considerably. This trend should presumably have continued:
instead, during the 30's and immediately post-war, w-r dismissals
increased. One major reason was undoubtedly the introduction to Test
cricket of the new nations. I would suggest, from my own comparative
totals of series in the 30s in England, that wicket size was the other
factor in this anomaly.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <342FD8...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>> I tried this with a book I have called "From Botham to Grace", and
it
>> works quite well. All photos prior to the '30s have the small
wickets,
>> all from the '50s on have the large one. A shot of Larwood bowling
in
>> '30 is clearly the small wicket, while one of O'Reilly (date and
place
>> unnamed) is definitely a 28" X 8" wicket. A shot of "Headley at
>> Chelmsford in '39" looks to be the narrow wicket, too (it's
certainly
>> the taller), so maybe there WAS variance at different f-c grounds.
>

> According to Gerald Brodribb ["Next Man In"], the change was
>introduced experimentally in England in 1929, and made it to the Laws
>in 1931. However, the Aussies in 1930 refused to play with the larger
>wicket [which limits the Larwood 'photo!]. Apparently, the new bails
>were often illegal [projected more than half an inch] and had to be
>shaved down. This delayed the start of a Test in Durban, much to
>English annoyance, having put SA in on a drying wicket.
>
> I would expect the larger wicket to have been universal in
>f-c matches in the UK from 1931; any freedom would have been to
>enable club matches to continue to use existing equipment for a few
>years.
>
>--
>Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
>a...@maths.nott.ac.uk

Interesting. Of course, as John Hall pointed out, there are two
separate changes, one involving increasing the height by an inch, the
other increasing the width by an inch. In several photos, including
the '39 photo of Headley at Chelmsford, it's clear the height had been
increased, but not the width. From the photos I've looked at, I think
John Hall is right about the height having been increased in the early
'30s, but the width not standardized for a few years.

It's interesting about the Aussies resisting in '30, though. It causes
one to wonder how long it was before either change was introduced in
Aus. Also, did Aus (as my stats have suggested) succeed in resisting
one or both changes in '34 also, so that the jump in wicket-related
dismissals came a bit later for them (in '38) than for SA, NZ and WI?
Again, the photos would tell us.

[Kip]

Christian Kelly wrote: after I had written:

>> To quote again from my earlier post: "Statistics can be argued in more
ways
>> than one (as a commentator once remarked, while I was scoring at
Newlands,
>> "Statistics can tell you a lot of things, sometimes even the truth),

>And when they don't support your arguments, they >can always be
re-interpreted.
>How can we take your arguments seriously when >these stats indicate the
exact
>opposite of what your are trying to prove (ie that >the larger wicket size
led to more bowleds and >LBWs), so you re-interpret them?

>> however one thing the stats do tell us is that the standard of cricket
>> (world wide) has dramatically increased (in the batting, bowling and
>> fielding departments)

>There is absolutely no evidence to support this >assertion.

Cheers

Christian Kelly

I do not advocate that the change in wicket size led to more bowleds and
LBW's rather I posted the statistics to indicate how the game has changed.
Surely you cannot disagree that the game has become more analytical in the
sense that sides study their opponents and attempt to bowl in a certain
manner in order to dismiss a particular batsmen. In the early years we did
not have the benefit of television coverage whereby the team/coach can
spend hours analyzing a batsmen/bowler. If you realistically believe that
the standard of cricket has not improved over the years then I'm afraid
you're being naïve. The manner they train and the dedication put in by
today's players (no doubt due to advances in science for fitness tests,
body analysis so that a player use's weights and exercise to strengthen
specific weak muscles etc, constant practice at hitting the stumps – I'd be
here all night if I mention them all) has a direct influence on how the
level has increased. Added to this, if scores of 30 all out (SA did this
twice vs England in 1895/96 and 1924) in a Test match is an indication of
how the game is on par with today's game then I'm afraid you and I are
watching totally different sports. Prior to 1960 there were 53 first
innings (first innings of each team) scores below a hundred, since 1960 to
date there have been 20. Are you still honestly trying to con this
newsgroup into believing that the level of play has not improved. Wake up
and smell the roses. Given the choice I would rather watch a competitive
game between any two of today's sides than a lopsided affair between
England/Australia and one of the emerging sides of that early time period.
Quite simply I love the game and the fact that the world wide standards
have improved and that the cricket world is not dominated by only two sides
is just the way I like it.

Regards Kip

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[Christian Kelly]

Kip wrote:
>
> Christian Kelly wrote: after I had written:

> >> however one thing the stats do tell us is that the standard of cricket

> >> (world wide) has dramatically increased (in the batting, bowling and
> >> fielding departments)
>
> >There is absolutely no evidence to support this >assertion.

> Surely you cannot disagree that the game has become more analytical in the

> sense that sides study their opponents and attempt to bowl in a certain
> manner in order to dismiss a particular batsmen.

Why on earth would you think that this is a modern phenomenon? This has
most
certainly been going on since day one.

> In the early years we did
> not have the benefit of television coverage whereby the team/coach can
> spend hours analyzing a batsmen/bowler.

True enough, but it's only a minor point.

> If you realistically believe that
> the standard of cricket has not improved over the years then I'm afraid
> you're being naïve.

If it's so easy to prove, why aren't you able to do so?

> The manner they train and the dedication put in by
> today's players (no doubt due to advances in science for fitness tests,
> body analysis so that a player use's weights and exercise to strengthen
> specific weak muscles etc,

Physical fitness is hardly one of the main factors influencing
cricketing
ability. This again is a very minor point, and I doubt that fitness
levels have improved all that much. I'd bet Harold Larwood was fitter
than ANYONE playing today, for instance.

> Constant practice at hitting the stumps

I agree that fielding (not cathcing) levels have improved, but that is
mainly due to ODIs.

>– I'd be
> here all night if I mention them all) has a direct influence on how the
> level has increased.

Well you'd better do that, since you haven't proven much at all so far.

> Added to this, if scores of 30 all out (SA did this
> twice vs England in 1895/96 and 1924) in a Test match is an indication of
> how the game is on par with today's game then I'm afraid you and I are
> watching totally different sports.

Totally spurious. England were a *very* good side, and I assume the
pitches
were dodgy on each occasion. Two innings don't prove anything anyway.

> Prior to 1960 there were 53 first
> innings (first innings of each team) scores below a hundred, since 1960 to
> date there have been 20. Are you still honestly trying to con this
> newsgroup into believing that the level of play has not improved.

The only logical conclusion to be drawn from this data is that batting
has
improved vis a vis bowling. I note that isn't the conclusion you draw
:-)

Why do you refuse to consider other factors, such as the improvement in
pitches and covering of same?

> Wake up
> and smell the roses. Given the choice I would rather watch a competitive
> game between any two of today's sides than a lopsided affair between
> England/Australia and one of the emerging sides of that early time period.
> Quite simply I love the game and the fact that the world wide standards
> have improved and that the cricket world is not dominated by only two sides
> is just the way I like it.

So the truth comes out. Now I know what motivates your arguments, and
it isn't
logic. I say again, if you have any objective evidence then produce it.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <01bccd14$2ec16ec0$789d...@precise.Icon.co.za> "Kip"

<pre...@icon.co.za> writes:
>
>Christian Kelly wrote: after I had written:

>>> however one thing the stats do tell us is that the standard of
cricket
>>> (world wide) has dramatically increased (in the batting, bowling
and
>>> fielding departments)
>
>>There is absolutely no evidence to support this
>assertion.
>

>Cheers
>
>Christian Kelly
>
>I do not advocate that the change in wicket size led to more bowleds
and
>LBW's rather I posted the statistics to indicate how the game has
changed.

>Surely you cannot disagree that the game has become more analytical in
the
>sense that sides study their opponents and attempt to bowl in a
certain

>manner in order to dismiss a particular batsmen. In the early years

we did
>not have the benefit of television coverage whereby the team/coach can

>spend hours analyzing a batsmen/bowler. If you realistically believe

that
>the standard of cricket has not improved over the years then I'm
afraid

>you're being naļve. The manner they train and the dedication put in

by
>today's players (no doubt due to advances in science for fitness
tests,
>body analysis so that a player use's weights and exercise to
strengthen

>specific weak muscles etc, constant practice at hitting the stumps –

I'd be
>here all night if I mention them all) has a direct influence on how
the

>level has increased. Added to this, if scores of 30 all out (SA did

this
>twice vs England in 1895/96 and 1924) in a Test match is an indication
of
>how the game is on par with today's game then I'm afraid you and I are

>watching totally different sports. Prior to 1960 there were 53 first

>innings (first innings of each team) scores below a hundred, since
1960 to
>date there have been 20. Are you still honestly trying to con this
>newsgroup into believing that the level of play has not improved.

Wake up
>and smell the roses. Given the choice I would rather watch a
competitive
>game between any two of today's sides than a lopsided affair between
>England/Australia and one of the emerging sides of that early time
period.
>Quite simply I love the game and the fact that the world wide
standards
>have improved and that the cricket world is not dominated by only two
sides
>is just the way I like it.
>

>Regards Kip
>--
>Klaus-Peter Münch (Kip)
>pre...@icon.co.za

One thing that my research into wicket size has definitely confirmed is
Kip's assertion of a relationship between batting inadequacy and the
number of bowleds + lbws. There was a MUCH greater tendency in the
early years for South Africa, WI, NZ and Indian batsmen to be dismissed
in these ways than for Aus or English batsmen to be. The losing side
would almost invariably have a greater percentage of such dismissals
than the winning side. Therefore, when Kip points to the reduction of
such dismissals as evidence of the game's improvement, he's on pretty
firm statistical grounds.

[Mike Holmans]

Kip's statement:

>>>> however one thing the stats do tell us is that the standard of cricket
>>>> (world wide) has dramatically increased (in the batting, bowling and
>>>> fielding departments)

Christian Kelly's counter:

>>>There is absolutely no evidence to support this assertion.
>>

Steve the Bajan's view:

>One thing that my research into wicket size has definitely confirmed is
>Kip's assertion of a relationship between batting inadequacy and the
>number of bowleds + lbws. There was a MUCH greater tendency in the
>early years for South Africa, WI, NZ and Indian batsmen to be dismissed
>in these ways than for Aus or English batsmen to be. The losing side
>would almost invariably have a greater percentage of such dismissals
>than the winning side. Therefore, when Kip points to the reduction of
>such dismissals as evidence of the game's improvement, he's on pretty
>firm statistical grounds.
>

I think I posted something on this some days ago, but since Demon have
had problems with their news propagation it may not have got out.

Christian Kelly seems to be echoing the point I was making, namely
that the statistics which Kip cites prove nothing, or not very much.

Steve correctly points out, I think, that fewer bowled/lbws indicates
an improvement in batting standards: if we compare the number of
bowled/lbws for India v England and India v Australia with the number
of bowled/lbws between England and Australia in the 1950s and the
1980s, a valid comparison is possible.

If we get something like:

1950s 1980s
% b/lbw India v E/A 35 17
% b/lbw E/A v E/A 22 18

then we can say that *Indian* batting standards have improved. Whether
we can actually generalise and say that fewer b/lbws all round
*necessarily* implies higher batting standards, I'm not sure, as there
is evidence that bowling tactics have changed, with more bowlers
aiming for the corridor of uncertainty or the batsman's head than
before. Without detailed analysis of film of test matches through the
ages, it's difficult to know whether a declining proportion of b/lbw
is in line with a similarly declining proportion of balls aimed at the
stumps.

But Kip makes no actual argument that I can see *from the stats* that
standards in *all* departments of the game have improved worldwide.

Note that I am not taking issue with the assertion that standards have
improved since the 1930s. (I would actually suggest that the highest
all-round standard of cricket worldwide was reached in the 1970s, when
India, Pakistan, WI, and England all had sides which were stronger
than they have today, the Australians were not noticeably worse, and
South Africa had one of the best sides the world has ever seen (if we
had ever actually seen them).)

What I want to know is how Kip thinks that statistics prove it.

When challenged, Kip does not come up with a statistical argument,
except the rather dubious one about there being more very low scores
in the early history of the game than in recent years. As an England
fan, I am only too well aware of catastrophically low scores in recent
years too, but I take the point. However, I think Steve Shadbolt has
dealt with this reasonably adequately.

Saying that people train harder, watch more videos, fling themselves
around in the field more, etc makes no reference to the statistics. It
may all be true, but it doesn't mean that the statistics tell us that
standards have improved.

I am particularly exercised by the claim that the statistics show
there has been a dramatic increase in standards in *all* departments
of the game. How, for heaven's sake?

We sit around and debate whether X was a better batsman than Y, and
someone rolls up with the point that X averaged 51.26 and Y averaged
42.71, so X is/was better than Y. Now, if we are going to say that
batsmen of the 80s have an average average of 48.92, while batsmen of
the 30s had an average average of 41.03, so the 80s batters are better
than the 30s batters, what is this going to do on the bowling front?
If the batsmen get more runs, the bowlers must concede more runs, so
whereas the bowlers of the 30s might have an average average of 22.78,
those of the 80s would have an average average of 26.35 and therefore
be worse than their predecessors.

My ickle brane has some trouble with understanding why, if standards
are improving on all fronts, the statistics aren't remaining roughly
constant. Someone with a better grasp of staistical theory than I had
better explain this.

I don't want to have a bash at Kip particularly, because his ability
to dig up useful statistics is very valuable, on a par with Aslam's,
but I'm afraid that presenting figures and then saying "these figures
prove P" isn't good enough. Especially when, to the casual observer,
the statistics given seem to prove precisely the opposite, some
argument to show how the stats bolster the assertion is required for
the theoretically-challenged amongst us.

Cheers,

Mike

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Steve Shadbolt wrote:
> And lets face it the whole English side of the late 30s
> would probably replace all of todays team :)

Sadly, they are virtually all deceased, and thus not
much use in the field. You're on better ground with the teams
of the late 40's, sufficient of whom are still with us to make
an interesting side; even so, I think they'd struggle against
a modest county 2nd XI, as they're nearly all in their 70s.

[Simpson, Washbrook, Close, Watkins, Bailey, Cranston,
Evans, Bedser, Wright, Jackson, Tattersall was the best I could
come up with (qual: played in Tests in the 1940s and still AFAIK
alive). Short of batting, but pretty good bowling. Could have
done with an extra couple of years to get Graveney, Watson and
Sheppard; but then it might as well be the team of the '50s.]

[Steve Shadbolt]

Christian Kelly <C.K...@edn.gu.edu.au> wrote:

>Kip wrote:
>>
>> Christian Kelly wrote: after I had written:
>

>> >> however one thing the stats do tell us is that the standard of cricket
>> >> (world wide) has dramatically increased (in the batting, bowling and
>> >> fielding departments)
>>

>> >There is absolutely no evidence to support this >assertion.
>

>> Surely you cannot disagree that the game has become more analytical in the
>> sense that sides study their opponents and attempt to bowl in a certain
>> manner in order to dismiss a particular batsmen.
>

>Why on earth would you think that this is a modern phenomenon? This has
>most
>certainly been going on since day one.

Off course Bradman was on the receiving end of just such tactics,
bodyline was invented by Jardine because he thought that Bradman was
scared of fast short bowling.

>
<snip>

>Well you'd better do that, since you haven't proven much at all so far.
>

>> Added to this, if scores of 30 all out (SA did this
>> twice vs England in 1895/96 and 1924) in a Test match is an indication of
>> how the game is on par with today's game then I'm afraid you and I are
>> watching totally different sports.

There have been teams dismissed for very low totals in the last 25
years.

>
>Totally spurious. England were a *very* good side, and I assume the
>pitches
>were dodgy on each occasion. Two innings don't prove anything anyway.
>

>> Prior to 1960 there were 53 first
>> innings (first innings of each team) scores below a hundred, since 1960 to
>> date there have been 20. Are you still honestly trying to con this
>> newsgroup into believing that the level of play has not improved.

lets see first test match around 1870 so in the first 90 years of test
cricket there were 53 scores beloww 100 and in the last 37 there have
been 20. What does this prove.

There are a lot more tests played now, but the sides are generally
stronger (with the exception of England and Austrailia and at times
South Africa). So before 1960 you had very strong sides (England and
Australia) playing most test matches against each other, but
occaisionally playing very weak sides (South Africa, India, WI, NZ ?).
You would expect there to be a number of very low scores.

There is also the fact that there were uncovered wickets at the time,
which when wet (especially in Austraila) could be very nasty. This
didn't happen very often but as stated above there were low scores in
the first innings only 53 times in the first 90 years of test cricket.

>
>The only logical conclusion to be drawn from this data is that batting
>has
>improved vis a vis bowling. I note that isn't the conclusion you draw
>:-)

If you take into account all the test palying nations yes the batting
has improved, however I doubt very much if Austraila's or England's
test batting is better.

Take the 1930's for example it would be difficult to say that Bradman,
Ponsford, McCabe would not be automatic choices for todays Aussie side
(which is generally acccepted to be the best test side in the world
today). In fact you could argue that the only players of today whose
place would be safe are two of the fast bowlers, Healy and possibly
Steve Waugh. And lets face it the whole English side of the late 30s

would probably replace all of todays team :)
>

<snip>

shad...@logica.com
Views expressed are mine not Logica's

[Bob Dubery]

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:05:39 +0100, Mike Holmans
<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Possums!
(sorry Mike, couldn't resist the Dame Edna bit)

>The original question, or at least quite an early question, in this
>thread was whether Bradman would have averaged 99.94 in Test cricket if
>he'd been playing today

As many of you know I frequent the meetings of the Cricket Society of
SA. They have a pretty good range of speakers passing through,
including many test and former test players.

Whenever I get the chance I ask the former players what they consider
to be the greatest area of difference between their playing days and
the modern era. With out exception (and their careers span ww2 to
early 70s) they have replied "fielding".

Even given that in this day and age fielding on the leg side is
restricted, one has to say that this factor *must* make a difference.

This, of course, is to take nothing away from Sir Donald, but surely
with the reduced over rates and, especially, the huge advances in
fielding he would be hard pressed to retire with an average of 99 odd
in this day and age. I believe that Sir Donald himself has said words
to the effect that if he had to deal with modern standards of fielding
then he would not have reached the same statistical hights.

Either that or we must consider this:

Graeme Pollock retired with a test average of about 50. I saw him late
in his career (mid 80s) and he was a pretty amazing player even then.
If Bradman was about *twice* as good as Pollock then he wasn't just a
great player - he was from another plain of being.

Call the men in black :-)

Bob Dubery
***************************************************
The adresses shown in the header are bogus.

You can mail me at megapode@globalDOTcoDOTza
*****************************************************

[Christian Kelly]

Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> Kip's statement:

> Christian Kelly seems to be echoing the point I was making, namely
> that the statistics which Kip cites prove nothing, or not very much.

Yep.

> Note that I am not taking issue with the assertion that standards have
> improved since the 1930s. (I would actually suggest that the highest
> all-round standard of cricket worldwide was reached in the 1970s, when
> India, Pakistan, WI, and England all had sides which were stronger
> than they have today, the Australians were not noticeably worse, and
> South Africa had one of the best sides the world has ever seen (if we
> had ever actually seen them).)

Agreed. I made the point in an earlier post that the high-point in
world
cricket standards was sometime in the 70s. Kip has not explained how
his
theory can account for that.

> I don't want to have a bash at Kip particularly, because his ability
> to dig up useful statistics is very valuable, on a par with Aslam's,
> but I'm afraid that presenting figures and then saying "these figures
> prove P" isn't good enough. Especially when, to the casual observer,
> the statistics given seem to prove precisely the opposite, some
> argument to show how the stats bolster the assertion is required for
> the theoretically-challenged amongst us.

Better watch out, Mike- when I challenged him I was accused of trying
to con the ng :-)

[Kip]

I have been reading with interest all the various comments that have been
posted here and have attempted (note I say attempted :)) to indicate how
the game has improved via the basic statistical breakdown. Earlier I
posted a breakdown of before and after 1960 (a figmental date I plucked out
of the air given that world standards were so high in the 70's and trying
to allow a period of time for all the test nations (excluding Sri Lanka and
Zimbabwe) to find there feet). In all honesty one would need to do a more
complete study but time constraints restrict this (a task I'll try and get
to in the near future). I feel that the records tend to show a gradual
upward trend. This however is relative and perhaps, as mentioned, a more
detailed analysis would give us the answer. It seems also that Christian
was offended by some of my statements. Perhaps they were a touch harsh.
If offend I apologise. I do however feel that it is impossible to prove
each and every aspect of improvement (ie batting, bowling etc) but think
it's ridiculous to say that there is absolutely NO evidence to support an
increase. If over a period of time the stats stay reasonably consistant
(which they seem to do from the 60's onward) then, with the various
technical advances, it stands to reason that the levels must be on the up.
Having said this if a team is still establishing itself in the test arena
(which one or other side was doing in the pre 1960 years) then it also
stands to reason that once these sides have settled down, the matches prior
to this must be weighted against them when batting and bowling (ie less
runs scored, more wickets lost). This is my interpretation of the
statistics. I would welcome another viewpoint, but use the stats don't
just say
"bullshit"
Regard Kip

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <3430c92e.4055477@news> shad...@logica.com (Steve Shadbolt)
writes:
>

>Take the 1930's for example it would be difficult to say that Bradman,
>Ponsford, McCabe would not be automatic choices for todays Aussie side
>(which is generally acccepted to be the best test side in the world
>today). In fact you could argue that the only players of today whose
>place would be safe are two of the fast bowlers, Healy and possibly
>Steve Waugh. And lets face it the whole English side of the late 30s
>would probably replace all of todays team :)
>>

Only by using the "relative" argument: i.e., the players from the '30s
"dominated" the opposition by more than today's players do. However,
other than repeating the tautulogous argument that "Players of the '30s
were better because they did better," no one has put forward any
evidence for this.

IMO, Bradman would walk into the current Aus team "as a promising
youngster;" he would then learn to deal with the much tougher pace
bowling and in a couple of years become one the two or three best
batsmen in the world, maybe even the best. McCabe would not make the
current Aussie team, and Ponsford (the Graham Hick of his era) would
make the team because of his fabulous first class record, but "fail to
live up to his potential." How long he would be tried for would depend
on the selectors' patience and Taylor's captaincy record.

Of the English players of the '30s, Verity, Hammond, Hutton, and
Compton would probably make the team, but their averages would be
substantially reduced. Verity would find wickets less helpful, and
have another 3-4 runs per wicket added to his 24-odd average. This
would STILL be enough to make him one of the better spin bowlers of the
past 30 years. Hammond would not bowl at all. Hutton would be very
comparable to Boycott, and average in the high 40s-low 50s. Compton
would a great ODI player, but probably be in and out of the Test team,
competing with Hussain and Crawley for which one gets to be replaced by
Ramprakash. (Ames would probably make the touring squad, too, in place
of Russell. Not that he's a better batsman or keeper than Russell; but
it wouldn't matter anyway since he'd not be picked for the Tests so
that Stewart could open, keep wicket, and help pull the heavy roller.)

As mediocre as England's pace attack may be (and, frankly, I think it's
not bad; I think West Indies will be in serious trouble if they
continue their past selection lunacies!), the only pacer from the '30s
with a hope would be Voce (unless they change the rules to let Larwood
have 8 fielders behind the bat on the leg side).

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <3431423...@news.global.co.za> elvis@the_king.org (Bob Dubery)
writes:

Actually, Pollock averaged 61. But I agree with your points. And I
saw my first International match in 1955. (Weekes got 133 in 91
minutes that day off Lindwall, Miller and Davidson.)

[Mike Holmans]

On 1 Oct 1997 23:00:30 GMT, "Kip" <pre...@icon.co.za> wrote:

>I have been reading with interest all the various comments that have been
>posted here and have attempted (note I say attempted :)) to indicate how
>the game has improved via the basic statistical breakdown. Earlier I
>posted a breakdown of before and after 1960 (a figmental date I plucked out
>of the air given that world standards were so high in the 70's and trying
>to allow a period of time for all the test nations (excluding Sri Lanka and
>Zimbabwe) to find there feet). In all honesty one would need to do a more
>complete study but time constraints restrict this (a task I'll try and get
>to in the near future). I feel that the records tend to show a gradual
>upward trend. This however is relative and perhaps, as mentioned, a more
>detailed analysis would give us the answer. It seems also that Christian
>was offended by some of my statements. Perhaps they were a touch harsh.
>If offend I apologise. I do however feel that it is impossible to prove
>each and every aspect of improvement (ie batting, bowling etc) but think
>it's ridiculous to say that there is absolutely NO evidence to support an
>increase. If over a period of time the stats stay reasonably consistant
>(which they seem to do from the 60's onward) then, with the various
>technical advances, it stands to reason that the levels must be on the up.

This doesn't follow.

Both Christian and I have asserted, admittedly without any great body
of evidence to back it up, that the overall standard of cricket
worldwide was higher 20 years ago than it is today (though I guess
we'd probably both agree that fielding is much improved since then).

Some of the more excitable sub-continental posters have been saying
that there are far more outstanding cricketers around today than there
ever were before. I disagree. I happen to have the 1977 Wisden here in
the office with me, so here are the approximate Test line-ups from
then (I say approximate because Pakistan only actually played a few
friendlies against SL, and SA weren't playing at all)

England Australia WI

Amiss McCosker Fredericks
Woolmer A Turner Greenidge
D Steele Redpath V Richards
Balderstone I Chappell Rowe
Willey G Chappell C Lloyd
A Greig Yallop Kallicharran
Knott Marsh DL Murray
Miller Gilmour Holding
Selvey Mallett Holder
Underwood Lillee AME Roberts
Willis Thomson Daniel

India Pakistan SA

Gavaskar Sadiq Mohammad B Richards
Gaekwad Haroon Rashid Barlow
M Amarnath Zaheer McEwan
Viswanath Miandad G Pollock
Vengsarkar Mudassar Irvine
B Patel Wasim Raja Heron
Madan Lal Wasim Bari A Smith
Venkat Imran Procter
Kirmani Intikhab Rice
Bedi Sarfraz vd Bijl
Chandrasekhar Asif Masood Hanley

NZ

J Morrison
G Turner
Congdon
Parker
Burgess
ADG Roberts
Wadsworth
BL Cairns
R Hadlee
D Hadlee
Collinge

I would venture to suggest that the only present day team likely to
beat their predecessor team consistently would be England, and that's
only because the England team of 20 years ago were so terrible (get
Boycott to stop sulking and move Woolmer down to replace Balderstone
and it looks pretty even, though). The present-day Australians are
probably better than the team of 20 years ago, but not by much, and
there's an argument that the present-day Pakistanis are better than
before, but that's even more marginal. The WI, NZ, and Indian teams of
20 years ago are better than today's teams by an order of magnitude,
and I think the same is true of RSA.

Now try and get the statistics to prove it.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mike Holmans]

On 3 Oct 1997 12:17:47 GMT, ap...@ix.netcom.com(Stephen A Devaux)
wrote:

>In <3430feda...@news.axion.bt.co.uk> mhol...@dircon.co.uk (Mike

>Holmans) writes:
>>
>>
>>Note that I am not taking issue with the assertion that standards have
>>improved since the 1930s. (I would actually suggest that the highest
>>all-round standard of cricket worldwide was reached in the 1970s, when
>>India, Pakistan, WI, and England all had sides which were stronger
>>than they have today, the Australians were not noticeably worse, and
>>South Africa had one of the best sides the world has ever seen (if we
>>had ever actually seen them).)

I have just posted the results of some cursory research which slightly
contradicts this, notably in the matter of England having a stronger
side then than now, but the main point is the same.
>>
<snip>

>>I am particularly exercised by the claim that the statistics show
>>there has been a dramatic increase in standards in *all* departments
>>of the game. How, for heaven's sake?
>>

<snip>
>
>I completely agree with your points at the base of all this, except
>that I feel that it is usually those who argue that "the oldtimers were
>better" that make assertions without any evidence or stats, relying on
>anecdotes, while ignoring the "mano a mano" (batsman vs. bowler) nature
>of the sport that you point out. And since the pattern in other sports
>shows improvement, and since the changes in cricket since the '30s have
>brought in a much larger population than before (and one which has
>often dominated), surely the burden of statistical proof should be on
>those who claim the counter-intuitive position, viz., that the game has
>not improved substantially?
>
I would agree that there is a terrible tendency amongst ancient
doddering greybeards such as myself and Joshua Saunders to patronise
young whippersnappers such as you and say that it was all better in
our day, and that this is totally reprehensible.

However, my question is not *whether* standards have improved, but how
*statistics* can be used to prove the point - one way or the other, I
don't mind. What figures can be extracted from, say 1936, 1956, 1976,
and 1996 which would show, without reference to anything else, the
relative standard of cricket in those years, and why do they show it?

I cannot think of a methodology which would do this, and I would be
grateful if someone could actually suggest one.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <3430feda...@news.axion.bt.co.uk> mhol...@dircon.co.uk (Mike
Holmans) writes:
>
>

I completely agree with your points at the base of all this, except

that I feel that it is usually those who argue that "the oldtimers were
better" that make assertions without any evidence or stats, relying on
anecdotes, while ignoring the "mano a mano" (batsman vs. bowler) nature
of the sport that you point out. And since the pattern in other sports
shows improvement, and since the changes in cricket since the '30s have
brought in a much larger population than before (and one which has
often dominated), surely the burden of statistical proof should be on
those who claim the counter-intuitive position, viz., that the game has
not improved substantially?

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

>

[John Hall]

In article <3434d9bd...@news.axion.bt.co.uk>,
Mike Holmans <mhol...@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>
>England
>
>Amiss
>Woolmer
>D Steele
>Balderstone
>Willey
>A Greig
>Knott
>Miller
>Selvey
>Underwoods
>Willis

>
>I would venture to suggest that the only present day team likely to
>beat their predecessor team consistently would be England, and that's
>only because the England team of 20 years ago were so terrible (get
>Boycott to stop sulking and move Woolmer down to replace Balderstone
>and it looks pretty even, though).

I'm not convinced, Willis and Underwood were world-class bowlers, which
is more than one can plausibly claim for any of the current England
attack. Greig and Knott were also great assets for the earlier team.
OTOH, I admit that the current England batting line-up is far superior
to the 1977 side's.
--
John Hall
"But I am a great eater of beef, and I believe
that does harm to my wit."
William Shakespeare, "Twelfth Night"

[Kip]

> From: Mike Holmans <mhol...@dircon.co.uk>
[My bit snipped]

> I would venture to suggest that the only present day team likely to
> beat their predecessor team consistently would be England, and that's
> only because the England team of 20 years ago were so terrible (get
> Boycott to stop sulking and move Woolmer down to replace Balderstone

> and it looks pretty even, though). The present-day Australians are
> probably better than the team of 20 years ago, but not by much, and
> there's an argument that the present-day Pakistanis are better than
> before, but that's even more marginal. The WI, NZ, and Indian teams of
> 20 years ago are better than today's teams by an order of magnitude,
> and I think the same is true of RSA.
>
> Now try and get the statistics to prove it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Tough one Mike, even with the extensive database I've got I can't see the
stats disagreeing with you too much. With reference to the WI, NZ and
Indian teams I think most will agree. I'll try and do some analysis with
reference to Australia, England, Pakistan and SA. How I don't know, give
me a few days. SA I think is the difficult one due to the fact that some
of the players only played a few tests. Watch this space.
--
Regards Kip

Klaus-Peter Münch (Kip)
pre...@icon.co.za

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <3434ecac...@news.axion.bt.co.uk> mhol...@dircon.co.uk (Mike
Holmans) writes:

>>
>I would agree that there is a terrible tendency amongst ancient
>doddering greybeards such as myself and Joshua Saunders to patronise
>young whippersnappers such as you and say that it was all better in
>our day, and that this is totally reprehensible.

Hey, Daddy-o, that's groovy! Us hep cats don't take no offense; we
show outasight respect, and really dig the re-bop of our elders!

>However, my question is not *whether* standards have improved, but how
>*statistics* can be used to prove the point - one way or the other, I
>don't mind. What figures can be extracted from, say 1936, 1956, 1976,
>and 1996 which would show, without reference to anything else, the
>relative standard of cricket in those years, and why do they show it?
>
>I cannot think of a methodology which would do this, and I would be
>grateful if someone could actually suggest one.

Again, don't think you're gonna get a methodology that'll prove
anything. But I'll guarantee you this... twenty years from now, this
ng (or its equivalent!) will be filled with the postings of
30-somethings maintaining that the current cricket of Laras, Waughs,
Jayas, Tendus, Inzis, Flowers, Flemings, Cronjes, and Ramprakashes was
the best ever! Especially Aussies will be maintaining this (because
Aus is currently dominant), although they will always assert Bradman
was the best ever.

[John Hall]

In article <1j+cQEA4...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>,
Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Willis was a world class bowler in 1976? If you say so, since he'd been
>a regular in the England side for about two years then,
> but my
>recollection is of a rather wayward bowler who was selected because
>there was no-one else. I don't think he was even invited to Packer his
>bags and go Down Under in the late 70s, unlike Amiss, Greig, and
>Underwood.

I admit I was carelessly thinking of his overall record. Up till
September, 1976 he had only 56 wickets at 31, so you are probably right.

>
>And even if you think that the England sides are more even than I do, I
>note that you don't seem to take issue with the main point, that the
>side of 1976 around the world were generally of higher quality than
>those 20 years later.

No, I think you are probably right, though I think the gap is not as
wide as you seem to.

>
>Being the sort of diehard traditionalist I am, thus considering daily
>Ind/Pak ODIs as a pretty silly sort of carry-on, I note that in 1976,
>ODIs were a pretty new-fangled thing and hadn't had all the extra
>paraphernalia of fielding circles (it would be some years until Brearley
>dispatched wicketkeeper Bairstow to the boundary in a tight finish
>against Australia, and Trevor Chappell was still called "oh, yes, Ian
>and Greg's younger brother" rather than "Mr Underarm").
>
>Which I, without the backing of any statistics whatsoever, regard as
>prima facie evidence that one-day cricket is bad for standards. So
>there, and I don't care what Tin Tin or any of the other loonies say.

It's probably been good for fielding standards. In batting, it may have
led some players into bad habits, but I don't think the overall effect
on Test standards is (or can be) proven. What *is* clear (AFAIAC) is
that there is now too much international cricket, especially ODIs, and
that players are being given insufficient time to rest and to prepare.
--
John Hall

"Wit is educated insolence."
Aristotle (322-284 B.C.)

[Mike Holmans]

John Hall <ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> felt like saying:

>In article <3434d9bd...@news.axion.bt.co.uk>,
> Mike Holmans <mhol...@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>England
>>
>>Amiss
>>Woolmer
>>D Steele
>>Balderstone
>>Willey
>>A Greig
>>Knott
>>Miller
>>Selvey
>>Underwoods
>>Willis
>>

>>I would venture to suggest that the only present day team likely to
>>beat their predecessor team consistently would be England, and that's
>>only because the England team of 20 years ago were so terrible (get
>>Boycott to stop sulking and move Woolmer down to replace Balderstone
>>and it looks pretty even, though).
>

>I'm not convinced, Willis and Underwood were world-class bowlers, which
>is more than one can plausibly claim for any of the current England
>attack. Greig and Knott were also great assets for the earlier team.
>OTOH, I admit that the current England batting line-up is far superior
>to the 1977 side's.

Willis was a world class bowler in 1976? If you say so, since he'd been

a regular in the England side for about two years then, but my
recollection is of a rather wayward bowler who was selected because
there was no-one else. I don't think he was even invited to Packer his
bags and go Down Under in the late 70s, unlike Amiss, Greig, and
Underwood.

And even if you think that the England sides are more even than I do, I

note that you don't seem to take issue with the main point, that the
side of 1976 around the world were generally of higher quality than
those 20 years later.

Being the sort of diehard traditionalist I am, thus considering daily

Ind/Pak ODIs as a pretty silly sort of carry-on, I note that in 1976,
ODIs were a pretty new-fangled thing and hadn't had all the extra
paraphernalia of fielding circles (it would be some years until Brearley
dispatched wicketkeeper Bairstow to the boundary in a tight finish
against Australia, and Trevor Chappell was still called "oh, yes, Ian
and Greg's younger brother" rather than "Mr Underarm").

Which I, without the backing of any statistics whatsoever, regard as
prima facie evidence that one-day cricket is bad for standards. So
there, and I don't care what Tin Tin or any of the other loonies say.

Cheers,

Mike

The exciting AFU FAQ, and many other things, may be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
> I completely agree with your points at the base of all this, except
> that I feel that it is usually those who argue that "the oldtimers were
> better" that make assertions without any evidence or stats, relying on
> anecdotes, while ignoring the "mano a mano" (batsman vs. bowler) nature
> of the sport that you point out.

But there *isn't* any statistical evidence [but see below];
so we are forced back on the anecdotage. Personally, I believe the
evidence of my own eyes that Tyson [in 1955, not later] was faster
than Thomson in 1977, or any number of today's bowlers, to any amount
of theorising that he must have been slower "because today's bowlers
are fitter". I never saw Larwood, but have no positive reason to
doubt either those who claimed in 1955 that he had been faster than
Tyson, nor those who claimed that Kortwright was faster than either.

We will never know for sure whether Bradman or Ponsford or
Trumper in their respective primes would have made the current
Australian Test side -- or even their local club second teams. They
had better figures than XYZ of today? Sure, but the bowling could
have been worse, the fielding could have been worse, the pitches
could have been better, the wickets smaller. Nothing in the figures,
or even in grainy old films, tells you about that. Nothing in
temporal "snapshots" [statistics for, say, 1930] *can* tell us about
that [though some correlations, such as the improvement in batting
figures as pitches improved in the 1880s and '90s, and such as that
Bradman was twice as good as his contemporaries, are suggestive].

> And since the pattern in other sports
> shows improvement,

*What* other sports? Athletics? Almost purely an amateur
spare-time activity for developed countries until recently. Tennis?
Likewise. *Most* sports have seen an increase in professionalism,
an opening up to many more countries or better equipment, often all
three, in the past 50 or so years. By contrast, cricket has been
played by hardened professionals for hundreds of years [and there
were probably more professionals in the 1880s than today], only SL
is a genuinely new Test country since the 1930s [and SL too has a
long history of high-class cricket], and the equipment is, apart
from the change to rolled pitches in the 1880s, essentially the
same as in the games earliest days. Rugby is, IMHO, seeing some
benefit from the opening up of international matches against, eg.,
Argentina, Italy and Japan; cricket may eventually reap some reward
from developments in the Associate members, but it hasn't happened
yet.

> and since the changes in cricket since the '30s have
> brought in a much larger population than before (and one which has
> often dominated),

*What* larger population? Certainly WIndies have done well,
but this is scarcely an argument for large populations! India and
Pakistan are now fully competitive, but this doesn't show that
standards world-wide have improved, only that national pride allows
countries to catch up to world standards over a few decades. In the
"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
of other sporting activities claim our attention.

> surely the burden of statistical proof should be on
> those who claim the counter-intuitive position, viz., that the game has
> not improved substantially?

Why counter-intuitive? The evidence of my own eyes suggests
that it hasn't [YMMV]. Fielding has improved; spin bowling has
declined; bits-and-pieces players are more in demand, as onedayitis
distorts the game, but true all-rounders are scarce.

As I said above, statistical snapshots can prove nothing. We
need to look at long career records. Now, the effects are confounded
by the fact that sportsmen become less physically fit as they age,
but that at least we can measure objectively. If someone plays for,
say, 20 years [a third of the way back to the 1930s, so time enough
for a significant change in standards on your hypothesis], then their
performance, eg batting average, towards the end of their career should
be measurably worse than that of younger players of the same fitness
[reaction time, etc], while they themselves should have outperformed
the old fogeys of their own early career. In other words, we *expect*
Bradman, or Gooch, or Close, or Titmus, Emburey, Pollock, Sobers,
Walsh, etc., to do worse at the end of their careers than at the
beginning; but if the "substantial improvement" hypothesis is correct
they should do *more* worse than is to be accounted for by their age.
But the degree of analysis required to substantiate this is more than
anyone here can be expected to put in. However, I don't see any other
way of settling this sort of issue.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <3438F3...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"

<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>> I completely agree with your points at the base of all this, except
>> that I feel that it is usually those who argue that "the oldtimers
were
>> better" that make assertions without any evidence or stats, relying
on
>> anecdotes, while ignoring the "mano a mano" (batsman vs. bowler)
nature
>> of the sport that you point out.
>
> But there *isn't* any statistical evidence [but see below];
>so we are forced back on the anecdotage.

Well, there *is* statistical evidence; not conclusive, but cerainly
suggestive.

>Personally, I believe the
>evidence of my own eyes that Tyson [in 1955, not later] was faster
>than Thomson in 1977, or any number of today's bowlers, to any amount
>of theorising that he must have been slower "because today's bowlers
>are fitter".

Yes, most people tend to believe such "visual" evidence.
Unfortunately, it's really "memory" evidence; and memories are *very*
fickle things.

>I never saw Larwood, but have no positive reason to
>doubt either those who claimed in 1955 that he had been faster than
>Tyson, nor those who claimed that Kortwright was faster than either.

I saw Roy Gilchrist bowl against Pakistan in '58, and will swear he was
faster than anything I've seen since! But I also know that this memory
is both meaningless and unreliable.

> We will never know for sure whether Bradman or Ponsford or
>Trumper in their respective primes would have made the current
>Australian Test side -- or even their local club second teams. They
>had better figures than XYZ of today? Sure, but the bowling could
>have been worse, the fielding could have been worse, the pitches

>could have been better,...

We agree on this. There is no conclusive evidence because an effect on
the difference between competitors is identical whether caused by the
better improving or the worse declining.

>...the wickets smaller.

Now, this is completely different. The wickets WERE smaller; this is
not opinion, but historical fact that can be scientifically proven by
even a fairly cursory examination of an old photo.

>Nothing in the figures,
>or even in grainy old films, tells you about that. Nothing in
>temporal "snapshots" [statistics for, say, 1930] *can* tell us about
>that [though some correlations, such as the improvement in batting

>figures as pitches improved in the 1880s and '90s,...

And increases in bowled/lbw dismissals per country when the wicket size
was expanded in the mid-late '30s. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to
make the argument that increasing the size of the wicket made batting
EASIER! 'Though I expect that hypothesis to be promulgated shortly on
this newsgroup.

>...and such as that

>Bradman was twice as good as his contemporaries, are suggestive].

Again, not all his contemporaries. When the "ICC-Trophy-level"
opposition that Bradman feasted on vs. India, SA, and WI, and the fact
that Bradman DIDN't have to face Aus, is factored out, it's Bradman's
91 average vs. Headley's 78 average vs. England in the '30s. (I hate to
keep repeating this, but feel I have to as long as people ignore these
facts.) The difference (14.3%) is much less that certain
contemporaneous batsmen who often get "bracketed" and
compared: less than the 20.3% between Ken Barrington's 58.67 and P.B.H.
May's 46.77 (or Dexter's 47.89, Graveney's 44.38, Cowdrey's 44.06);
less than Weekes' 58.61 over Worrell's 49.48 (15.6%); much less than
Sobers's 57.78 over Kanhai's 47.53 or Nurse's 47.60; less than Viv's
50ish vs. Rowe's 43.55. Bradman's record was clearly better than
Headley's, but not such an "outlyer" as people often insist, if
reasonable corrections for empirical consistency are made.

>>And since the pattern in other sports
>> shows improvement,
>
> *What* other sports? Athletics? Almost purely an amateur
>spare-time activity for developed countries until recently. Tennis?
>Likewise.

Cricket? Likewise, other than in England! But in sports where there
IS an objective metric (shot-putting, javelin-throwing, sprinting,
high-jumping, long-jumping, hurdling, hammer-throwing, pole-vaulting...
how many's that?), even WITHOUT the incentive of professionalism, can
you point to even ONE where the objective metrics have declined?

>*Most* sports have seen an increase in professionalism,
>an opening up to many more countries or better equipment, often all
>three, in the past 50 or so years. By contrast, cricket has been
>played by hardened professionals for hundreds of years [and there
>were probably more professionals in the 1880s than today],

Where? In the West Indies? India? South Africa? New Zealand?
Pakistan? We're dealing with a slightly parochial view of history
here, aren't we?

>only SL
>is a genuinely new Test country since the 1930s

I suspect that, if you count, you'll see that, in terms of the number
of Test matches it has played, SL *already* has more Test experience
than India, NZ, West Indies and Pakistan were able to accumulate until
the '60s! Until the '50s all of the above were novices to Test
cricket, ALWAYS easy pickings for Aus, and often for England. None
could support professionals, and all lost top players (who today would
certainly pursue professional careers) to monetary or educational
pusuits; sometimes such players were absent for individual series or
for years (in WI, Worrell, Walcott, Deryk Murray) and sometimes
permanently (Roy Marshall).

>[and SL too has a
>long history of high-class cricket], and the equipment is, apart
>from the change to rolled pitches in the 1880s,

And the larger wickets, and better wicketkeeper's gloves,

>essentially the
>same as in the games earliest days. Rugby is, IMHO, seeing some
>benefit from the opening up of international matches against, eg.,
>Argentina, Italy and Japan; cricket may eventually reap some reward
>from developments in the Associate members, but it hasn't happened
>yet.

Other than the benefits it DID reap by bringing in the Kenya
equivalents of the '30s, and having them mature in the 50s-70s,
bringing huge improvements to the game.

>
>> and since the changes in cricket since the '30s have
>> brought in a much larger population than before (and one which has
>> often dominated),
>
> *What* larger population? Certainly WIndies have done well,
>but this is scarcely an argument for large populations! India and
>Pakistan are now fully competitive,

Fully competitive? Actually, I'd have said they are both better than
England. The usual argument is that "England aren't as good as they
used to be in the 30's-50s." This may be so, but no evidence for this
is provided. Until it is, I have to believe that these countries have
just improved faster than England (because I think England actually is
better than it was back then).

>but this doesn't show that
>standards world-wide have improved, only that national pride allows
>countries to catch up to world standards over a few decades.

And then stand still? Because cricket somehow reached a Platonic level
of unsurpassable perfection when it was being contested between English
landed gentry and Australians during the Ashes Tests of the '30s?

>In the
>"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
>of other sporting activities claim our attention.

Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?
It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war. Hasn't
England's population grown, too? Also, is the fact that we see no more
Fred Perrys, nor English soccer World Cup champs, or whatever the names
were of those guys who won the sprinter titles at the '24 Olympics,
also due to decline of players in those sports? It couldn't be that
there are more guys in England running faster 100 m. than those guys in
'24, but just not able to compete with today's top sprinters (other
than those now living in England who couldn't have competed in '24)?

England, of course, has GREATLY improved its standard of chess. But
surely not ALL the fast bowlers and strikers are playing chess?

>> surely the burden of statistical proof should be on
>> those who claim the counter-intuitive position, viz., that the game
has
>> not improved substantially?
>
> Why counter-intuitive? The evidence of my own eyes suggests
>that it hasn't [YMMV].

You're right. QED.

>Fielding has improved; spin bowling has
>declined;

Here I agree. Covered wickets have made spin-bowling a much less
effective tactic. But this has been more than offset by the era of
great fast bowling.

>bits-and-pieces players are more in demand, as onedayitis
>distorts the game, but true all-rounders are scarce.

Can you point to an era which had more salient allrounders than the
'80s? Imran, Kapil, Botham were all legitimate allrounders. Their only
historical challengers are Sobers, Miller, and Grace, none of whom were
in their prime simultaneously. Hadlee and Wasim are in the Lindwall
and Benaud class; Jaya, Richards, and Border comparable to Hammond.

>As I said above, statistical snapshots can prove nothing. We
>need to look at long career records. Now, the effects are confounded
>by the fact that sportsmen become less physically fit as they age,
>but that at least we can measure objectively. If someone plays for,
>say, 20 years [a third of the way back to the 1930s, so time enough
>for a significant change in standards on your hypothesis], then their
>performance, eg batting average, towards the end of their career
should
>be measurably worse than that of younger players of the same fitness
>[reaction time, etc], while they themselves should have outperformed
>the old fogeys of their own early career. In other words, we *expect*
>Bradman, or Gooch, or Close, or Titmus, Emburey, Pollock, Sobers,
>Walsh, etc., to do worse at the end of their careers than at the
>beginning; but if the "substantial improvement" hypothesis is correct
>they should do *more* worse than is to be accounted for by their age.
>But the degree of analysis required to substantiate this is more than
>anyone here can be expected to put in. However, I don't see any other
>way of settling this sort of issue.

Actually, most players *do* get worse as they age. That's why they
tend to retire. Otherwise, they'd keep getting better and breaking
records.

Some individuals, for unknown reasons, improve with age. A classic
example of this is Clive Lloyd, whose later career coincided with what
many people on r.s.c. seem to regard as the "Golden Age" of the late
'70s (I don't imagine this could be related to their age at the time,
do you?) Yet Lloyd was never better as a batsman than in his last 7-8
years. The batting of both Imran and Kapil also improved in their 30s.
Most batsmen decline with age. Some retire before the effects are
fully evident (Seymour Nurse, Gordon Greenidge, Miandad, Sobers) while
with others (Botham, Richards, Worrell, Kanhai, Gavaskar, Gooch), it's
easy to see.

Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing heroics
into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
today! Clearly, training methods must have been much better! (Or
could there be some other explanation? Hm, I'll have to think about
that!)

[John Hall]

In article <61b8gf$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>In <3438F3...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
><a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>In the
>>"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
>>of other sporting activities claim our attention.
>
>Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?
>It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
>considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war. Hasn't
>England's population grown, too?

In the 1930s, perhaps 90% of English children would have played some
organised cricket at school. Now, with more sporting alternatives on
offer, fewer teachers willing to give up the large chunks of time that
cricket needs, fewer local authorities able to afford to maintain their
cricket pitches to an acceptable standard and in many cases even selling
off their sports fields, I'd guess that no more than 10-20% play
(outside the public schools, who form a very small proportion of the
total school population, but who seem to provide an alarmingly high
proportion of first-class cricketers nowadays).

I can't answer for Australia, but as far as England is concerned I find
this fairly compelling. I think this state of affairs has much more to
do with England's recent decline than the factors more frequently
mentioned. How many potential Comptons and Bothams have never picked up
a bat, at least in any organised game where their talent could be
redognised and developed? Although at present the numbers playing club
and village cricket seems to be holding up well, how long can that last?

And of course the talented all-round sportsman nowadays is far less
likely to choose cricket nowadays than once he was. Football (soccer)
offers far higher salaries, far bigger sums can be won in European golf
than was the case 30 or more years ago, and tennis and athletics are now
professional and lucrative.
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

[Kip]

Refering to my last post on this matter after Mike had written:

> > Both Christian and I have asserted, admittedly without any great body
> > of evidence to back it up, that the overall standard of cricket
> > worldwide was higher 20 years ago than it is today (though I guess
> > we'd probably both agree that fielding is much improved since then).
> >
> > Some of the more excitable sub-continental posters have been saying
> > that there are far more outstanding cricketers around today than there
> > ever were before. I disagree. I happen to have the 1977 Wisden here in
> > the office with me, so here are the approximate Test line-ups from
> > then (I say approximate because Pakistan only actually played a few
> > friendlies against SL, and SA weren't playing at all)

[list snipped]

> > I would venture to suggest that the only present day team likely to
> > beat their predecessor team consistently would be England, and that's
> > only because the England team of 20 years ago were so terrible (get
> > Boycott to stop sulking and move Woolmer down to replace Balderstone

> > and it looks pretty even, though). The present-day Australians are
> > probably better than the team of 20 years ago, but not by much, and
> > there's an argument that the present-day Pakistanis are better than
> > before, but that's even more marginal. The WI, NZ, and Indian teams of
> > 20 years ago are better than today's teams by an order of magnitude,
> > and I think the same is true of RSA.
> >
> > Now try and get the statistics to prove it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
>
> Tough one Mike, even with the extensive database I've got I can't see the
> stats disagreeing with you too much. With reference to the WI, NZ and
> Indian teams I think most will agree. I'll try and do some analysis with
> reference to Australia, England, Pakistan and SA. How I don't know, give
> me a few days. SA I think is the difficult one due to the fact that some
> of the players only played a few tests. Watch this space.
> --
> Regards Kip

Well to tell you the truth I didn't know how to approach this. In the end
I decided to try and compare the two periods of cricket (ie 1969/70 season
till the end of the English season in 1977 vs 1989/90 season till the end
of the English 1997 season). Seeing as it is 1997 and the Aussies have
recently completed the Ashes series, I felt the dates should match and the
Aussies played in England for the Ashes in 1977 as well. Analysis of the
stats may vary, below is how it could be interpreted. If you can think of
another way to go about it (perhaps averages or something in that vane),
let me know and I'll try and give it a bash.
The list is tabled as follows: (please note the runs and wickets is a
match average)
I have rounded off the figures to 2 decimal places with reference to the
difference but to an even number for the main list.
The "plus" is more runs scored or wickets lost in the 90's and visa versa
Team 70's 90's
Runs/wickets Runs/wickets Diff runs Diff wkts
England 500 for 15 509 for 16 +9.26 +0.65
Australia 526 for 15 525 for 15 -1.20 -0.63
West Indies 556 for 15 478 for 15 -77.56 -0.01
New Zealand 455 for 16 470 for 16 +14.69 +0.01
Pakistan 552 for 16 471 for 15 -81.02 -1.37
India 454 for 17 470 for 13 +16.09 +3.49
South Africa 676 for 17 481 for 15 -194.70 -1.48
Totals (all matches) 510 for 16 485 for 15 -24.57 -0.56

Lets deal with South Africa first. SA only played 4 games in that time as
opposed to 37 games so one can't really say that the 70's team are +/- 195
runs better than the current team. The current team is losing on average
1.48 wickets less than the 70's team which one also can't make a fair
assumption on.

It looks fair to say that although the current sides are losing few wickets
(see totals 0.56), they are scoring 24.57 runs less than their counterparts
in the 70's. One could then say that the level was higher then although I
feel it's ownly fair to mention that the totals include games played by all
the tests nations at the given times as well as the fact that there has
been more cricket played (150 matches in the 70's period and 251 matches in
the 90's period)

If you follow this argument then it can be said that todays English side is
better, the Aussie side marginally worse, the West Indies side far inferior
(by 77.56 runs while basically losing the same wickets), the New Zealand
side - better than their 70's counterparts, the Pakistani's (like the
Windies) inferior (even though the 70's side lost more wickets they
comfortably scored more runs than the boys in the 90's), the South Africans
I've already discussed and then we come to the "spanner in the works"
India. If the stats are to be believed then today's Indian side score on
average 16.09 runs more than their past team and lost 3.49 less wickets
while doing this. Any thoughts ???

As I said it's difficult to call, but I look forward to everyone's inputs.
The above bit covers the batsmen of each team, although (as mentioned) I
have included all games played over the period wrt the totals (blame my
database :)). I did do a quick calculation of just the above seven teams
and the match average today works out to around 487 runs. My next
undertaking will be to analyse the bowlers (a far more time consuming task
which I'll try and get around too on the weekend). Once again watch this
space but have fun with this so long while you're waiting.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
> Cricket? Likewise, other than in England! But in sports where there
> IS an objective metric (shot-putting, javelin-throwing, sprinting,
> high-jumping, long-jumping, hurdling, hammer-throwing, pole-vaulting...
> how many's that?), even WITHOUT the incentive of professionalism, can
> you point to even ONE where the objective metrics have declined?

Come again? These athletics events are precisely those that
pre-war were conducted by a handful of part-timers, that gradually
became more serious in the '50s and '60s, and are now contested by
professionals from all over the world. The growth in the number of
people world-wide who take part in athletics [at every level from
casual to Olympian] is phenomenal, as is the level of reward available
to the top competitors. None of this has happened in cricket.

> >*Most* sports have seen an increase in professionalism,
> >an opening up to many more countries or better equipment, often all
> >three, in the past 50 or so years. By contrast, cricket has been
> >played by hardened professionals for hundreds of years [and there
> >were probably more professionals in the 1880s than today],
> Where? In the West Indies? India? South Africa? New Zealand?
> Pakistan? We're dealing with a slightly parochial view of history
> here, aren't we?

World-wide. Just to set the scene, Notts alone had some 250
cricketing professionals in the 1880s, according to Peter Wynne-Thomas.
Every major school, every country house, many village teams had at
least one.

> [...] None [of the newer Test countries -- ANW]

> could support professionals, and all lost top players (who today would
> certainly pursue professional careers) to monetary or educational
> pusuits;

And today the pendulum has swung, and in the developed
countries many who could have become professionals instead opt for
safer and more lucrative careers.

> sometimes such players were absent for individual series or
> for years (in WI, Worrell, Walcott, Deryk Murray) and sometimes
> permanently (Roy Marshall).

Strange example, as Roy Marshall *was* a professional for
many years, and AFAIR up to normal retirement age.

> And then stand still? Because cricket somehow reached a Platonic level
> of unsurpassable perfection when it was being contested between English
> landed gentry and Australians during the Ashes Tests of the '30s?

I think you have a strange view of English cricket in the '30s!
How many "landed gentry" do you think there were in the Tests? Pataudi
certainly, but not exactly English. Who else? What "land" did Jardine
or Allen or Larwood or Voce "gent"? But, no, of course there was no
"plato" [!] of "unsurpassable perfection" then; but the idea that
Compton or Larwood [for eg] in their prime would struggle to make the
current England side seems to me ludicrous.

> Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?
> It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
> considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war.

Once again, the example of WIndies, or even more parochially of
Barbados, should convince you that mere size of population has little
to do with it. What matters is also how keen that population is to
play, what opportunities it has to play, and what counter-attractions
there are. John Hall has given you some info about England; I'd be
surprised if the economic pressures in Australia and South Africa have
not led to the same conclusion, tho' RSA may gain benefit from the
opening up of the sport to the coloured population. John says that
league/club cricket in the UK has not declined so much; but I think
this is probably wrong -- a lot of local clubs are running fewer teams,
some leagues have folded, and "scratch" teams are finding it much
harder to get "friendly" fixtures. It's not just local -- I read some
reports of similar tales elsewhere. To give just one example -- my old
college reported proudly a few days ago that this year they ran a 2nd
XI "for the first time ever". As someone who, in the dim and distant
past, played for their 3rd XI [and one season had a negative batting
average!] when the college was smaller, I *know* this is not true.

> England, of course, has GREATLY improved its standard of chess.

Indeed it has, now that the finances of chess support so many
professionals at a reasonable level. But chess at club level is in
decline, and I doubt whether the boom at international level will
persist if the financial support declines. What lessons do you want
to draw from this in relation to cricket?

> Here I agree. Covered wickets have made spin-bowling a much less
> effective tactic.

Warne, and one or two others, might disagree. But Warne is
the *first* really top-class Australian spinner since Benaud, whereas
in the '30s and '40s they had lots. England haven't had such a
spinner for over 30 years, WIndies since Gibbs, SA since Tayfield;
again all three countries used to have lots. Is it that Croft and
Tufnell *would* have been top-class but pitches are against them?
Or a genuine decline, and we just don't have Laker, Lock, Wardle,
Appleyard, Titmus, Allen, Underwood and so on around any longer?
I know which I think, but it's hard to prove.

> Can you point to an era which had more salient allrounders than the
> '80s? Imran, Kapil, Botham were all legitimate allrounders. Their only
> historical challengers are Sobers, Miller, and Grace,

The shades of Rhodes, Hirst, Jackson, and at least a couple of
dozen others [not to mention Mynn and Worplesdon] must be turning in
their graves! See also below.

> none of whom were
> in their prime simultaneously. Hadlee and Wasim are in the Lindwall
> and Benaud class; Jaya, Richards, and Border comparable to Hammond.

Well, firstly IKB are all defunct, and their heyday was over
a decade ago. But the "IKBH" quartet, fine cricketers all, was, IMHO,
overhyped. SA produced Barlow, Proctor, Greig and Rice so that all
could well have played *in the same team* in the early '70s, and that
quartet is not *obviously* inferior to IKBH. In the '50s, we had
Miller, Sobers, Bailey [less charismatic than Botham, but just as
effective]; a little later, Benaud, Davidson, D'Oliveira, Mushtaq,
Iqbal and others. WIndies had fine all-rounders, apart from Sobers,
in earlier days: Constantine and Atkinson come to mind. NZ had
Reid and Motz before Hadlee, SA had Goddard. And so on. Of course,
if you are convinced that standards have risen enormously since those
days, then all of these players are obviously inferior to those of
more recent times. But you will find it hard to get objective
statistical evidence.

> Actually, most players *do* get worse as they age.

Of course. But if you want statistical proof that standards
have risen, then we should be looking for evidence that players, over
some 15-20 years so that external standards should have changed
significantly, do worse not *merely* because they are old and less fit
but *also* because those around them are better. I don't know whether
there are any long-term studies of fitness [reaction times, etc] in
top-class sportsmen, but at least in principle we could have objective
information. If cricketing careers are shorter than the fitness
curves would suggest, then standards are improving; if longer, then
they aren't.

> Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing heroics
> into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
> that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
> today! Clearly, training methods must have been much better! (Or
> could there be some other explanation?

Well, it could *just* be that Rhodes, Hobbs and Ironmonger
were still class players into their 40s, despite their creaking bones,
because the players around them were not significantly better than
the players of 25+ years earlier. But that would dent your argument,
so it can't be the reason. There are plenty of more recent examples,
of course!

[John Hall]

In article <kYVNthAi...@jhall.demon.co.uk>,

John Hall <ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In the 1930s, perhaps 90% of English children would have played some
>organised cricket at school.

Correction: I meant English (and Welsh) boys, of course. Few girls have
ever played school cricket.
--
John Hall
"The young ladies entered the room in the full fervour
of sisterly animosity."
From "Mr Sponge's Sporting Tour" by R.S. Surtees (1803-1864)

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <343A73...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"

<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>> Cricket? Likewise, other than in England! But in sports where
there
>> IS an objective metric (shot-putting, javelin-throwing, sprinting,
>> high-jumping, long-jumping, hurdling, hammer-throwing,
pole-vaulting...
>> how many's that?), even WITHOUT the incentive of professionalism,
can
>> you point to even ONE where the objective metrics have declined?
>
> Come again? These athletics events are precisely those that
>pre-war were conducted by a handful of part-timers, that gradually

>became more serious in the '50s and '60s,...

Ah, just like cricket!

>and are now contested by
>professionals from all over the world.

Ah, just like cricket!

>The growth in the number of
>people world-wide who take part in athletics [at every level from
>casual to Olympian] is phenomenal, as is the level of reward available
>to the top competitors. None of this has happened in cricket.

Huh? Oh, I see! Again you mean "English cricket!" Sorry!
I thought you were talking about cricket.

>> >*Most* sports have seen an increase in professionalism,
>> >an opening up to many more countries or better equipment, often all
>> >three, in the past 50 or so years. By contrast, cricket has been
>> >played by hardened professionals for hundreds of years [and there
>> >were probably more professionals in the 1880s than today],
>> Where? In the West Indies? India? South Africa? New Zealand?
>> Pakistan? We're dealing with a slightly parochial view of history
>> here, aren't we?
>
> World-wide.

Ah, good! Finally, we're going to talk about cricket world-wide.

> Just to set the scene, Notts alone had some 250
>cricketing professionals in the 1880s, according to Peter
Wynne-Thomas.

Notts. Notts. Let's see, now. Remind me. Is that in India?
Pakistan? Jamaica? New Zealand, perhaps?

>Every major school, every country house,..

Ah, yes! The country houses of Calcutta, no doubt.

> many village teams had at
>least one.
>
>> [...] None [of the newer Test countries -- ANW]
>> could support professionals, and all lost top players (who today
would
>> certainly pursue professional careers) to monetary or educational
>> pusuits;
>
> And today the pendulum has swung, and in the developed
>countries many who could have become professionals instead opt for
>safer and more lucrative careers.
>
>> sometimes such players were absent for individual series or
>> for years (in WI, Worrell, Walcott, Deryk Murray) and sometimes
>> permanently (Roy Marshall).
>
> Strange example, as Roy Marshall *was* a professional for
>many years, and AFAIR up to normal retirement age.

For Hampshire. Precisely the reason for the "strange" example. And
how many Test series (give or take, say, none!) did he play in after
1952? And why was this? Because he could make such a good living
playing the spor
t in WI? In those days, it meant he had to "give up playing Test
cricket in order to make a living." I realize that, if one regards
playing county cricket as the acme of the sport, this is fine and
dandy. But I thought
the subject here was going to be "world-wide." (And people have the
nerve to call Bajans "insular!")

>
>> And then stand still? Because cricket somehow reached a Platonic
level
>> of unsurpassable perfection when it was being contested between
English
>> landed gentry and Australians during the Ashes Tests of the '30s?
>
> I think you have a strange view of English cricket in the '30s!
>How many "landed gentry" do you think there were in the Tests?
Pataudi
>certainly, but not exactly English. Who else? What "land" did
Jardine
>or Allen or Larwood or Voce "gent"?

Jardine, Allen, Chapman, Wyatt, Yardley, Robins, and several others
were all amateurs, public school boys, and, mostly, Oxbridgian Blues.
In those days, you didn't lead that sort of life without "money" and
"family," i.e
, aristocracy, and, again, in those days, that meant not more than one
generation removed from land. Larwood and Voce, along with Verity,
Hutton and others, were, I believe, professionals.

>But, no, of course there was no
>"plato" [!] of "unsurpassable perfection" then; but the idea that
>Compton or Larwood [for eg] in their prime would struggle to make the
>current England side seems to me ludicrous.

You clipped my message and then paraphrased inaccurately for purposes
of your reply. I said that Compton would struggle because a place has
to be reserved for Ramprakash on the team. I don't think I mentioned
Larwood, b
ut if you want to maintain that England's pace bowling is so weak that
a guy with a 34.8 rpw ave (without a regiment of fielders behind square
leg, as is now the Law) would make the English team, who am I to argue?
I mea
n, Malcolm made it! But personally, I think England would rather have
Gough, Cork (what a strange move!), and even Voce!

>> Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must
accept?
>> It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
>> considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war.
>
> Once again, the example of WIndies, or even more parochially of
>Barbados,

Ooh! That hurts! Touche!

>should convince you that mere size of population has little
>to do with it. What matters is also how keen that population is to
>play, what opportunities it has to play, and what counter-attractions
>there are. John Hall has given you some info about England;

Hey, I someone wants to claim English cricket has declined, I'm
certainly not going to argue the point too vociferously, although I'm
not sure that it has, at the highest levels. But let's admit that if
we're talking cri
cket at the highest levels, we ain't talking about English cricket,
anyway! And when talking Test cricket historically, England's
cricket-playing population HAS BEEN a drop in the bucket for at least
30 years!

>> England, of course, has GREATLY improved its standard of chess.
>
> Indeed it has, now that the finances of chess support so many
>professionals at a reasonable level.

Really?! You think chess players make a better living than cricketers?
Of course, professional cricketers have more options for getting into
careers such as computers or science or academia (or maths) than do
chess playe
rs.

>
>> Here I agree. Covered wickets have made spin-bowling a much less
>> effective tactic.
>
> Warne, and one or two others, might disagree. But Warne is
>the *first* really top-class Australian spinner since Benaud, whereas
>in the '30s and '40s they had lots.

Of course. Everywhere had lots then. Check the bowling averages of
top spinners before and after covered wickets. But of course, that's
not evidence, either.

> England haven't had such a

>spinner for over 30 years, WIndies since Gibbs,..

Test average 29.09 rpw. Post covered wickets.

>SA since Tayfield;

Test average 25.91. Pre covered wickets.

>again all three countries used to have lots. Is it that Croft and
>Tufnell *would* have been top-class but pitches are against them?
>Or a genuine decline, and we just don't have Laker, Lock, Wardle,
>Appleyard

Pre covered. 21.24, 25.58, 20.39, and 17.87 respectively.

>Titmus, Allen, Underwood

On the cusp or post covered. 32.22, 30.97, and 25.83 respectively.
Darn, I wonder why spinning went out of fashion?

> and so on around any longer?
>I know which I think, but it's hard to prove.

I guess!

>> Can you point to an era which had more salient allrounders than the
>> '80s? Imran, Kapil, Botham were all legitimate allrounders. Their
only
>> historical challengers are Sobers, Miller, and Grace,
>
> The shades of Rhodes, Hirst, Jackson,

Rhodes: 30.19 and 127 wickets at 26.96 rpw.
Hirst: 22.57 and 59 wickets at 30.00 rpw.
Jackson: 48.79 and 24 wickets at 33.29 (Are you *serious* about this??
Only Rhodes deserves to be mentioned with the ones I named above, and
then only with Botham and Kapil, not the other four.)

> and at least a couple of
>dozen others [not to mention Mynn and Worplesdon] must be turning in
>their graves! See also below.
>
>> none of whom were
>> in their prime simultaneously. Hadlee and Wasim are in the Lindwall
>> and Benaud class; Jaya, Richards, and Border comparable to Hammond.
>
> Well, firstly IKB are all defunct, and their heyday was over
>a decade ago. But the "IKBH" quartet, fine cricketers all, was, IMHO,
>overhyped.

What can I say?

>SA produced Barlow, Proctor, Greig and Rice so that all
>could well have played *in the same team* in the early '70s, and that
>quartet is not *obviously* inferior to IKBH.

If you say so. But I thought we were discussing the '30s. If you want
to say that the players of the 70s were better than of the 90s, I'm not
going to argue.

> In the '50s, we had
>Miller, Sobers, Bailey [less charismatic than Botham, but just as
>effective];

Yes, I probably should have mentioned Trevor. The others you mention
below really are behind "IMK" as allrounders, aren't they?

> a little later, Benaud, Davidson, D'Oliveira, Mushtaq,
>Iqbal and others. WIndies had fine all-rounders, apart from Sobers,
>in earlier days: Constantine and Atkinson come to mind.

Are you serious? DENIS Atkinson? A useful player, but hardly one to
be mentioned in the same breath as "IMKH"!

> NZ had
>Reid and Motz before Hadlee,

See above!

SA had Goddard.

Okay, Goddard was a good allrounder. Really, it wasn't my intention to
name EVERY good allrounder in history, only to show that the '80s were
a VERY good decade for them!

> And so on. Of course,
>if you are convinced that standards have risen enormously since those
>days, then all of these players are obviously inferior to those of
>more recent times. But you will find it hard to get objective
>statistical evidence.

Actually, I think it's pretty clear even without that assumption!

>
>> Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing
heroics
>> into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
>> that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
>> today! Clearly, training methods must have been much better! (Or
>> could there be some other explanation?
>
> Well, it could *just* be that Rhodes, Hobbs and Ironmonger
>were still class players into their 40s, despite their creaking bones,
>because the players around them were not significantly better than
>the players of 25+ years earlier.

Maybe, but into their 50s? And, BTW, I'm not saying anything about
cricket improving before the '30s, when the above trio closed out their
careers. It was AFTER that that the influx of competition from the
rest of the w
orld improved the standards of the game.

>But that would dent your argument,
>so it can't be the reason. There are plenty of more recent examples,
>of course!
>
>--
>Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
>a...@maths.nott.ac.uk

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

[Mike Holmans]

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> felt like saying:

As I've said before, I have serious doubts about bowlers' speeds having
varied hugely in the last 60 years. Steve keeps talking about the
improvements in other sports, and mentions athletics later on in this
post. In the explosive events of running fast, performance has improved
in the last 60 years by a whopping 3-4%, and that's people straining
every sinew to the max. Fast bowlers do not strain themselves to lung-
bursting max every ball, and never have done, preferring to have a bit
of control. History is littered with people who have been touted as
extrmely quick, but whose career has been short because they couldn't
actually pitch the ball between wicket and wicket more than once a
season. I really don't see why Steve seems to have a big problem with
the idea that top fast-bowling speed has not varied much in living
memory. That doesn't mean anything about standards: a top-class fast
bowler doesn't just rely on express pace.

>> We will never know for sure whether Bradman or Ponsford or
>>Trumper in their respective primes would have made the current
>>Australian Test side -- or even their local club second teams. They
>>had better figures than XYZ of today? Sure, but the bowling could
>>have been worse, the fielding could have been worse, the pitches
>>could have been better,...
>
>We agree on this. There is no conclusive evidence because an effect on
>the difference between competitors is identical whether caused by the
>better improving or the worse declining.
>
>>...the wickets smaller.
>
>Now, this is completely different. The wickets WERE smaller; this is
>not opinion, but historical fact that can be scientifically proven by
>even a fairly cursory examination of an old photo.
>
>>Nothing in the figures,
>>or even in grainy old films, tells you about that. Nothing in
>>temporal "snapshots" [statistics for, say, 1930] *can* tell us about
>>that [though some correlations, such as the improvement in batting
>>figures as pitches improved in the 1880s and '90s,...
>
>And increases in bowled/lbw dismissals per country when the wicket size
>was expanded in the mid-late '30s. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to
>make the argument that increasing the size of the wicket made batting
>EASIER! 'Though I expect that hypothesis to be promulgated shortly on
>this newsgroup.
>

Well, of course it made batting easier. With a larger target bowlers
were less concerned with accuracy, and thus became more apt to stray off
line. Obvious, really.

<lotsa snippage>

>Some individuals, for unknown reasons, improve with age. A classic
>example of this is Clive Lloyd, whose later career coincided with what
>many people on r.s.c. seem to regard as the "Golden Age" of the late
>'70s (I don't imagine this could be related to their age at the time,
>do you?) Yet Lloyd was never better as a batsman than in his last 7-8
>years. The batting of both Imran and Kapil also improved in their 30s.

In the case of Imran and Kapil, would this have anything to do with
their being less vital to their countries' bowling attacks? Imran had
Wasim and Waqar, for instance, to do some of the bowling for him.

> Most batsmen decline with age. Some retire before the effects are
>fully evident (Seymour Nurse, Gordon Greenidge, Miandad, Sobers) while
>with others (Botham, Richards, Worrell, Kanhai, Gavaskar, Gooch), it's
>easy to see.
>

Of course, Gooch was also a better batsman in his 30s than in his 20s.
He only really looked a spent force on the final tour of Australia in
94-5.

>Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing heroics
>into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
>that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
>today! Clearly, training methods must have been much better! (Or
>could there be some other explanation? Hm, I'll have to think about
>that!)
>

It wasn't anything to do with training methods. They were just so much
better than the players of today that even as their personal standards
declined with age, they were still able to cut the mustard at the top
level for much longer. As you've already pointed out, the performance of
later players fell off sharply in their late 30s, whereas these true
masters were still classy for a lot longer.

Also, their diet was much better. The most difficult thing for players
to combat as they grow older is the darkening of their sight, so that
they no longer pick up the ball as easily as they did. In those days,
vegetables were not treated with pesticides as they are now, and so the
essential nutrients are not affected. In particular, carrots had far
greater quantities of the vitamins which aid good vision, and players
could keep good sight on ordinary consumption. Today, the treated
vegetables contain so little that players would need to eat about 7
pounds of carrots a day to get as much as they did back then.

Simple, really.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
> > Come again? These athletics events are precisely those that
> >pre-war were conducted by a handful of part-timers, that gradually
> >became more serious in the '50s and '60s,...
> Ah, just like cricket!
> >and are now contested by
> >professionals from all over the world.
> Ah, just like cricket!

Since you're so keen on metrics, please tell us how many
countries world-wide have cricket professionals, and how many have
athletics professionals. Then perhaps the same figures for, say,
1950-odd and 1930-odd. A reasonable guess will do.

> >The growth in the number of
> >people world-wide who take part in athletics [at every level from
> >casual to Olympian] is phenomenal, as is the level of reward available
> >to the top competitors. None of this has happened in cricket.
> Huh? Oh, I see! Again you mean "English cricket!" Sorry!
> I thought you were talking about cricket.

OK, tell us who the best-paid cricketers world-wide are
[?Warne, ?Lara], and compare with the returns available to the
top athletes, eg in the USA [but the top European athletes do
quite nicely, too]. Try the same exercise with football or
tennis. Numbers, and rewards. Most of the money in cricket comes
from the UK, Australia and RSA, and even there cricket offers poor
rewards by comparison with many other sports.

> Notts. Notts. Let's see, now. Remind me. Is that in India?
> Pakistan? Jamaica? New Zealand, perhaps?

So, how many professional cricketers are there today in these
countries? And how much do they earn? Guesses will do.

> > Strange example, as Roy Marshall *was* a professional for
> >many years, and AFAIR up to normal retirement age.
> For Hampshire. Precisely the reason for the "strange" example.

So, he was a professional cricketer. He was paid to play
cricket. You might have preferred it if he'd been paid to play
cricket for WIndies, but he followed the money. As, today, do any
number of footballers, tennis players, athletes, etc.

> [...] In those days, it meant he had to "give up playing Test

> cricket in order to make a living." I realize that, if one regards
> playing county cricket as the acme of the sport, this is fine and
> dandy. But I thought
> the subject here was going to be "world-wide."

If you're going to restrict the counts to Test cricket, then
of course cricket has expanded; since WW2 by three teams, two of
which are partitioned from pre-existing teams. Not very impressive,
is it? Compare athletics, tennis, football, golf, .... If, as I
intended, we count professionals -- people who make their living by
playing the game -- you'll be hard pushed to show an increase at all.

> Jardine, Allen, Chapman, Wyatt, Yardley, Robins, and several others
> were all amateurs, public school boys, and, mostly, Oxbridgian Blues.
> In those days, you didn't lead that sort of life without "money" and
> "family,"

Rubbish. *Most* people at public school and Oxbridge were
either middle-class or on a scholarship. Of course, there were *some*
idle rich, and a few of them even made it to a high class of cricket.
But merely being an "amateur" didn't imply wealth. Many of them were,
for example, teachers, able to play only in the holidays. You will
recall the system of "underhand payments" that enabled many amateurs
to continue playing; many others had to give up.

> You clipped my message and then paraphrased inaccurately for purposes
> of your reply. I said that Compton would struggle because a place has
> to be reserved for Ramprakash on the team.

Indeed you said that, and it was rubbish then as it is now.

> I don't think I mentioned
> Larwood, b
> ut if you want to maintain that England's pace bowling is so weak that
> a guy with a 34.8 rpw ave (without a regiment of fielders behind square
> leg, as is now the Law) would make the English team, who am I to argue?

The "regiment" was four, or three if you allow backward deep
square leg to move round a bit; the same number as Laker sometimes
used, as Tyson, Statham and Trueman sometimes used, and as many other
bowlers sometimes used before the Law was changed. Voce was a fine
player, but he himself said that Larwood was better. [And, of course,
Larwood, even in 1932-33, bowled (successfully) to conventional fields
as much as to bodyline fields.]

> Really?! You think chess players make a better living than cricketers?

I *know* the top ones do! When Warne, or whoever, can command
the millions of dollars that Kasparov can to play a short match, we
can think again.

> Darn, I wonder why spinning went out of fashion?

Dearth of quality players?

> If you say so. But I thought we were discussing the '30s. If you want
> to say that the players of the 70s were better than of the 90s, I'm not
> going to argue.

Really? So what are you arguing, then? That this claimed
really major improvement started in the 1930s and stopped in the 1970s,
despite the huge increase in world-wide cricket [SL and Zimbabwe!]
since then? What happened to the theory of continuous improvement, as
in every sport for which we have metrics? If there really was this
huge improvement in a mere 40 years -- two careers! -- then players
like Bradman, Compton, Cowdrey, Lindwall, etc., etc must have been
*really* outclassed in the second half of their careers; not just
bad backs, creaking knees, declining eyesight, but all those hugely
better players around. Amazing that they were still allowed to play
Tests.

[John Hall]

In article <343A73...@maths.nott.ac.uk>,

"Dr A. N. Walker" <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

>To give just one example -- my old
>college reported proudly a few days ago that this year they ran a 2nd
>XI "for the first time ever". As someone who, in the dim and distant
>past, played for their 3rd XI [and one season had a negative batting
>average!] when the college was smaller, I *know* this is not true.

Sounds like there's an interesting story hidden here. Just how did you
manage to achieve a negative batting average? I assume you did this by
scoring a negative number of runs rather than by the alternative method
of playing a negative number of completed innings?
--
John Hall "Across the wires the electric message came:
"He is no better, he is much the same."
["On the Illness of the Prince of Wales",
attr. Alfred Austin (1835-1913) ]

[Mike Holmans]

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> made a great deal of hay with what

In <343A73...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"

<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writed:

And I'm not going to quote it all, but I think Steve was on the money in
terms of Dr Walker's argument as presented.

However, whilst most of Steve's skepticism is well-founded, part of his
demolition relies on the fact that professional cricket is a recent
innovation outside England and, to some extent, Australia.

Some time back in the Mesozoic Era, when this thread started, we were
talking about whether Harold Larwood was in reality any quicker than
what is today thought of as medium-fast, and this is where this stuff
about objective metrics and athletics came into it.

Larwood was undoubtedly part of a fully professional game in England -
for Notts, on which you poured some scorn as representative of the game
worldwide. It's common ground that WI and India have much better players
than they did in the 30s, but isn't it reasonable to believe that 30s
England professionals would not be orders of magnitude worse than today?

But then we turn to the all-rounders. Certainly the age of Botham,
Imran, Kapil, and Hadlee was remarkable. Never before had there been
four stellar allrounders operating at once at the peak of their powers.
On the other hand, there doesn't seem any sign of such a favourable
conjunction any time soon. Today, we have Brian Macmillan, and, er, um,
and, yes, gimme a sec, I'm sure I'll think of, oh dammit, no-one. Fact
is, Circus totius is a pretty rare species, and always has been.

Yes, the larger population means that it's statistically more likely,
and I'd quite regularly expect to see two, but four would be freakish.

And of BHIK, only one, Botham in 1981, was as utterly devastating in
both disciplines simultaneously as Grace or Sobers were for periods of
several years

Spin bowling has declined drastically. The obvious reason for this is
that they don't bowl as much. Spin bowlers need lots of overs to develop
their craft in, and they need to do it in the middle, so if they don't
bowl, they don't get good, so they don't bowl, so they get even less
good, and so on.

Of today's spinners, Mushtaq Ahmed and that other guy, you know the one,
Australian chappie, Wayne Shorn, that's the fella, would have been Test
class 40 years ago, but of the others, only Saqlain Mushtaq and Phil
Tufnell would have been first-choice spinners for an English county side
in the 50s (and be by no means amongst the leading tweakers).

I've just realised that I've got a memory to drag up, too. My old
friend, the late Peter Judge (Middx, Glam, & Bengal) was a quick bowler
himself in the 30s. Peter would have been instinctively sympathetic to
Steve's line. Peter believed that standards of quick bowling were much
higher in the 80s than in his day, except in the little matter of no-
balls (he used to expostulate loudly at the pathetic stupidity of
bowlers who didn't realise that you start your run a foot further back
if you keep over-stepping). Batting against quick bowling had similarly
improved, though Bradman was still easily the best he'd seen (and
certainly the best he bowled to). But the decline of spin bowling also
meant that standards of batting against spin bowling had declined.

He wasn't a great apostle for the golden age of the 30s, far from it. He
could be quite dismissive about players of that era. But never about
Larwood. "Now, Lol *was* quick," he'd say. He reckoned him at his peak
to be about a yard slower than Malcolm Marshall. Not utterly awesome,
but still pretty quick.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <343BD0...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

> Since you're so keen on metrics, please tell us how many
>countries world-wide have cricket professionals, and how many have
>athletics professionals. Then perhaps the same figures for, say,
>1950-odd and 1930-odd. A reasonable guess will do.

(Sigh) I think I'll leave some supporter of the "ancients were better"
tradition to come up with SOME stat! I need to get back to my life!

> OK, tell us who the best-paid cricketers world-wide are
>[?Warne, ?Lara],

Actually, if you include endorsements, I suspect you'd find Tendulkhar.
Many millions, from soft drink companies, etc., trying to gain entry to
the Indian market of $900 million.

> So, how many professional cricketers are there today in these
>countries? And how much do they earn? Guesses will do.

Don't really know. For WI, there are about 15-20 on the "squad" and
maybe another dozen like Andy Cummins who play in English leagues, etc.
But again, can the maths department provide *any* numbers?

>> > Strange example, as Roy Marshall *was* a professional for
>> >many years, and AFAIR up to normal retirement age.
>> For Hampshire. Precisely the reason for the "strange" example.
>
> So, he was a professional cricketer. He was paid to play
>cricket. You might have preferred it if he'd been paid to play
>cricket for WIndies, but he followed the money. As, today, do any
>number of footballers, tennis players, athletes, etc.
>
>> [...] In those days, it meant he had to "give up playing Test
>> cricket in order to make a living." I realize that, if one regards
>> playing county cricket as the acme of the sport, this is fine and
>> dandy. But I thought
>> the subject here was going to be "world-wide."
>
> If you're going to restrict the counts to Test cricket, then
>of course cricket has expanded;

I thought that was what we were talking about. i'm certainly not
prepared to discuss whether English county cricket has improved or not
any more than you are to discuss whether Barbadian club cricket has
improved.

> since WW2 by three teams, two of
>which are partitioned from pre-existing teams.

Since in a previous thread, I mentioned that it takes a long time to
"mature" at Test cricket, and since at the outbreak of WWII India, WI
and NZ had all played 11 years or less, all three of these, plus
Pakistan, really belong to the postwar era. Or perhaps you feel that
they, plus SA, were better in the '30s than in the '60s? Is that what
you're saying?

>> Jardine, Allen, Chapman, Wyatt, Yardley, Robins, and several others
>> were all amateurs, public school boys, and, mostly, Oxbridgian
Blues.
>> In those days, you didn't lead that sort of life without "money" and
>> "family,"
>
> Rubbish. *Most* people at public school and Oxbridge were
>either middle-class or on a scholarship.

One man's "middle class" is another's "wealthy." I don't think most of
those mentioned above were MY idea of "middle class."

Of course, there were *some*
>idle rich, and a few of them even made it to a high class of cricket.
>But merely being an "amateur" didn't imply wealth. Many of them were,
>for example, teachers, able to play only in the holidays. You will
>recall the system of "underhand payments" that enabled many amateurs
>to continue playing; many others had to give up.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My point exactly.

>
>> You clipped my message and then paraphrased inaccurately for
purposes
>> of your reply. I said that Compton would struggle because a place
has
>> to be reserved for Ramprakash on the team.
>
> Indeed you said that, and it was rubbish then as it is now.

What!!? Rubbish? That Ramps would be picked over Compton? Now you've
gone too far!!

>> Really?! You think chess players make a better living than
cricketers?
>
> I *know* the top ones do! When Warne, or whoever, can command
>the millions of dollars that Kasparov can to play a short match, we
>can think again.

And Tendu? I would guess he makes about what kasparov makes, from all
sources. And there are certainly MANY more cricketers making living
wages from the sport than chess players making a living from chess!
But you probably won't believe that either!

>
>> Darn, I wonder why spinning went out of fashion?
>

> Really? So what are you arguing, then? That this claimed
>really major improvement started in the 1930s and stopped in the
1970s,
>despite the huge increase in world-wide cricket [SL and Zimbabwe!]
>since then?

1. See staement above about "maturity".
2. The development of India increased the Test playing countries'
total population by -- what?-- a hundredfold? Thousandfold? Zim and
SL increased it by a further -- what? -- one percent? You get the
numbers!

>What happened to the theory of continuous improvement, as
>in every sport for which we have metrics?

"Continuous improvement" is like "continuous evolution" in biology.
Check the bio department under "Gould, Stephen Jay".

This is really getting tiresome! How about stating your beliefs
clearly, and then providing some stats to support them?

Though I suppose faith is easier!

[Dr A. N. Walker]

John Hall wrote:
> Sounds like there's an interesting story hidden here. Just how did you
> manage to achieve a negative batting average?

Ah. Ely Clergy 2nds turned up with only nine players. So our
captain says "Oh, you can have one of ours ... [looks around for our
weakest player] ... Walker?". And I scored more for "them" than I
did for "us" in the rest of the season. So season's total negative.

[Stephen A Devaux]

Mike, this posting was most enjoyable! It helped point out to me that
I really have been becoming somewhat cantankerous in this thread. I
apologize to you, Andy, John, Josh, and any others I may have offended.

Steve

In <osgrzDAN...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> Mike Holmans wrote:

Again, I agree with you. It IS possible that Larwood was as fast as
Thomson. My arguments were three:

1. There is no evidence of this other than anecdotal, which is
EXTREMELY unreliable when dealing with subjects like the speed of a
bowler someone faced (or worse, SAW) in his youth.

2. Even if Larwood was as fast, that doesn't make him as good (your
point, precisely!). And his 34.8 bowling average outside of the
Bodyline series strongly suggests this. A 1930's Devon Malcolm,
perhaps?

3. Even if Larwood *was that good*, he was essentially alone. His
effect on the batsmen would have been much less intimidating than that
of the WI pace quartet.

>>And increases in bowled/lbw dismissals per country when the wicket
size
>>was expanded in the mid-late '30s. Let's face it, it's pretty hard
to
>>make the argument that increasing the size of the wicket made batting
>>EASIER! 'Though I expect that hypothesis to be promulgated shortly
on
>>this newsgroup.
>>
>
>Well, of course it made batting easier. With a larger target bowlers
>were less concerned with accuracy, and thus became more apt to stray
off
>line. Obvious, really.

Hm. Also, with the wicket wider, less of a need to swing the ball.
Hadn't thought of that.

><lotsa snippage>

>
> The batting of both Imran and Kapil also improved in their 30s.
>
>In the case of Imran and Kapil, would this have anything to do with
>their being less vital to their countries' bowling attacks? Imran had
>Wasim and Waqar, for instance, to do some of the bowling for him.

Absolutely.

>
>Of course, Gooch was also a better batsman in his 30s than in his 20s.
>He only really looked a spent force on the final tour of Australia in
>94-5.
>
>>Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing heroics
>>into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
>>that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
>>today! Clearly, training methods must have been much better! (Or
>>could there be some other explanation? Hm, I'll have to think about
>>that!)
>>
>It wasn't anything to do with training methods. They were just so much
>better than the players of today that even as their personal standards
>declined with age, they were still able to cut the mustard at the top
>level for much longer. As you've already pointed out, the performance
of
>later players fell off sharply in their late 30s, whereas these true
>masters were still classy for a lot longer.

Ironmonger didn't become a "master" till he was 47, when he debuted.
But undoubtedly that gave him more time to work on his skills!

>
>Also, their diet was much better. The most difficult thing for players
>to combat as they grow older is the darkening of their sight, so that
>they no longer pick up the ball as easily as they did. In those days,
>vegetables were not treated with pesticides as they are now, and so
the
>essential nutrients are not affected. In particular, carrots had far
>greater quantities of the vitamins which aid good vision, and players
>could keep good sight on ordinary consumption. Today, the treated
>vegetables contain so little that players would need to eat about 7
>pounds of carrots a day to get as much as they did back then.

What's up, doc?

>Simple, really.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <fOQG7DAPl$O0I...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> Mike Holmans

<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> made a great deal of hay with
what

>In <343A73...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
><a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writed:

(Snip intersting stuff about allrounders)

>I've just realised that I've got a memory to drag up, too. My old
>friend, the late Peter Judge (Middx, Glam, & Bengal) was a quick
bowler
>himself in the 30s. Peter would have been instinctively sympathetic to
>Steve's line. Peter believed that standards of quick bowling were much
>higher in the 80s than in his day, except in the little matter of no-
>balls (he used to expostulate loudly at the pathetic stupidity of
>bowlers who didn't realise that you start your run a foot further back
>if you keep over-stepping). Batting against quick bowling had
similarly
>improved, though Bradman was still easily the best he'd seen (and
>certainly the best he bowled to). But the decline of spin bowling also
>meant that standards of batting against spin bowling had declined.
>
>He wasn't a great apostle for the golden age of the 30s, far from it.
He
>could be quite dismissive about players of that era. But never about
>Larwood. "Now, Lol *was* quick," he'd say. He reckoned him at his peak
>to be about a yard slower than Malcolm Marshall. Not utterly awesome,
>but still pretty quick.

Now THIS is what you call anecdotal evidence!

Thanks, Mike. Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

>Cheers,

[Kip]

Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<osgrzDAN...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>...
[mostly snipped]

> >Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing heroics
> >into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
> >that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
> >today! Clearly, training methods must have been much better! (Or
> >could there be some other explanation? Hm, I'll have to think about
> >that!)
> >
> It wasn't anything to do with training methods. They were just so much
> better than the players of today that even as their personal standards
> declined with age, they were still able to cut the mustard at the top
> level for much longer. As you've already pointed out, the performance of
> later players fell off sharply in their late 30s, whereas these true
> masters were still classy for a lot longer.

Come now Mike be realistic :)) - Here I've got to give Steve some support

Seriously I've posted a bunch of stuff wrt Test cricket (somehow the
subject changed to bits of first class cricket as well, I see in other
posts) and IMO a few valid points along the way. However the point I'd
like to make wrt the above is the oft forgotten amount of cricket played
today. The dates I was using was prior and after 1960. As I have already
said there were 483 Test matches played prior to 1960 and 896 matches
since. Now thats not far from double but there is more. The formation of
the limited overs games has seen over 1200 matches played since 1971. In
the 70's decade they only played 82 ODI's (perhaps this could be one of the
reason for that 19 run difference I mentioned in an earlier posted, given
that in the 90's they have played well over 600 matches) now the human body
can only take so much of a battering and if you take the average age that
the players are now starting it seems only reasonable for these players to
be, well knackered, although burnt out might be a more medical statement.
One often see's the benifit a rest to a player makes. If you use SA as an
example they will be playing cricket non-stop for the next 2 years (Pak,
Aus, Home, Eng etc) and the amount of matches asked of the players is
unbelieveable. IMHO no human being can play cricket at the highest level
for the same amount of time as was done in the past based purely on the
fact that his body's not capable of doing it.

> Also, their diet was much better. The most difficult thing for players
> to combat as they grow older is the darkening of their sight, so that
> they no longer pick up the ball as easily as they did. In those days,
> vegetables were not treated with pesticides as they are now, and so the
> essential nutrients are not affected. In particular, carrots had far
> greater quantities of the vitamins which aid good vision, and players
> could keep good sight on ordinary consumption. Today, the treated
> vegetables contain so little that players would need to eat about 7
> pounds of carrots a day to get as much as they did back then.
>
> Simple, really.

> Cheers,
>
> Mike

I liked this one, you can take your tongue out of you cheek now :))))))

For those who are reading this (Mike you exempted) and don't know what I'm
taking about just take a look at the amount of vitamin supplements the
players take today (and I cannot confirm this for all players so don't ask
although I know this is the case in the SA team) then they probably eat, to
quote Mike, more than 7 pounds of carrots a day.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <343cd2d6...@news.axion.bt.co.uk> mhol...@dircon.co.uk (Mike
Holmans) writes:
>

>Without your stubbornness in defending near-apostasy, and the need for
>the rest of us to come up with persuasive counter-arguments, would you
>(or I) have reached this fairly reasonable conclusion with the level
>of confidence you (or I) now have in it? I think not.
>
>No need to apologise at all. This sort of discussion is far more
>enjoyable and challenging than some of the debates which amount to
>little more than expressions of personal prejudice.
>
>But if you feel like buying the next round....

Absolutely, Mike! Just come on across the pond, and Chico, Ramaswamy,
and I will treat you good in Boston!

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <01bcd42d$224e39a0$Loca...@precise.Icon.co.za> "Kip"

<pre...@icon.co.za> writes:
>
>Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><osgrzDAN...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>...
>[mostly snipped]
>

>> As you've already pointed out, the performance of
>> later players fell off sharply in their late 30s, whereas these true
>> masters were still classy for a lot longer.
>

Not just the body. Also the mind. Cricket batting differs from most
other sports in requiring a HUGE amount of concentration, sustained
over long periods. Chess is similar, and top chess players'
performance is greatly affected by too many tournaments/matches in a
given year. Most top chess players try to keep their tournament
activity to under 30-40 games a year.

[John Hall]

In article <61ifnn$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>Mike, this posting was most enjoyable! It helped point out to me that
>I really have been becoming somewhat cantankerous in this thread. I
>apologize to you, Andy, John, Josh, and any others I may have offended.

No offence here. "Hard but fair" as they say. And it was all worth it
for your troll on Compton re Ramprakash (had you chosen any other
current England batsman I might have been taken in, but I know your
views on Ramps).
--
John Hall
"Three o'clock is always too late or too early
for anything you want to do."
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <nvGhaaAo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall

<ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <61ifnn$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>Mike, this posting was most enjoyable! It helped point out to me
that
>>I really have been becoming somewhat cantankerous in this thread. I
>>apologize to you, Andy, John, Josh, and any others I may have
offended.
>
>No offence here. "Hard but fair" as they say. And it was all worth it
>for your troll on Compton re Ramprakash (had you chosen any other
>current England batsman I might have been taken in, but I know your
>views on Ramps).

Ah, dear! "You can fool some of the people some of the..."

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <343D27...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>> > If you're going to restrict the counts to Test cricket, then
>> >of course cricket has expanded;
>> I thought that was what we were talking about.
>

> Yes. Please correct if this is an incorrect paraphrase, but
>I thought your case was that cricket used to be a rather lackadaisical
>sport played in three countries and is now a hard-nosed professional
>sport played by many more people. In that scenario, Test cricket is
>merely the icing on the cake. Cricket in the UK has been a serious
>professional game for centuries, and is certainly less popular than
>it used to be. I see *no* evidence that the current England side is,
>by-and-large [and taking a decade-or-so view rather than an instant
>snapshot] better than that of the fifties [which I remember quite
>well] or of the thirties or of the turn of the century [for which I
>have to rely on anecdotage]. Certainly other countries have caught
>up, and today even overtaken. But not by so much as to suggest that
>Australia or Pakistan today, or WIndies a few years ago are better
>than the best teams of former decades.
>
> Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. I may
>have a rose-tinted view of the 30s and 50s, or you may have a one
>of more recent times. But mere assertion from a growth of the game,
>that has not happened in England and has not led to England being as
>wildly uncompetitive as, until this year, at tennis, for example,
>doesn't prove anything.
>
>> > [...] You will

>> >recall the system of "underhand payments" that enabled many
amateurs
>> >to continue playing; many others had to give up.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> My point exactly.
>

> Really? Your case was that these were idle rich. Instead,
>they found that their public school and Oxbridge background left them
>in need of a paid job.

I indicated that many people gave up the game (or missed series)
because of lack of adequate professional compensation, such as they
could make elsewhere. This undoubtedly still happens, but less with
the rest of the world because for them cricket is often the best
professional opportunity these days.

>
>> And Tendu? I would guess he makes about what kasparov makes, from
all
>> sources. And there are certainly MANY more cricketers making living
>> wages from the sport than chess players making a living from chess!
>> But you probably won't believe that either!
>

> Perhaps. But there are quite a lot of professional chess
>players -- perhaps 50 in the UK, hundreds in the USA,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where on earth do you get your facts from? "50 in England" I suspect
is more like "10." And "hundreds in the USA" is definitely less than
30! And at least *half* of those are eking out subsistence-level
incomes of under $25,000. Can I have your permission to cross-post
this to rec.sport.chess? Those guys like a good laugh now and then.

comparable
>numbers in many more countries than support cricket. I note also
>a recent figure that Karpov will take $768000 from the next FIDE
>championship *even if he loses every game* -- and he's no longer
>even the world second-rated player.

I assure you, remuneration drops off real fast after the top 10 or so!
Patrick Woolf has quit chess to go back to college; Larry Christiansen
moved back to Massachusetts after a few years in Europe because he and
his wife Natasha decided it was time to pursue a real career. Ken
Rogoff, one of the most talented U.S Juniors *ever* went into economics
instead because he couldn't make a decent living at chess. Almost all
of the "playing professionals" (as opposed to journalists/authors like
Pandolfini) in the US are Soviet emigres eking out a living. The only
exceptions, AFAIK, are Joel Benjamin and Yasser Serewan. Really, stick
to cricket, you know quite a bit about that.

> I'm quite
>happy to agree to differ!

Sounds good to me! And you DID point out about my missing Trevor
Bailey!

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

--

[Joshua Saunders]

In article <6159tq$s...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3434ecac...@news.axion.bt.co.uk> mhol...@dircon.co.uk (Mike
>Holmans) writes:
>
>>>
>>I would agree that there is a terrible tendency amongst ancient
>>doddering greybeards such as myself and Joshua Saunders to patronise
>>young whippersnappers such as you and say that it was all better in
>>our day, and that this is totally reprehensible.
>
>Hey, Daddy-o, that's groovy! Us hep cats don't take no offense; we
>show outasight respect, and really dig the re-bop of our elders!

Oh shit, Greg Matthews is among us...

>>However, my question is not *whether* standards have improved, but how
>>*statistics* can be used to prove the point - one way or the other, I
>>don't mind. What figures can be extracted from, say 1936, 1956, 1976,
>>and 1996 which would show, without reference to anything else, the
>>relative standard of cricket in those years, and why do they show it?
>>
>>I cannot think of a methodology which would do this, and I would be
>>grateful if someone could actually suggest one.
>
>Again, don't think you're gonna get a methodology that'll prove
>anything. But I'll guarantee you this... twenty years from now, this
>ng (or its equivalent!) will be filled with the postings of
>30-somethings maintaining that the current cricket of Laras, Waughs,
>Jayas, Tendus, Inzis, Flowers, Flemings, Cronjes, and Ramprakashes was
>the best ever! Especially Aussies will be maintaining this (because
>Aus is currently dominant), although they will always assert Bradman
>was the best ever.

Thankfully, no one will still be telling us "Viv was better". :-)

Josh (except Venky)

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <343df602...@news.axion.bt.co.uk> mhol...@dircon.co.uk (Mike
Holmans) writes:
>
>On 9 Oct 1997 21:42:09 GMT, ap...@ix.netcom.com(Stephen A Devaux)
>wrote:

>
>>>>And there are certainly MANY more cricketers making living
>>>> wages from the sport than chess players making a living from
chess!

>> Almost all
>>of the "playing professionals" (as opposed to journalists/authors
like
>>Pandolfini) in the US are Soviet emigres eking out a living. The
only
>>exceptions, AFAIK, are Joel Benjamin and Yasser Serewan.

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Though his salary from Surrey helps a bit too.

Hee-hee! Oops! A true Renaissance man!

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan
>
>Cheers
>
>Mike
>

[Mike Holmans]

On 9 Oct 1997 21:42:09 GMT, ap...@ix.netcom.com(Stephen A Devaux)
wrote:

>>>And there are certainly MANY more cricketers making living

>>> wages from the sport than chess players making a living from chess!

> Almost all
>of the "playing professionals" (as opposed to journalists/authors like
>Pandolfini) in the US are Soviet emigres eking out a living. The only
>exceptions, AFAIK, are Joel Benjamin and Yasser Serewan.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Though his salary from Surrey helps a bit too.

Cheers

Mike

[Joshua Saunders]

In article <61b8gf$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>In <3438F3...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
><a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>
>>Nothing in the figures,
>>or even in grainy old films, tells you about that. Nothing in
>>temporal "snapshots" [statistics for, say, 1930] *can* tell us about
>>that [though some correlations, such as the improvement in batting
>>figures as pitches improved in the 1880s and '90s,...
>
>And increases in bowled/lbw dismissals per country when the wicket size
>was expanded in the mid-late '30s. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to

Except Steve, as you perfectly well know, the size of the wickets was
changed inthe EARLY 30s, and had no discernible effect on anything.

>make the argument that increasing the size of the wicket made batting
>EASIER! 'Though I expect that hypothesis to be promulgated shortly on
>this newsgroup.

Bla.

>>...and such as that
>>Bradman was twice as good as his contemporaries, are suggestive].
>
>Again, not all his contemporaries. When the "ICC-Trophy-level"
>opposition that Bradman feasted on vs. India, SA, and WI, and the fact
>that Bradman DIDN't have to face Aus, is factored out, it's Bradman's
>91 average vs. Headley's 78 average vs. England in the '30s. (I hate to

Here we go again. Headley also faced "ICC-Trophy-level" opposition. The
difference between himself and Bradman, was that Headley faced such
opposition when he played England. No doubt you will carry on insisting
that assorted bods who played a series against WI in the 30s (and never
another Test, before or since) were superior bowlers to the likes of
Constantine, Francis, Bell, Vincent, Mankad and Phadkar. But I insist that
Bradman's series averages of 74, 201 and 178 against so-called "ICC-trophy
level opposition" are the performances that should be compared with
Headley against dismal English bowling during the 30s, not Bradman's 91
average against far superior English bowling. Actually, a look at the
above bowlers and how they performed against an Australian batting lineup
that was at all times strong, suggests that the real problem with WI, SA
and India during these series, was batting.

>keep repeating this, but feel I have to as long as people ignore these
>facts.) The difference (14.3%) is much less that certain
>contemporaneous batsmen who often get "bracketed" and
>compared: less than the 20.3% between Ken Barrington's 58.67 and P.B.H.
>May's 46.77 (or Dexter's 47.89, Graveney's 44.38, Cowdrey's 44.06);
>less than Weekes' 58.61 over Worrell's 49.48 (15.6%); much less than
>Sobers's 57.78 over Kanhai's 47.53 or Nurse's 47.60; less than Viv's
>50ish vs. Rowe's 43.55. Bradman's record was clearly better than
>Headley's, but not such an "outlyer" as people often insist, if
>reasonable corrections for empirical consistency are made.

OK fine. Bradman against "ICC-level opposition" averaged 140 odd. Headley
averaged 78 or so. Bradman was MUCH better than Headley.

That's Dessie Haynes to Phil Simmons, or Ken Rutherford to Martin Crowe.

>>>And since the pattern in other sports
>>> shows improvement,
>>
>> *What* other sports? Athletics? Almost purely an amateur
>>spare-time activity for developed countries until recently. Tennis?
>>Likewise.
>
>Cricket? Likewise, other than in England! But in sports where there
>IS an objective metric (shot-putting, javelin-throwing, sprinting,
>high-jumping, long-jumping, hurdling, hammer-throwing, pole-vaulting...
>how many's that?), even WITHOUT the incentive of professionalism, can
>you point to even ONE where the objective metrics have declined?

Female sprinting? Yeah, ho bloody ho.

>>*Most* sports have seen an increase in professionalism,
>>an opening up to many more countries or better equipment, often all
>>three, in the past 50 or so years. By contrast, cricket has been
>>played by hardened professionals for hundreds of years [and there
>>were probably more professionals in the 1880s than today],
>
>Where? In the West Indies? India? South Africa? New Zealand?
>Pakistan? We're dealing with a slightly parochial view of history
>here, aren't we?

In Australia and England there were absolutely more boys and men playing
cricket in the 30s than there are now. Of course the best of that
particular pot were not a scratch on the current mob from a smaller pool.
We know this, because tennis players and javelin throwers are better NOW.

>>only SL
>>is a genuinely new Test country since the 1930s
>
>I suspect that, if you count, you'll see that, in terms of the number
>of Test matches it has played, SL *already* has more Test experience
>than India, NZ, West Indies and Pakistan were able to accumulate until
>the '60s! Until the '50s all of the above were novices to Test
>cricket, ALWAYS easy pickings for Aus, and often for England. None

Umm yeah. Prior to the 50s, Australia played exactly 3 series against the
abvoe nations. And one of those series constituted a single Test. England
OTOH struggled against WI, drawing the 29/30 series, and losing in 34/5,
47/8 and 50. Maybe England were stunningly weak during these years. OTOH
maybe they took a crap team.

>could support professionals, and all lost top players (who today would
>certainly pursue professional careers) to monetary or educational
>pusuits; sometimes such players were absent for individual series or
>for years (in WI, Worrell, Walcott, Deryk Murray) and sometimes
>permanently (Roy Marshall).

Australia couldn't support professionals either, so Australia must have
been a weak nation during the years in question.

>>[and SL too has a
>>long history of high-class cricket], and the equipment is, apart
>>from the change to rolled pitches in the 1880s,
>
>And the larger wickets, and better wicketkeeper's gloves,

And a bigger ball. And covers for the pitches. And the 3rd umpire. And
boxes made from materials other than Tin.

>> *What* larger population? Certainly WIndies have done well,
>>but this is scarcely an argument for large populations! India and
>>Pakistan are now fully competitive,
>
>Fully competitive? Actually, I'd have said they are both better than
>England. The usual argument is that "England aren't as good as they
>used to be in the 30's-50s." This may be so, but no evidence for this
>is provided. Until it is, I have to believe that these countries have
>just improved faster than England (because I think England actually is
>better than it was back then).

Well you would. England now chooses it's team from a tiny pool of boys who
have played the game in their youth, and mostly restricted to those
wealthy enough to attend the oddly named "Public schools". In the 50s (and
even more so in the 30s) however, the game was much more widely spread and
popular withthe young.

But of course, Malcolm is better than Tyson and Atherton is better than
Hutton. They must be, because people run faster these days, and today's
rowers put their 50s counterparts to shame.

>>but this doesn't show that
>>standards world-wide have improved, only that national pride allows
>>countries to catch up to world standards over a few decades.
>
>And then stand still? Because cricket somehow reached a Platonic level
>of unsurpassable perfection when it was being contested between English
>landed gentry and Australians during the Ashes Tests of the '30s?

Except that the landed gentry are the players NOW, and in the 30s it was a
working man's game as well as that of the wealthy.

>>In the
>>"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
>>of other sporting activities claim our attention.
>
>Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?

Yes there are statistics on this.

>It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
>considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war.

Huh? You've not heard of TV? Apparently they didn't have it in the 30s.
How about CDs? Video games? Basketball? Cars? Bands, nightclubs? The
variety of options for the young to "be into" in the late 90s, is not
comparable to the 30s. There were fewer options for recreation in the 30s,
those that did exist to any degree, were patronised by a larger percentage
of the population.

>Hasn't
>England's population grown, too? Also, is the fact that we see no more
>Fred Perrys, nor English soccer World Cup champs, or whatever the names
>were of those guys who won the sprinter titles at the '24 Olympics,
>also due to decline of players in those sports? It couldn't be that
>there are more guys in England running faster 100 m. than those guys in
>'24, but just not able to compete with today's top sprinters (other
>than those now living in England who couldn't have competed in '24)?

You've not heard of Linford Christie then? Allen Wells? Hmmm?

>England, of course, has GREATLY improved its standard of chess. But
>surely not ALL the fast bowlers and strikers are playing chess?

No, they are going to comprehensive schools and if good enough and fit
enough, looking to play at Wembley, not Lords.

>>bits-and-pieces players are more in demand, as onedayitis
>>distorts the game, but true all-rounders are scarce.
>
>
>Can you point to an era which had more salient allrounders than the
>'80s? Imran, Kapil, Botham were all legitimate allrounders. Their only
>historical challengers are Sobers, Miller, and Grace, none of whom were
>in their prime simultaneously. Hadlee and Wasim are in the Lindwall
>and Benaud class; Jaya, Richards, and Border comparable to Hammond.

Imran Kapil and Botham were certainyl legitimate all rounders, who came on
the scene around the time their countries had played 10-20 ODIs, and
certainly not because of the ODI phenomenon. Where are the next
generation? Wasim Akram? Anyone else? Or is Brian McMillan a natural ODI
talent?

>Some individuals, for unknown reasons, improve with age. A classic
>example of this is Clive Lloyd, whose later career coincided with what
>many people on r.s.c. seem to regard as the "Golden Age" of the late
>'70s (I don't imagine this could be related to their age at the time,
>do you?) Yet Lloyd was never better as a batsman than in his last 7-8
>years. The batting of both Imran and Kapil also improved in their 30s.
> Most batsmen decline with age. Some retire before the effects are
>fully evident (Seymour Nurse, Gordon Greenidge, Miandad, Sobers) while
>with others (Botham, Richards, Worrell, Kanhai, Gavaskar, Gooch), it's
>easy to see.

Miandad? Huh? So you didn't see the World Cup either? :-)

Josh

[Mad Hamish]

On 6 Oct 1997 17:52:15 GMT, ap...@ix.netcom.com(Stephen A Devaux) wrote:

>In <3438F3...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
><a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>>I never saw Larwood, but have no positive reason to
>>doubt either those who claimed in 1955 that he had been faster than
>>Tyson, nor those who claimed that Kortwright was faster than either.
>
>I saw Roy Gilchrist bowl against Pakistan in '58, and will swear he was
>faster than anything I've seen since! But I also know that this memory
>is both meaningless and unreliable.

And how old were you at the time you saw Gilchrest?

>
>> We will never know for sure whether Bradman or Ponsford or
>>Trumper in their respective primes would have made the current
>>Australian Test side -- or even their local club second teams. They
>>had better figures than XYZ of today? Sure, but the bowling could
>>have been worse, the fielding could have been worse, the pitches
>>could have been better,...
>
>We agree on this. There is no conclusive evidence because an effect on
>the difference between competitors is identical whether caused by the
>better improving or the worse declining.
>
>>...the wickets smaller.
>
>Now, this is completely different. The wickets WERE smaller; this is
>not opinion, but historical fact that can be scientifically proven by
>even a fairly cursory examination of an old photo.
>

Well actually they were changed in 1931.

>>Nothing in the figures,
>>or even in grainy old films, tells you about that. Nothing in
>>temporal "snapshots" [statistics for, say, 1930] *can* tell us about
>>that [though some correlations, such as the improvement in batting
>>figures as pitches improved in the 1880s and '90s,...
>
>And increases in bowled/lbw dismissals per country when the wicket size
>was expanded in the mid-late '30s.

here we have the stats you posted earlier. It doesn't really look that certain
of a significant increase.
1926 96 26 27.1% 7 7.3% 34.4%
1930 139 37 26.6% 13 9.4% 36.0%
1934 152 44 28.8% 11 7.2% 36.1%
1938 116 39 33.6% 16 13.8% 47.4%
1948 152 46 30.3% 13 8.6% 38.9%
1953 162 39 24.1% 26 16.0% 40.1%
1956 152 34 22.4% 24 15.8% 38.2%
1961 158 36 22.8% 21 13.3% 36.1%

definately a change in the way lbws are payed would have more effect (such as
now in Australia you can be out lbw off the front foot, you weren't in the early
80s)

>
>>...and such as that
>>Bradman was twice as good as his contemporaries, are suggestive].
>
>Again, not all his contemporaries. When the "ICC-Trophy-level"
>opposition that Bradman feasted on vs. India, SA, and WI, and the fact
>that Bradman DIDN't have to face Aus,

Bradman did have to face the Australian bowlers in shield cricket. He made the
odd score there you know.

>is factored out, it's Bradman's
>91 average vs. Headley's 78 average vs. England in the '30s.

And the English teams Headley played against often did not have the first
choice English attack.

>50ish vs. Rowe's 43.55. Bradman's record was clearly better than
>Headley's, but not such an "outlyer" as people often insist, if
>reasonable corrections for empirical consistency are made.

Translation, if we massage the figures to agree with your idea.

>
>>>And since the pattern in other sports
>>> shows improvement,
>>
>> *What* other sports? Athletics? Almost purely an amateur
>>spare-time activity for developed countries until recently. Tennis?
>>Likewise.
>
>Cricket? Likewise, other than in England!

Nope, I don't agree with that assertion. In India the nobles supported teams in
the 40s, the Australians of the 30s didn't get paid badly once they'd made the
test team. Not to mention the benefits of writing cricket. O'Reilly and Grimmett
wrote during the 46-47 tour of Australia. O'Reilly pulled down 1500 pounds +
expenses. In 1938 Grimmett was paid 2000 pounds + the travel cost + board to
coach and play for the Rajah of Rath's team.

> But in sports where there
>IS an objective metric (shot-putting, javelin-throwing, sprinting,
>high-jumping, long-jumping, hurdling, hammer-throwing, pole-vaulting...
>how many's that?), even WITHOUT the incentive of professionalism, can
>you point to even ONE where the objective metrics have declined?

Well I think the throwing metrics have gone down since the eastern block
folded....

But that's a bad comparison really because all of those sports largely come down
to strength. Cricket _doesn't_ otherwise Patternson Thompson would be a better
bowler than McGrath.

>
>>*Most* sports have seen an increase in professionalism,
>>an opening up to many more countries or better equipment, often all
>>three, in the past 50 or so years. By contrast, cricket has been
>>played by hardened professionals for hundreds of years [and there
>>were probably more professionals in the 1880s than today],
>
>Where? In the West Indies? India?

Yep, or let's put it this way. They were employed by the nobles who ran the
cricket teams.

> South Africa? New Zealand?
>Pakistan?

Pakistan in the 1880s? There wasn't one person in Pakistan in the 1880s who
wasn't a professional cricketer.

> We're dealing with a slightly parochial view of history
>here, aren't we?
>

Nope, not necessarily. If there were more professionals in England in the 1880s
than in the entire world now then there were more professionals in the 1880s
than there are now.

>>only SL
>>is a genuinely new Test country since the 1930s
>
>I suspect that, if you count, you'll see that, in terms of the number
>of Test matches it has played, SL *already* has more Test experience
>than India, NZ, West Indies and Pakistan were able to accumulate until
>the '60s! Until the '50s all of the above were novices to Test
>cricket, ALWAYS easy pickings for Aus, and often for England.

Well actually they gave some damned good battles, 1905-06 South Africa beat
England 4-1 in a 5 match series.1909-10 south Africa beat England 3-2. 1927-28
south Africa drew 2-2 with England. 1930-31 South Africa won 1-0 in a 5 test
series. 1935 in England South Africa won 1-0 in a 5 match series.

1929-30 Windies drew with England 1-1 in a 4 test series.
1934-35 the Windies beat England 2-1.
1947-48 the windies beat England 2-0.
1950 in England the windies beat England 3-1.

Australia only played the windies in 1 series before the 50s.

> None
>could support professionals, and all lost top players (who today would
>certainly pursue professional careers) to monetary or educational
>pusuits;

And now people lose players to other sports, there have been a few people who've
had to chose between AFL football and cricket, soccer and cricket etc.

> sometimes such players were absent for individual series or
>for years (in WI, Worrell, Walcott, Deryk Murray) and sometimes
>permanently (Roy Marshall).
>
>>[and SL too has a
>>long history of high-class cricket], and the equipment is, apart
>>from the change to rolled pitches in the 1880s,
>
>And the larger wickets, and better wicketkeeper's gloves,

Wicket keeping gloves haven't changed much this century.

>
>>essentially the same as in the games earliest days.

Nope, that's not true. The pads are roughly the same as they were in the late
1800s, the gloves now offer much better protection than those of the 30s.

>>
>>> and since the changes in cricket since the '30s have
>>> brought in a much larger population than before (and one which has
>>> often dominated),
>>
>> *What* larger population? Certainly WIndies have done well,
>>but this is scarcely an argument for large populations! India and
>>Pakistan are now fully competitive,
>
>Fully competitive? Actually, I'd have said they are both better than
>England.

I'd say Pakistan is better than England, but I'd have a hard time putting India
ahead of England currently. Definately not outside India..

> The usual argument is that "England aren't as good as they
>used to be in the 30's-50s." This may be so, but no evidence for this
>is provided.

Have a look at the techniques of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Barrington
etc. Then have a look at the current English "batsmen".
Consider what Trueman was still doing in the late 60s.

> Until it is, I have to believe that these countries have
>just improved faster than England (because I think England actually is
>better than it was back then).
>
>>but this doesn't show that
>>standards world-wide have improved, only that national pride allows
>>countries to catch up to world standards over a few decades.
>
>And then stand still? Because cricket somehow reached a Platonic level
>of unsurpassable perfection when it was being contested between English
>landed gentry

Straw man time again.
Care to find how many of the Amateurs were landed gentry in the 30s? Allen
wasn't.

> and Australians during the Ashes Tests of the '30s?

Well I'd say that the spinners were as good as any who ever played, O'Reilly,
Grimmett, Rhodes, Verity, Ironmonger are a decent crowd. The batsmen in Hobbs,
Sutcliffe, Hammond, Bradman etc on the footage I've seen had great techniques
and footwork. I would say that the fast bowling wasn't of the highest standard,
in general, but this can possibly be put down to the quicker wear of the ball on
pre-artificial fertilised pitches and the new ball rules of the time. Definately
many of the pre-war batsmen played the post war quicks of Miller, Lindwall,
Trueman, Davidson, Statham etc well when they came onto the scene.

>
>>In the
>>"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
>>of other sporting activities claim our attention.
>
>Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?

I don't have statistics but I believe that many of the English schools no longer
have cricket fields.

>It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
>considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war.

Well yes, but now there is soccer, baseball, basketball and numerous other
summer games competing with cricket.

> Hasn't England's population grown, too?

Probably, leading to rising land prices and it being too costly to keep parks
and cricket fields for schools.

> Also, is the fact that we see no more
>Fred Perrys, nor English soccer World Cup champs, or whatever the names
>were of those guys who won the sprinter titles at the '24 Olympics,
>also due to decline of players in those sports? It couldn't be that
>there are more guys in England running faster 100 m. than those guys in
>'24,

I don't think that anyone will argue that the sprinters now aren't faster than
the sprinters in the amatuer days, but then again sprinting _isn't_cricket. I
don't believe that cricket training has had the same increase in performance as
running or swimming coaching has had.

>>Fielding has improved; spin bowling has
>>declined;
>
>Here I agree. Covered wickets have made spin-bowling a much less
>effective tactic.

I'd back Grimmett and O'Reilly against anyone, anywhere.

> But this has been more than offset by the era of
>great fast bowling.

Well there have been a lot of great fast bowlers recently, but then again
Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Tyson, Trueman, Statham aren't a bad collection from
the 50s are they?

>
>>bits-and-pieces players are more in demand, as onedayitis
>>distorts the game, but true all-rounders are scarce.
>
>
>Can you point to an era which had more salient allrounders than the
>'80s? Imran, Kapil, Botham were all legitimate allrounders.

At what stages of their careers? And how do you definate a legitimate
allrounder?

> Their only
>historical challengers are Sobers, Miller, and Grace, none of whom were
>in their prime simultaneously.

Well frankly I'd consider Faulkner to be up there. Bailey would be thereabouts.
Rhodes, Jack Gregory, Macartney, Monty Noble, TL Goddard, If sobers comes in
with a bowling average of 34 then so does Barlow, Woolley, Reid etc. Worrell may
also be worth a mention.

> Hadlee and Wasim are in the Lindwall and Benaud class;

Well I'd agree with Hadlee being in the same class as Lindwall, I'd be
stretching things to call Wasim Akram a test allrounder. Of course if we do
Davidson then comes in anyway, Tate also somewhere around here as does Verity,
Peter Pollock,

> Jaya, Richards, and Border comparable to Hammond.

Crap. Hammond 738 first class wickets @ 30.58, 83 test wickest @ 37.80. compared
to Border 102 first class wickets @ 39.06. 39 test wickets @ 39.10 but more
tests and a lot less wickets...
Richards 223 first class wickets @ 45.15, 32 test wickets @ 61.37

ADDED TO WHICH let's not forget that your argument is that it's the increased
professionalism which has provided the quality. Well the increased money came
around during WSC. Hadlee was playing tests before World Series Cricket, as was
Imran and Botham, Kapil Dev made his debut in 78/79. in fact you could argue
that Botham and Kapil fell away when the rewards started coming their way,
botham never reclaimed his 81 form and Kapil fell away badly after the mid 80s.

>
>>As I said above, statistical snapshots can prove nothing. We
>>need to look at long career records. Now, the effects are confounded
>>by the fact that sportsmen become less physically fit as they age,
>>but that at least we can measure objectively. If someone plays for,
>>say, 20 years [a third of the way back to the 1930s, so time enough
>>for a significant change in standards on your hypothesis], then their
>>performance, eg batting average, towards the end of their career
>should
>>be measurably worse than that of younger players of the same fitness
>>[reaction time, etc], while they themselves should have outperformed
>>the old fogeys of their own early career. In other words, we *expect*
>>Bradman, or Gooch, or Close, or Titmus, Emburey, Pollock, Sobers,
>>Walsh, etc., to do worse at the end of their careers than at the
>>beginning; but if the "substantial improvement" hypothesis is correct
>>they should do *more* worse than is to be accounted for by their age.
>>But the degree of analysis required to substantiate this is more than
>>anyone here can be expected to put in. However, I don't see any other
>>way of settling this sort of issue.
>
>Actually, most players *do* get worse as they age. That's why they
>tend to retire. Otherwise, they'd keep getting better and breaking
>records.

Sure, most players get worse with age, but how much worse?
Bradman post war wasn't as good as pre-war but he still made the odd run.
Sobers also did fairly well with the bat in latter years. The question is did
they ever look out of their depth?

Trueman bowled to Greg Chappell in the late 60s and gave Chappell a heap of
trouble. Trueman was almost certainly past his best.

>
>Some individuals, for unknown reasons, improve with age. A classic
>example of this is Clive Lloyd, whose later career coincided with what
>many people on r.s.c. seem to regard as the "Golden Age" of the late
>'70s (I don't imagine this could be related to their age at the time,
>do you?) Yet Lloyd was never better as a batsman than in his last 7-8
>years.

well I don't know if I'd say that. he was performing well but I'd put his peak
in the mid 70s rather than the 80s.

> The batting of both Imran and Kapil also improved in their 30s.

I'd probably agree with Imran's batting improving in his 30s as his final
average is 37.69 compared with 31.12 in 85. Kapil Dev finished with an average
of 31.05 while his average in 85 (when he was 26) was 30.30. Not a significant
difference.

In Imran's case I'd put a lot of it down to the fact that he was not the strike
bowler for the team late in his career.

> Most batsmen decline with age. Some retire before the effects are
>fully evident (Seymour Nurse, Gordon Greenidge, Miandad, Sobers) while
>with others (Botham, Richards, Worrell, Kanhai, Gavaskar, Gooch), it's
>easy to see.
>
>Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing heroics
>into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
>that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
>today!

Yep, left hand finger spin has _always_ been such a demanding thing to bowl that
nowadays finger spinners are gone physically in their 20s. Ironmonger, rhodes,
Blackie & Grimmett were all spin bowlers. Grimmett was a wrist spinner, the
others finger spinners. Spin bowlers often play on much longer than anyone else
(Titmas, embury spring to minds as modern examples). Hobbs was purely and simply
the greatest technical batsman ever, as such his technique allowed him to play
on to an age where a more improvisational batsman (such as Viv) finds the
slowing reflexes and fading eyesight too much to overcome. Added to which it
must be admitted that the Australian pace attack of the 30s wasn't great and
that is the first thing which troubles older players, pace.

> Clearly, training methods must have been much better! (Or
>could there be some other explanation? Hm, I'll have to think about
>that!)

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au

[Mad Hamish]

On 3 Oct 1997 12:00:34 GMT, ap...@ix.netcom.com(Stephen A Devaux) wrote:

>In <3430c92e.4055477@news> shad...@logica.com (Steve Shadbolt)
>writes:
>>
>
>>Take the 1930's for example it would be difficult to say that Bradman,
>>Ponsford, McCabe would not be automatic choices for todays Aussie side
>>(which is generally acccepted to be the best test side in the world
>>today). In fact you could argue that the only players of today whose
>>place would be safe are two of the fast bowlers, Healy and possibly

Healy might have to watch his place compared to Carter, Oldfield or Tallon as
keepers.

>>Steve Waugh. And lets face it the whole English side of the late 30s
>>would probably replace all of todays team :)
>>>
>
>Only by using the "relative" argument: i.e., the players from the '30s
>"dominated" the opposition by more than today's players do. However,
>other than repeating the tautulogous argument that "Players of the '30s
>were better because they did better," no one has put forward any
>evidence for this.

And a similar case can be put forward for the argument that the modern players
were better.

>
>IMO, Bradman would walk into the current Aus team "as a promising
>youngster;" he would then learn to deal with the much tougher pace
>bowling

Bradman managed to deal with Lindwall and Miller in his late 30s. I think it's
safe to say that the best player of the pull shot of all time might have made it
against quick bowling.

> and in a couple of years become one the two or three best
>batsmen in the world, maybe even the best.

Bodyline reduced his average to a mere 50, obviously that is easier to face than
the modern Sri Lankan or Indian attack.

> McCabe would not make the current Aussie team,

Sure. He was a useless player of quick bowling, it was just that he could hook
and pull it out of the park.

> and Ponsford (the Graham Hick of his era) would
>make the team because of his fabulous first class record, but "fail to
>live up to his potential."

Actually you do have a case for Ponsford on the grounds that he wasn't the best
player of 'attack' fast bowling. OTOH with a helmet, chest protector and better
gloves he probably would have found it easier.

> How long he would be tried for would depend
>on the selectors' patience and Taylor's captaincy record.
>
>Of the English players of the '30s, Verity, Hammond, Hutton, and
>Compton would probably make the team, but their averages would be
>substantially reduced.

Again, you have no evidence as to this. You are ignoring the effects of wet
wickets on averages _and_ the video evidence which shows the players of the 30s
to have superlative techniques.

> Verity would find wickets less helpful, and
>have another 3-4 runs per wicket added to his 24-odd average.

Considering the experise of the current crop of test players against spin I
wouldn't bet on it.

> This
>would STILL be enough to make him one of the better spin bowlers of the
>past 30 years. Hammond would not bowl at all. Hutton would be very
>comparable to Boycott, and average in the high 40s-low 50s. Compton
>would a great ODI player, but probably be in and out of the Test team,
>competing with Hussain and Crawley for which one gets to be replaced by

Compton would leave them in the dust, unless you want to argue that Lindwall and
Miller would have to be classified as right hand slow in the modern era.

>Ramprakash. (Ames would probably make the touring squad, too, in place
>of Russell. Not that he's a better batsman or keeper than Russell; but
>it wouldn't matter anyway since he'd not be picked for the Tests so
>that Stewart could open, keep wicket, and help pull the heavy roller.)

Of course Ames was a useless bat, hardly better than Glen McGrath, his 100 first
class centuries were all flukes against the left handed lesbian XI.
>
>
>As mediocre as England's pace attack may be (and, frankly, I think it's
>not bad; I think West Indies will be in serious trouble if they
>continue their past selection lunacies!), the only pacer from the '30s
>with a hope would be Voce (unless they change the rules to let Larwood
>have 8 fielders behind the bat on the leg side).
>
Again you are forgetting the different conditions. The outfields of the 30s were
rough enough that the ball didn't swing for long at all, especially in Australia
according to Trueman who should know.

[Christian Kelly]

Hey everyone

I've got at idea for improving the standard of cricket
worldwide, overnight- just add another stump!

:-)

--

Cheers

Christian Kelly

"His manuscript was both good and original, but the part that was good
was not original, and the part that was original was not good."

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
> >> And Tendu? I would guess he makes about what kasparov makes, from all
> >> sources. And there are certainly MANY more cricketers making living
> >> wages from the sport than chess players making a living from chess!
> >> But you probably won't believe that either!

> > Perhaps. But there are quite a lot of professional chess
> >players -- perhaps 50 in the UK, hundreds in the USA,

> Where on earth do you get your facts from? "50 in England" I suspect
> is more like "10."

Suspect what you like. Almost all of the active grandmasters
are professionals, and quite a few of the masters. In addition, some
untitled players are also professionals. That takes us to around 50.
There are many more than that earning a living from chess, of course;
chess publishers, computer chess people, organisers, journalists, etc.
A reasonable guess would be around 100, but there are grey areas.

> And "hundreds in the USA" is definitely less than
> 30! And at least *half* of those are eking out subsistence-level
> incomes of under $25,000.

So you're only a professional if you make a *good* living out
of your profession?

> Can I have your permission to cross-post
> this to rec.sport.chess? Those guys like a good laugh now and then.

I take it you mean "rec.games.chess.misc"? Feel free.

> I assure you, remuneration drops off real fast after the top 10 or so!

No-one denies that. But so it does in other sports. You might
claim several million dollars to contest [one of] the world heavyweight
boxing championship[s]; but you won't get that for the 3rd supporting
bout in a minor event. Much the same happens in golf, tennis, motor
sport, athletics, and, yes, cricket. Oh, and music, and writing, and
many other professions.

> [...] Really, stick

> to cricket, you know quite a bit about that.

Well, thanks. But I know more about chess than about cricket,
as it happens.

[John Hall]

In article <3441B4...@edn.gu.edu.au>,

Christian Kelly <C.K...@edn.gu.edu.au> writes:
>Hey everyone
>
>I've got at idea for improving the standard of cricket
>worldwide, overnight- just add another stump!
>
>:-)
>

I have an idea from somewhere that they did actually experiment with
that for one season in county cricket in England (1939?).
--
John Hall
"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless
information."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

[j sreedhar]

Christian Kelly <C.K...@edn.gu.edu.au> writes:

>Hey everyone

>I've got at idea for improving the standard of cricket
>worldwide, overnight- just add another stump!

>:-)

Hush, don't say such things. Dalmiya might be reading this newsgroup.

Sreedhar

[Charles Levy]

Stephen A Devaux (ap...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
[Realms of good stuff that I've snipped, butwhich isn't altogether convincing]

Like I said, I've been itching to get a piece of this thread,
but for various reasons including the vagaries of soft and
hardware that don't seem to get along, I haven't had much of a
chance ... so I hope that now I'm finally able to contribute
my two dollars worth (inflation!) that I'm not too far behind
the play.
First of all, if I've read Steve right, his contention is that
there has been improvement in the standard of play of all
sports, ergo it is reasonable to assume that cricket is no
exception - and by extension, presumably, the players
themselves are also better. While I do not entirely disagree
with his premise, I would throw in two caveats. First of all,
just generally, I'm not sure how significant the basic
improvement has been; that is, in many instances, a perceived
improvement in performance is very often the result of a very
definite improvement in equipment. Does anyone feel certain
that Donovan Bailey could leave Jesse Owens in his dust if the
latter had the use of and been trained in modern running shoes
and coming out of modern starting blocks, dressed in skin
tight aero-dynamic latex shorts? And is anyone sure that the
reigning pole vault champion would be able to acheive any
greater heights than vaulters from the thirties if he was to
swap his "elastic" fibre glass pole for the good old bamboo
pole of days gone by? I grant you that this does not tell the
entire story (it doesn't really account for the increase in
long jump performances, for instance) but I do think that
equipment, clothing and probably improved technique are
equally responsible for increased or improved performance.
[And talking of equipment, if anyone really thinks that
"bodyline" depressed the Don's performance, what odd's of it
doing so if he had had access to a helmet, a visor, chest
protector and elbow pads?]
But coming closer to the subject, my second caveat is that
cricket cannot be lumped with "other sports" for which
significant improvement is deemed to be a sort of evolutionary
given. Look at the sport which is more nearly related to
cricket than any other ... baseball. When was the last time
someone had a .400 season average? When was the record number
of homeruns in a season (despite the fact that there are more
games played today)? When was the last perfect game in a World
Series ... or even in season play? My point is of course, that
despite your Ken Griffeys and McGuires, Clemenses and Cones,
are we really seeing perfomances superior to Ruth's or
Mantle's or Cobb's or Whitey Ford's ?

My take on this question [and NO ... I don't have statistics
to back it up ... but I don't think anyone has statistics to
debunk it either] is that there have been peaks and valleys in
the game; there have probably always been great players in
every era, but some eras have had more than the normal share
of them than others. I reckon there have been 2 or 3 "golden
ages" - maybe the 20/30s, 40/50s and the 70/80s. Thus,
although of today's crowd I concede that your Steve Waugh,
your Lara, your Tendulkar, your Jayasuriya, your Warne and a
couple of others fit the mould, they don't have enough peers
to compete with a gallery containing the Ws, Hutton, Compton,
Bedser, Morris, Bradman, Harvey, Miller, Lindwall, Hazare,
Mankad, Umrigar, Nourse (to name the cream of the 40/50 bunch)...
or going back to the 20/30s: Bradman, McCabe, Ponsford,
Grimmett, O'Reilly, an aging Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond,
Hendren, Verity, Larwood, Headley ... and then from the 70/80s
of course: Gavaskar, Richards (Viv and Barry), the Chappells,
Holding, Lillee, Lloyd, Procter, Garner, Chandra, Zaheer
Abbas, Alan Knott, Marsh, Imran, Kapil Dev, Miandad, Botham
and Hadlee ... the list seems endless.

But ... can you really say that since the mid 80s there has
been anything on the scale of those "golden ages"? It's not
that cricket has been static ... but I *do* believe it has
moved in cycles, and to postulate that performance has
steadily improved and is now at a peak (which perhaps you
don't actually mean to imply ... maybe I misread you) is in my
view wide of the mark.

Cheers!
Charles

--
"Let us now praise famous men ..."
- Ecclesiasticus
Visit My Cricket Hall of Fame
http://www.trytel.com/~chas

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <34406df...@newsroom.tassie.net.au> h_l...@tassie.net.au (Mad

Hamish) writes:
>
>On 6 Oct 1997 17:52:15 GMT, ap...@ix.netcom.com(Stephen A Devaux)
wrote:
>
>>In <3438F3...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
>><a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>>>I never saw Larwood, but have no positive reason to
>>>doubt either those who claimed in 1955 that he had been faster than
>>>Tyson, nor those who claimed that Kortwright was faster than either.
>>
>>I saw Roy Gilchrist bowl against Pakistan in '58, and will swear he
was
>>faster than anything I've seen since! But I also know that this
memory
>>is both meaningless and unreliable.
>
>And how old were you at the time you saw Gilchrest?

About nine. Surely you aren't questioning my anecdotal evidence just
because it requires memory from 39 years ago?

>>
>>>...the wickets smaller.
>>
>>Now, this is completely different. The wickets WERE smaller; this is
>>not opinion, but historical fact that can be scientifically proven by
>>even a fairly cursory examination of an old photo.
>>
>Well actually they were changed in 1931.

Well, actually they weren't. If you read this ng, and check photos
from the '30s, you'll see that changeover came at various times in the
'30s, and usually earlier for height change than width change. Most of
the photos
from the '30s indicate a a height/width ratio of about 3.5:1, or 28
in. to 8 in., rather than 3.1:1 (28 in. to 9 in.) And the study I did
of the stats from the 30's suggests a sudden jump in bowled/lbw
dismissals for mo
st Test teams immediately following the increase. Do you have any
statistical evidence to say there WAS no effect?

>
>here we have the stats you posted earlier. It doesn't really look that
certain
>of a significant increase.
>1926 96 26 27.1% 7 7.3% 34.4%
>1930 139 37 26.6% 13 9.4% 36.0%
>1934 152 44 28.8% 11 7.2% 36.1%
>1938 116 39 33.6% 16 13.8% 47.4%
>1948 152 46 30.3% 13 8.6% 38.9%
>1953 162 39 24.1% 26 16.0% 40.1%
>1956 152 34 22.4% 24 15.8% 38.2%
>1961 158 36 22.8% 21 13.3% 36.1%
>
>definately a change in the way lbws are payed would have more effect
(such as
>now in Australia you can be out lbw off the front foot, you weren't in
the early
>80s)

Fine, the effect WASN'T caused by wicket size, it was caused by umpires
favoring bowlers more, or the rise of fascism in Europe, or El Nino!
But SOMETHING happened to make wicket-related dismissals SIGNIFICANTLY
more com
mon in '38, coincident with wicket-size increase.

>Bradman did have to face the Australian bowlers in shield cricket. He
made the
>odd score there you know.

Yes, and I'm sure that Shield bowling attacks (and fielding) in the
'30s were as good as Test bowlers in the '70s. The same comment
applies to your remarks, in another posting, about Ames', etc., f-c
performances. We ca
n see the 1:1 carryover from f-c to Test in the performances of Hick,
Ramps, Moody, can't we? In WI, the same is true for Arthurton, or, in
earlier times, Lashley, Bynoe, etc.

>>is factored out, it's Bradman's
>>91 average vs. Headley's 78 average vs. England in the '30s.
>
>And the English teams Headley played against often did not have the
first
>choice English attack.

Again, as was discussed here, damn close! Especially if one stops
genuflecting to Larwood's 34.8 rpw non-bodyline average, like Aussies
do. I'm repeating myself (a futile thing to do with "true believers,"
I know!), but
Voce, Farnes, Hollies, and Rhodes (50, and I agree, over the hill, but
little more so than he was 3 years earlier when he secured the Ashes
from Aus!), all of whom Headley faced in WI, were certainly better than
the SA a
nd Indian attacks Bradman fattened up on. And when Headley faced
Hedley in England, Headley got 3 centuries and Hedley NEVER got his
wicket! But, since I DO feel that Bradman faced SLIGHTLY better
English bowlers, let's
say 91 to 75 is a fair comparison. Still not that much of an outlyer.
About the difference between Weekes and Worrell.
>

>Translation, if we massage the figures to agree with your idea.

Translation, if we insist on comparing apples with oranges, we will
always worship oranges for being more orange in color.

>>>>And since the pattern in other sports
>>>> shows improvement,
>>>
>>> *What* other sports? Athletics? Almost purely an amateur
>>>spare-time activity for developed countries until recently. Tennis?
>>>Likewise.
>>
>>Cricket? Likewise, other than in England!
>
>Nope, I don't agree with that assertion. In India the nobles supported
teams in
>the 40s, the Australians of the 30s didn't get paid badly once they'd
made the
>test team. Not to mention the benefits of writing cricket. O'Reilly
and Grimmett
>wrote during the 46-47 tour of Australia. O'Reilly pulled down 1500
pounds +
>expenses. In 1938 Grimmett was paid 2000 pounds + the travel cost +
board to
>coach and play for the Rajah of Rath's team.

Oh, well, then you're right! World cricket was MUCH more professional
and remunerative in those days! Silly of me to have thought otherwise!

>> But in sports where there
>>IS an objective metric (shot-putting, javelin-throwing, sprinting,
>>high-jumping, long-jumping, hurdling, hammer-throwing,
pole-vaulting...
>>how many's that?), even WITHOUT the incentive of professionalism, can
>>you point to even ONE where the objective metrics have declined?
>
>Well I think the throwing metrics have gone down since the eastern
block
>folded....

I'm not sure what "throwing" means here. I KNOW that the javelin
record has been broken several times in this decade, once or twice by a
Univ. of Loughborough athlete. I'll be interested if you put together
some numbers
to show this decline.

>But that's a bad comparison really because all of those sports largely
come down
>to strength. Cricket _doesn't_ otherwise Patternson Thompson would be
a better
>bowler than McGrath.

You mean he's not? Watch what you say. As a Bajan, surely I can
believe as blindly in the deity of a fellow Bajan as you can in that of
an Aussie. And what's more, you would be wasting as much time
resorting to logic an
d evidence as I am! (I swear, the only thing more futile than arguing
with an Aussie about Bradman is arguing with a Dominican about Grayson
and Irving Shillingford!)

>>

>>Where? In the West Indies? India?
>
>Yep, or let's put it this way. They were employed by the nobles who
ran the
>cricket teams.

Yeah, them West Indian Maharajahs who gave emeralds and rubies to
Martindale and Hylton. (Where DOES he get this stuff from?)

>> South Africa? New Zealand?
>>Pakistan?
>
>Pakistan in the 1880s? There wasn't one person in Pakistan in the
1880s who
>wasn't a professional cricketer.

Okay, Hamish, you got me! This is my first one *ever* on r.s.c.: ":-)"

>> We're dealing with a slightly parochial view of history
>>here, aren't we?
>>
>Nope, not necessarily. If there were more professionals in England in
the 1880s
>than in the entire world now then there were more professionals in the
1880s
>than there are now.

And if my mother were my father's brother, she'd be my uncle.

>>Until the '50s all of the above were novices to Test
>>cricket, ALWAYS easy pickings for Aus, and often for England.
>
>Well actually they gave some damned good battles, 1905-06 South Africa
beat
>England 4-1 in a 5 match series.1909-10 south Africa beat England 3-2.
1927-28
>south Africa drew 2-2 with England. 1930-31 South Africa won 1-0 in a
5 test
>series. 1935 in England South Africa won 1-0 in a 5 match series.
>
>1929-30 Windies drew with England 1-1 in a 4 test series.
>1934-35 the Windies beat England 2-1.
>1947-48 the windies beat England 2-0.
>1950 in England the windies beat England 3-1.
>
>Australia only played the windies in 1 series before the 50s.

Now THAT's being selective in the use of stats! Not in order to
compare like with like, as I did in the Headley/Bradman comparison, but
simply to make your own point.

1. You mention the England tours to SA in 1905 and 1909, where SA won
7-3.
a. You DON'T mention that from 1888 to 1904 England was 8W-0L vs.
SA, ALL in SA!
b. You DON'T mention that from 1912-1929 England was 16W-3L-8D vs.
SA, with 6 wins by an innings and 3 more by 10 wickets.

Yes, during the '30s, SA had a solid batting team and lost only one
Test to England, while winning two and drawing 12. However, their
bowling remained weak, as evidenced by the fact that in these 15 Tests,
England scored
7636 for 196 wickets, an average of 390 runs per ten-wicket innings.
By contrast, during the '30s England played 24 Ashes Tests and scored
13044 for 370 wickets vs. Aus, for an average of 353. (As significant
as the gap
of 37 runs per inning {about 10% higher vs. SA} is, it would have been
even greater if I had "selectively" excluded the absurd 24th Test and
last Test, the Oval "play to a conclusion" 903-7d by England, which
would have l
eft them averaging 334 runs, a difference of 56 runs or more than 16%
higher vs. SA).

c. You DON'T mention that, prior to the war, Aus vs. SA was
18W-1L-5D, that 8 of those wins were by an innings, four were by 10
wickets, and one was by 530 runs! Yes, SA was very competitive.

d. You DON'T mention that during the Bradman years, Aus was
9W-0L-1D vs. SA, and 4W-0L-1D even WITHOUT Bradman, in SA in '35-'36.

e. You DON'T mention that in the four Tests where he batted vs.
SA, Australia AVERAGED 451 for ten wickets. (Largely because of
Bradman's 201, of course. But how much would Headley have averaged
against this and In
dia's bowling attacks if he'd had the chance to face them? And, BTW,
no one has yet responded to my question: If you really feel Bradman
would do as well today as in the '30s (and please, folks, skip the Ty
Cobb-plagiar
ized line about how he'd be nearly 90!), do you believe he'd average
201 vs. RSA and 173 vs. India? Remember, I've never claimed Bradman
wouldn't be a great player today; only that he'd average one heck of a
lot less tha
n 100! My suggestion would be between 54 and 64.)

>
>> None
>>could support professionals, and all lost top players (who today
would
>>certainly pursue professional careers) to monetary or educational
>>pusuits;
>
>And now people lose players to other sports, there have been a few
people who've
>had to chose between AFL football and cricket, soccer and cricket etc.
>

>>

>>And the larger wickets, and better wicketkeeper's gloves,
>
>Wicket keeping gloves haven't changed much this century.

Really!? My mistake! I guess I must have left my club's gloves out in
the rain, and that webbing between the index finger and the thumb just
grew! Not a bad idea, though, some balls lodge there that might
otherwise sli
p through. Some cricket supply manufacturer should try it!

>>
>>>essentially the same as in the games earliest days.
>
>Nope, that's not true. The pads are roughly the same as they were in
the late
>1800s, the gloves now offer much better protection than those of the
30s.

>I'd say Pakistan is better than England, but I'd have a hard time

putting India
>ahead of England currently. Definately not outside India..
>
>> The usual argument is that "England aren't as good as they
>>used to be in the 30's-50s." This may be so, but no evidence for
this
>>is provided.
>
>Have a look at the techniques of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe,
Barrington
>etc. Then have a look at the current English "batsmen".
>Consider what Trueman was still doing in the late 60s.

Techniques, shmecniques! Go look at Hicks' technique when he's scoring
a quadruple century against county bowling vs. when he had to face
Ambrose, Walsh and Marshall a year later! Good "technique" is very
much "oppositi
on-dependent" and is another reason why watching players can be
deceptive in terms of judging their talent for success at a higher
level. Ask Ramps and Arthurton. (Which is NOT to say that Hobbs,
Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutt
on and Barrington weren't great batemen,
)
>

>>landed gentry
>
>Straw man time again.
>Care to find how many of the Amateurs were landed gentry in the 30s?
Allen
>wasn't.

Would you? How about some numbers here, if not before? Jardine,
Robins, Yardley (I know he was!)... Was allen of a privileged
background, however that "privielege was acquired? Did any of the above
NOT go to an English p
ublic school?

>
>> and Australians during the Ashes Tests of the '30s?
>
>Well I'd say that the spinners were as good as any who ever played,
O'Reilly,
>Grimmett, Rhodes, Verity, Ironmonger are a decent crowd.

I agree. How many of them did Bradman play Tests against, again?
Let's see, O'Reilly, Grimmett, and Ironmonger were Aussies, Rhodes
never played Tests in the '30s... Hm, Verity, the one Headley got 3
tons in 3 Tests aga
inst, without ever losing his wicket to. I thought so. (But that was
just chaff. I absolutely agree that Hedley was a superb spinner.)

>The batsmen in Hobbs,
>Sutcliffe, Hammond, Bradman etc on the footage I've seen had great
techniques
>and footwork. I would say that the fast bowling wasn't of the highest
standard,
>in general, but this can possibly be put down to the quicker wear of
the ball on
>pre-artificial fertilised pitches and the new ball rules of the time.
Definately
>many of the pre-war batsmen played the post war quicks of Miller,
Lindwall,
>Trueman, Davidson, Statham etc well when they came onto the scene.
>>
>>>In the
>>>"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
>>>of other sporting activities claim our attention.
>>
>>Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?

>
>I don't have statistics but I believe that many of the English schools
no longer
>have cricket fields.

Means nothing.

>
>>It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
>>considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war.
>
>Well yes, but now there is soccer, baseball, basketball and numerous
other
>summer games competing with cricket.
>
>> Hasn't England's population grown, too?
>
>Probably, leading to rising land prices and it being too costly to
keep parks
>and cricket fields for schools.
>

>

>I don't think that anyone will argue that the sprinters now aren't
faster than
>the sprinters in the amatuer days, but then again sprinting
_isn't_cricket. I
>don't believe that cricket training has had the same increase in
performance as
>running or swimming coaching has had.
>
>>>Fielding has improved; spin bowling has
>>>declined;
>>
>>Here I agree. Covered wickets have made spin-bowling a much less
>>effective tactic.
>
>I'd back Grimmett and O'Reilly against anyone, anywhere.

I'll take Ramadhin and Valentine, John Hall will take Lock and Laker,
and most of r.s.c. will take Chandra and Prasanna.

>
>> But this has been more than offset by the era of
>>great fast bowling.
>
>Well there have been a lot of great fast bowlers recently, but then
again
>Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Tyson, Trueman, Statham aren't a bad
collection from
>the 50s are they?

Not at all. And Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Roberts, Marshall, Croft,
Garner, Willis, Botham, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee aren't a bad collection
from '75-'84, are they? About twice as numerous, too, aren't they?

>> Imran, Kapil, Botham were all legitimate allrounders.
>
>At what stages of their careers? And how do you definate a legitimate
>allrounder?

I try not to definate (or definate on) allrounders. However, it's hard
to imagine a definition which wouldn't include those three but would
include the ones you list below, like Bailey and Faulkner, both of whom
I will g
rant. Bailey was contemporaneous with Miller, Faulkner with none of the
others.

>
>> Their only
>>historical challengers are Sobers, Miller, and Grace, none of whom
were
>>in their prime simultaneously.
>
>Well frankly I'd consider Faulkner to be up there. Bailey would be
thereabouts.
>Rhodes, Jack Gregory, Macartney, Monty Noble, TL Goddard, If sobers
comes in
>with a bowling average of 34 then so does Barlow, Woolley, Reid etc.
Worrell may
>also be worth a mention.

Get real! "if Sobers comes in?.." Are you seriously suggesting that
Sobers was NOT a serious allrounder? Sobers took 235 Test wickets, and
at any point from '64-'70 would have made any Test team in the world as
a bowle
r even if he'd batted like McGrath (instead of averaging 58). (Funny
you mention that 34 rpw average {due primarily, BTW, to his pre-1964
career as a spinner}, seeing that Larwood averaged 34.8 without 17
fielders behind
the bat on the leg side. And, BTW, since you keep mentioning f-c
performances, I believe that Sobers is STILL the only player to turn
the Australian double of 1000 runs and 50 wickets in a Sheffield Shield
season. And h
e did it TWICE in two years!

Goddard and Rhodes were legitimate all-rounders, the others were
batsmen who could bowl or bowlers who could bat.

>Well I'd agree with Hadlee being in the same class as Lindwall, I'd be
>stretching things to call Wasim Akram a test allrounder. Of course if
we do
>Davidson then comes in anyway, Tate also somewhere around here as does
Verity,
>Peter Pollock,
>
>> Jaya, Richards, and Border comparable to Hammond.
>
>Crap. Hammond 738 first class wickets @ 30.58, 83 test wickest @
37.80. compared
>to Border 102 first class wickets @ 39.06. 39 test wickets @ 39.10 but
more
>tests and a lot less wickets...

And a lot fewer deliveries, I'd bet. But YOU can look that up.

>Richards 223 first class wickets @ 45.15, 32 test wickets @ 61.37

Okay, when you're right, you're right. Richards was a bad choice. But
Jaya'syet to be determined.

>ADDED TO WHICH let's not forget that your argument is that it's the
increased
>professionalism which has provided the quality.

One among many factors that I've mentioned, foremost of which is spread
of the game to larger populations. The issue of monetary incentive was
raised primarily in response to Andy's claim that professionalism had
been ar
ound in cricket "in the 1880's," which, for all the claims about this
or that Maharajah, is nonsense when applied to most of the cricketing
world.

>Well the increased money came
>around during WSC. Hadlee was playing tests before World Series
Cricket, as was
>Imran and Botham, Kapil Dev made his debut in 78/79. in fact you could
argue
>that Botham and Kapil fell away when the rewards started coming their
way,
>botham never reclaimed his 81 form and Kapil fell away badly after the
mid 80s.
>>

>

>Sure, most players get worse with age, but how much worse?
>Bradman post war wasn't as good as pre-war but he still made the odd
run.
>Sobers also did fairly well with the bat in latter years. The question
is did
>they ever look out of their depth?
>
>Trueman bowled to Greg Chappell in the late 60s and gave Chappell a
heap of
>trouble. Trueman was almost certainly past his best.

Certainly conclusive. How old was Greg Chappell then?

>> Lloyd was never better as a batsman than in his last 7-8
>>years.
>
>well I don't know if I'd say that. he was performing well but I'd put
his peak
>in the mid 70s rather than the 80s.

He became skipper in 74-75 with a batting ave of about 37. He ended
his career in 84-85 with an ave of 46.67, and had just had some great
series. You do the arithmetic.

>
>> The batting of both Imran and Kapil also improved in their 30s.
>
>I'd probably agree with Imran's batting improving in his 30s as his
final
>average is 37.69 compared with 31.12 in 85. Kapil Dev finished with an
average
>of 31.05 while his average in 85 (when he was 26) was 30.30. Not a
significant
>difference.

Look at the full story before you try to punch holes. Kapil's ave in
85 may indeed have been 30.30. But in 90-91, it was about 26. To have
gotten it to 30+, I'd guess he must have averaged at least 40 over his
last 5 y
ears. It's pretty irrelevant to this whole discussion, but my facts are
correct (as, I'm sure, are yours). Check the numbers if you don't
believe me.

>
>In Imran's case I'd put a lot of it down to the fact that he was not
the strike
>bowler for the team late in his career.
>
>>

>>Of course, the evidence of players of the '20-'30s performing heroics

>>into their late 40s or even 50s (Rhodes, Hobbs, Ironmonger) suggests
>>that players in those days kept themselves in MUCH better shape than
>>today!
>
>Yep, left hand finger spin has _always_ been such a demanding thing to
bowl that
>nowadays finger spinners are gone physically in their 20s. Ironmonger,
rhodes,
>Blackie & Grimmett were all spin bowlers. Grimmett was a wrist
spinner, the
>others finger spinners. Spin bowlers often play on much longer than
anyone else
>(Titmas, embury spring to minds as modern examples).

Really! How far into their 50s did THEY play Test cricket?

> Hobbs was purely and simply
>the greatest technical batsman ever, as such his technique allowed him
to play
>on to an age where a more improvisational batsman (such as Viv) finds
the
>slowing reflexes and fading eyesight too much to overcome. Added to
which it
>must be admitted that the Australian pace attack of the 30s wasn't
great and
>that is the first thing which troubles older players, pace.
>

I give up, Hamish. It's a fool who argues with another about his
religion. And that's what cricket is, for both of us!

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <344244...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>

>
>> [...] Really, stick
>> to cricket, you know quite a bit about that.
>
> Well, thanks. But I know more about chess than about cricket,
>as it happens.

You said it, not me.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <61uo7k$6...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> bk...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

(Charles Levy) writes:
>
>
>Stephen A Devaux (ap...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>[Realms of good stuff that I've snipped, butwhich isn't altogether
convincing]
>
>Like I said, I've been itching to get a piece of this thread,
>but for various reasons including the vagaries of soft and
>hardware that don't seem to get along, I haven't had much of a
>chance ... so I hope that now I'm finally able to contribute
>my two dollars worth (inflation!) that I'm not too far behind
>the play.
>First of all, if I've read Steve right, his contention is that
>there has been improvement in the standard of play of all
>sports, ergo it is reasonable to assume that cricket is no
>exception - and by extension, presumably, the players
>themselves are also better.

Actually, I also feel that there have been other, structural, changes
(lbw, pitch-covering, front-foot rule, etc.) which make things not
"better," merely "different." One of the most salient of these is the
increase in wicket-size, which had the effect of greatly reducing
batting averages, so that pre-augmentation batsmen have inflated
averages.

>While I do not entirely disagree
>with his premise, I would throw in two caveats. First of all,
>just generally, I'm not sure how significant the basic
>improvement has been; that is, in many instances, a perceived
>improvement in performance is very often the result of a very
>definite improvement in equipment.

Agreed.

>Does anyone feel certain
>that Donovan Bailey could leave Jesse Owens in his dust if the
>latter had the use of and been trained in modern running shoes
>and coming out of modern starting blocks, dressed in skin
>tight aero-dynamic latex shorts? And is anyone sure that the
>reigning pole vault champion would be able to acheive any
>greater heights than vaulters from the thirties if he was to
>swap his "elastic" fibre glass pole for the good old bamboo
>pole of days gone by? I grant you that this does not tell the
>entire story (it doesn't really account for the increase in
>long jump performances, for instance) but I do think that
>equipment, clothing and probably improved technique are
>equally responsible for increased or improved performance.

Complete agreeement, and what Jesse, Bob Richards, Roger Bannister,
et.al. were able to accomplish, against objective metrics, DESPITE
unevolved training techniques, equipment, etc. is the highest tribute
to them. Donovan Bailey stands so high in part because he stands on
Jesse's shoulders.

>[And talking of equipment, if anyone really thinks that
>"bodyline" depressed the Don's performance, what odd's of it
>doing so if he had had access to a helmet, a visor, chest
>protector and elbow pads?]

He'd have been more confident. But he'd STILL have had a heck of a
time avoiding chance-giving and scoring with all the leg-side fielders.
With the banishment of Bodyline also went leg-theory bowling, with the
limit of two fielders behind square leg.

>But coming closer to the subject, my second caveat is that
>cricket cannot be lumped with "other sports" for which
>significant improvement is deemed to be a sort of evolutionary
>given. Look at the sport which is more nearly related to
>cricket than any other ... baseball. When was the last time
>someone had a .400 season average? When was the record number
>of homeruns in a season (despite the fact that there are more
>games played today)? When was the last perfect game in a World
>Series ... or even in season play? My point is of course, that
>despite your Ken Griffeys and McGuires, Clemenses and Cones,
>are we really seeing perfomances superior to Ruth's or
>Mantle's or Cobb's or Whitey Ford's ?

My feeling entirely. Baseball, like cricket, has no objective metrics
and is a mano a mano battle between offence and defence. Babe Ruth is
the closest sports figure to Don Bradman. Both took their sports at a
similar stage of development and made aquantum leap in the technique of
demolishing a bowler/pitcher. The Babe's early '20s slugging
percentages in the .840s are as much an outlyer as the Don's 91 average

vs. England in the '30s.

But both the Don and the Babe benefited from facing competition that
was limited, comparwed to today: in the Don's case because WI, India,
Pakistan, NZ and SA had not yet developed, so that the "talent pool"
was smaller; ine the Babe's case because black and (most) Latino
players were excluded from competition. When the populations were
expanded, the equilibrium level between offence and defence stabilized
in both sports at a significantly lower level of achievement than the
early stars were able to maintain.

The big difference between the two sports is that I find fewer (though
still some!) baseball fans claiming that the Babe would dominate today
as he did in the '20s-'30s.

And ALL knowledgeable baseball fans admit that when the strike zone was
increased in size in 1968, it had an immediate effect in depressing
batting performance. Other than on this ng, I've never heard or read
ANYONE making reference to the change in wicket size. When I started
asking about it, and when I did my statistical searches, I did not know
that I'd find what I did. The fact that the results correlate with
what the baseball model (which, truth to tell, had triggered my
curiosity) suggested, was therefore all the more interesting.

I ABSOLUTELY feel that there is no straight line upward! Events
trigger reactions, which trigger progress. I think I could get much
agreement on the big events in baseball since Babe Ruth that have
prodded its evolution: (1) The introduction of black players '47-'60.
(2) The increasing frequency of night baseball '47 - '60. (3) The
increasing TV contracts, '60 - present. (4) The development of relief
specialists '61 - '85. (5) The influx of Latin players '65-present.
(6) The huge salaries of free agency, '75 - present. These have caused
such leaps in evolution that I really doubt that Babe Ruth would be a
star today (at least, unless he got in shape!).

In cricket, by far the greatest trigger to evolutionary improvement was
the spreading of the sport to the populations outside Aus and Eng.
Another big trigger was the Packer revolution and salary increases,
with the simultaneous increase in ODI. Others of significance were the
covering of pitches and the increase in wicket size.
>
>Cheers!
>Charles

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <Kry2RABG...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
<ne...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <3441B4...@edn.gu.edu.au>,

> Christian Kelly <C.K...@edn.gu.edu.au> writes:
>>Hey everyone
>>
>>I've got at idea for improving the standard of cricket
>>worldwide, overnight- just add another stump!
>>
>>:-)
>>

>I have an idea from somewhere that they did actually experiment with
>that for one season in county cricket in England (1939?).
>--

It was abandoned at the request of Bradman's wife, who found it
suddenly impossible to capture his middle stump.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <61l6g5$drj$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au> Joshua Saunders

<jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
>
>In article <61b8gf$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>Stephen A Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <3438F3...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
>><a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing in the figures,
>>>or even in grainy old films, tells you about that. Nothing in
>>>temporal "snapshots" [statistics for, say, 1930] *can* tell us about
>>>that [though some correlations, such as the improvement in batting
>>>figures as pitches improved in the 1880s and '90s,...
>>
>>And increases in bowled/lbw dismissals per country when the wicket
size
>>was expanded in the mid-late '30s. Let's face it, it's pretty hard
to
>
>Except Steve, as you perfectly well know, the size of the wickets was
>changed inthe EARLY 30s, and had no discernible effect on anything.

Except, Josh, as you perfectly well know, it wasn't. Wicket height was
increased to 28 inches some time in the 30s, but it varied by host
country and touring team. When in the 30s width was increased, I don't
know. I know it was quite a bit later than the height increase. I
know that because none of the photos I have from the 30s show a wicket
height-to-width ratio of 3.1:1. Most show it at 3.5:1 (28 in. by 8
in.) or maybe a bit less (one very clear photo from '30 is pretty
definitely 27 in. by 8 in.)

Oh, and the effect was as discernible as the difference in the photos.

>
>>make the argument that increasing the size of the wicket made batting
>>EASIER! 'Though I expect that hypothesis to be promulgated shortly
on
>>this newsgroup.
>
>Bla.
>

Bradman DIDN't have to face Aus, is factored out, it's Bradman's
>>91 average vs. Headley's 78 average vs. England in the '30s. (I hate
to
>
>Here we go again. Headley also faced "ICC-Trophy-level" opposition.
The
>difference between himself and Bradman, was that Headley faced such
>opposition when he played England. No doubt you will carry on
insisting
>that assorted bods who played a series against WI in the 30s (and
never
>another Test, before or since)

Like Voce, Rhodes, Farnes, Hollies?

> were superior bowlers to the likes of
>Constantine, Francis, Bell, Vincent, Mankad and Phadkar. But I insist
that
>Bradman's series averages of 74, 201 and 178 against so-called
"ICC-trophy
>level opposition" are the performances that should be compared with
>Headley against dismal English bowling during the 30s, not Bradman's
91
>average against far superior English bowling.

Like the Larwood of the 34.8 non-bodyline average? And the Verity whom
Headley scored 3 tons against in England, without ever losing his
wicket to him? Far as I can determine These guys made their reps
against Aus whingers! (Just kidding, espec. about Verity! That's as
ridiculous as your statements about the attacks Headley faced.)

>Actually, a look at the
>above bowlers and how they performed against an Australian batting
lineup
>that was at all times strong, suggests that the real problem with WI,
SA
>and India during these series, was batting.

Their problem was on the cricket field.

>>keep repeating this, but feel I have to as long as people ignore
these
>>facts.) The difference (14.3%) is much less that certain
>>contemporaneous batsmen who often get "bracketed" and
>>compared: less than the 20.3% between Ken Barrington's 58.67 and
P.B.H.
>>May's 46.77 (or Dexter's 47.89, Graveney's 44.38, Cowdrey's 44.06);
>>less than Weekes' 58.61 over Worrell's 49.48 (15.6%); much less than
>>Sobers's 57.78 over Kanhai's 47.53 or Nurse's 47.60; less than Viv's
>>50ish vs. Rowe's 43.55. Bradman's record was clearly better than
>>Headley's, but not such an "outlyer" as people often insist, if
>>reasonable corrections for empirical consistency are made.
>
>OK fine. Bradman against "ICC-level opposition" averaged 140 odd.
Headley
>averaged 78 or so.

Nope. Headley never faced those ICC level attacks, remember? That was
Bradman.

> Bradman was MUCH better than Headley.

Oops! I guess I was wrong again. Your incisive debating points win
the day!

>That's Dessie Haynes to Phil Simmons, or Ken Rutherford to Martin
Crowe.
>
>

>> can
>>you point to even ONE where the objective metrics have declined?
>
>Female sprinting? Yeah, ho bloody ho.

Huh? Bloody huh?

>

>
>In Australia and England there were absolutely more boys and men
playing
>cricket in the 30s than there are now.

If you repeat that enough times, will it make it true? Or do you have
some numbers?

> Of course the best of that
>particular pot were not a scratch on the current mob from a smaller
pool.
>We know this, because tennis players and javelin throwers are better
NOW.
>
>>>only SL
>>>is a genuinely new Test country since the 1930s
>>
>>I suspect that, if you count, you'll see that, in terms of the number
>>of Test matches it has played, SL *already* has more Test experience
>>than India, NZ, West Indies and Pakistan were able to accumulate
until
>>the '60s! Until the '50s all of the above were novices to Test
>>cricket, ALWAYS easy pickings for Aus, and often for England. None
>
>Umm yeah. Prior to the 50s, Australia played exactly 3 series against
the
>abvoe nations. And one of those series constituted a single Test.
England
>OTOH struggled against WI, drawing the 29/30 series, and losing in
34/5,
>47/8 and 50. Maybe England were stunningly weak during these years.
OTOH
>maybe they took a crap team.

>
>

>Australia couldn't support professionals either, so Australia must
have
>been a weak nation during the years in question.
>
>>>[and SL too has a
>>>long history of high-class cricket], and the equipment is, apart
>>>from the change to rolled pitches in the 1880s,
>>
>>And the larger wickets, and better wicketkeeper's gloves,
>
>And a bigger ball. And covers for the pitches. And the 3rd umpire. And
>boxes made from materials other than Tin.

> Until it is, I have to believe that these countries have
>>just improved faster than England (because I think England actually
is
>>better than it was back then).
>
>Well you would. England now chooses it's team from a tiny pool of boys
who
>have played the game in their youth, and mostly restricted to those
>wealthy enough to attend the oddly named "Public schools". In the 50s
(and
>even more so in the 30s) however, the game was much more widely spread
and
>popular withthe young.
>
>But of course, Malcolm is better than Tyson and Atherton is better
than
>Hutton. They must be, because people run faster these days, and
today's
>rowers put their 50s counterparts to shame.
>

>>>In the

>>>"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
>>>of other sporting activities claim our attention.
>>
>>Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?
>
>Yes there are statistics on this.

Could we have it then, please. Or shall we just accept your word, as
you expect us to accept the deity of The Don?

>
>>It certainly is a counter-intuitive truth as regards Australia,
>>considering how much larger its population is now than pre-war.
>
>Huh? You've not heard of TV? Apparently they didn't have it in the
30s.
>How about CDs? Video games? Basketball? Cars? Bands, nightclubs? The
>variety of options for the young to "be into" in the late 90s, is not
>comparable to the 30s. There were fewer options for recreation in the
30s,
>those that did exist to any degree, were patronised by a larger
percentage
>of the population.
>
>>Hasn't
>>England's population grown, too? Also, is the fact that we see no
more
>>Fred Perrys, nor English soccer World Cup champs, or whatever the
names
>>were of those guys who won the sprinter titles at the '24 Olympics,
>>also due to decline of players in those sports? It couldn't be that
>>there are more guys in England running faster 100 m. than those guys
in
>>'24, but just not able to compete with today's top sprinters (other
>>than those now living in England who couldn't have competed in '24)?
>
>You've not heard of Linford Christie then? Allen Wells? Hmmm?

Oh, you believe Linford Christie would have been able to compete for
England in '24? Hm.

>
>>England, of course, has GREATLY improved its standard of chess. But
>>surely not ALL the fast bowlers and strikers are playing chess?
>
>No, they are going to comprehensive schools and if good enough and fit
>enough, looking to play at Wembley, not Lords.
>
>>>bits-and-pieces players are more in demand, as onedayitis
>>>distorts the game, but true all-rounders are scarce.
>>
>>
>>Can you point to an era which had more salient allrounders than the
>>'80s? Imran, Kapil, Botham were all legitimate allrounders. Their
only
>>historical challengers are Sobers, Miller, and Grace, none of whom
were
>>in their prime simultaneously. Hadlee and Wasim are in the Lindwall
>>and Benaud class; Jaya, Richards, and Border comparable to Hammond.

>
>Imran Kapil and Botham were certainyl legitimate all rounders, who
came on
>the scene around the time their countries had played 10-20 ODIs, and
>certainly not because of the ODI phenomenon. Where are the next
>generation? Wasim Akram? Anyone else? Or is Brian McMillan a natural
ODI
>talent?
>

>> Most batsmen decline with age. Some retire before the effects are
>>fully evident (Seymour Nurse, Gordon Greenidge, Miandad, Sobers)
while
>>with others (Botham, Richards, Worrell, Kanhai, Gavaskar, Gooch),
it's
>>easy to see.
>
>Miandad? Huh? So you didn't see the World Cup either? :-)
>
>Josh

Well, Josh, we too will just have to agree to disagree. In the case of
the "Bradman is God" movements, they are definitly blessed, for no
evidence shall ever overcome their faith. And faith is a wondrous
thing.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>> >>Now, this is completely different. The wickets WERE smaller;

> >Well actually they were changed in 1931.
> Well, actually they weren't.

True; in England it was 1929, exc for the 1930 Australians
who insisted on playing with the smaller wickets; from 1931 it was
the Law. Which is not to say that there were not matches [esp minor
matches] played with old equipment, perhaps for some years.

> But SOMETHING happened to make wicket-related dismissals SIGNIFICANTLY
> more com
> mon in '38, coincident with wicket-size increase.

Well, no, the 1934 Australians also played with the larger
wickets. But I did note one curious statistic while checking out
Larwood's record: of his 33 wickets in 1932-33, only one was
"c Ames", tho' there were 15 other catches. Indeed, Ames took less
than one catch per innings [and Oldfield was no more prolific], less
than 20% of the total. Even third-rate WKs today [and A&O were not
3rd-rate] do better than that, so I am driven to conclude that there
was some aspect of the play in those years that caused fewer snicks.
Any ideas? [I haven't checked the figures for other years, so perhaps
1932-33 was an anomaly.]

> [...] The issue of monetary incentive was

> raised primarily in response to Andy's claim that professionalism had
> been ar
> ound in cricket "in the 1880's," which, for all the claims about this
> or that Maharajah, is nonsense when applied to most of the cricketing
> world.

I'm not sure what your counter-claim is. Throughout the
history cricket, *most* f-c players in the UK have been professionals;
the first great spread of cricket in the UK came from the [pro] touring
XIs in the middle of the 19thC, the tours to Oz and elsewhere in the
2nd half of the 19thC were very largely pro, etc. Until the 1930s or
so, that means that most f-c cricket world-wide was pro. If you want
to say that pro cricket pre-WW2 was largely [tho' not wholly] confined
to the UK, then that's true; but doesn't invalidate my point. If you
want to contest my claim that there were probably more pro cricketers
in the 1880s than today, then it's no use claiming that more people
play world-wide now, you must point to some of these new pros, for my
expectation is that most [ie almost all] of the cricket played by the
hundreds of millions of players in India and Pakistan, let alone the
smaller numbers in WIndies, Sri Lanka, etc., is amateur. And I mean
"pro", not "world-class Test player". Does every village in India
have its cricket professional? If so, then I stand corrected. If
not, if only the major teams and organisations in India employ paid
cricketers, then you're going to have problems getting up to the
levels of professionalism in UK cricket of the olden days.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
> In <61l6g5$drj$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au> Joshua Saunders
> <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
> >In Australia and England there were absolutely more boys and men
> playing
> >cricket in the 30s than there are now.
> If you repeat that enough times, will it make it true? Or do you have
> some numbers?

Well, I have some. Sadly, I'm not sure what they are. From
time immemorial [pre-1900], through my time, up to the 1970s, virtually
every school in the UK played cricket in the summer. Today, the figure
is 15%. But I don't know whether that is of all schools, of state
schools [93% of the total], of secondary schools, or of children.
Whichever, it's a massive reduction [the population has not changed
significantly over the period], and we have to expect a serious decline
in the performance of the UK in competitive team sports. There are
counter-measures; "individual" sports are booming, personal fitness
and leisure are booming, health clubs, jogging, etc. Football may
escape the general decline because of the levels of interest in the
population at large, because of the rewards, and because of the amount
played in the playground, on local recs/parks, etc; but it would be
amazing if the UK can remain competitive in cricket, hockey, and
perhaps even athletics over the next decade or so, *unless* some daft
policies in schools are reversed.

While they were at state schools, my children [in the 1990s]
played *no* competitive sports or games *at all*. They were
encouraged to exercise, to learn to swim, to run round obstacle
courses, etc [they did have a playing field], but not to form teams,
and not to try to beat each other. If they had had any great talent
for sports, it's difficult to see how it could have been spotted or
encouraged. Indeed, it would probably have been suppressed, in the
same way as any sign of talent at maths [for eg] was suppressed, in
the interests of equality. I don't think their school was unusual;
it was middle-class and highly rated. There are some signs that the
politicians may be about to over-rule the educationists on this one,
but I shan't be holding my breath.

> >>>In the
> >>>"old" countries, *fewer* people play than before, as a great variety
> >>>of other sporting activities claim our attention.
> >>Is there a statistic on this, or is this just a truth we must accept?
> >Yes there are statistics on this.
> Could we have it then, please.

See above! But it is easily visible that individual and
"exercise" sports [badminton, snooker, bowls, swimming, marathon
running/jogging, golf and the like] are booming compared with the
1950s, say, while cricket is in decline.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
> With the banishment of Bodyline also went leg-theory bowling, with the
> limit of two fielders behind square leg.

I find it difficult to relate the events of the 1930s to the
fielding limit, introduced in 1978 as an experiment, and as a Law in
the 1980 Code. Tho' I have it in mind that there was a different
restriction made experimentally in the early '70s -- but I can find
no trace of it in Wisden. In any event, the fielding restrictions
were made in the interests of "brighter cricket", nothing to do with
bodyline, which was really not an issue between the mid-'30s and the
recent revival of concern leading to the "two-bouncer" experiments.

> My feeling entirely. Baseball, like cricket, has no objective metrics
> and is a mano a mano battle between offence and defence. Babe Ruth is

> the closest sports figure to Don Bradman. [...]

Well, yes in the sense that baseball is the nearest other sport
to cricket, and BR is baseball's DB. But purely in terms of dominance,
there have been other comparable figures: several boxers [Marciano,
even Clay/Ali, who though fallible nevertheless left a permanent mark
on the sport, quite a few at lesser weights]; Ed Moses, Sergei Bubka
in athletics [not as hand-to-hand, but definitely a contest!]; Joe
Davies in snooker; Marion Tinsley in draughts [if you count that a
sport!]; Fangio in motor sport; Redgrave in rowing; I'm sure there
are others.

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:50:19 +0100, "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> wrote:

>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>> With the banishment of Bodyline also went leg-theory bowling, with the
>> limit of two fielders behind square leg.
>

> I find it difficult to relate the events of the 1930s to the
>fielding limit, introduced in 1978 as an experiment, and as a Law in
>the 1980 Code.

To what new restriction are you referring? The 1947 Code states "The
number of on-side fielders behind the popping crease at the instant of
the bowler's delivery shall not exceed two." (Law 44, note 3)

Since that part of the 1947 Code was introduced as a direct result of
the Bodyline controversy (would have been earlier but for the
suspension of international cricket for political reasons in the early
1940s), it is hard to see what your point is.

Cheers,

Mike

[Charles Levy]

Walrus (n159...@sparrow.qut.edu.au) writes:
> Maybe so, but what would you call it - we have leg-stump, middle stump and
> off-stump. What would we call the fourth one?? :-)

I gave the problem a lot of thought, but it stumps me!
Cheers!
Charles

>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Christian Kelly wrote:
>
> # Hey everyone
> # I've got at idea for improving the standard of cricket
> # worldwide, overnight- just add another stump!
> # :-)

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <344502...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"

<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:

>> With the banishment of Bodyline also went leg-theory bowling, with
the
>> limit of two fielders behind square leg.
>

> I find it difficult to relate the events of the 1930s to the
>fielding limit, introduced in 1978 as an experiment, and as a Law in

>the 1980 Code. Tho' I have it in mind that there was a different
>restriction made experimentally in the early '70s -- but I can find
>no trace of it in Wisden. In any event, the fielding restrictions
>were made in the interests of "brighter cricket", nothing to do with
>bodyline, which was really not an issue between the mid-'30s and the
>recent revival of concern leading to the "two-bouncer" experiments.

The two-fielders-behind-square-leg limit was used in several Test
series in the Caribbean at least as early as '62. Sometimes an
additional limit regarding not more than five fielders on the leg side
would also be in effect. The Barbados Advocate gave the reason for
these rules (agreed to by the teams) as being "to elimate the
possibility of leg-theory bowling." I'm sure the motive for this was
"brighter cricket". Leg theory was a tactic started in the late
'20s-early '30s of bowling to the leg side with a leg side field.
Bodyline was the ultimate extension of what at the time was termed
"negative" bowling.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <344509...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"

<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>> In <61l6g5$drj$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au> Joshua Saunders
>> <jos...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
>> >In Australia and England there were absolutely more boys and men
>> playing
>> >cricket in the 30s than there are now.
>> If you repeat that enough times, will it make it true? Or do you
have
>> some numbers?
>

> Well, I have some. Sadly, I'm not sure what they are. From
>time immemorial [pre-1900], through my time, up to the 1970s,
virtually
>every school in the UK played cricket in the summer. Today, the
figure
>is 15%. But I don't know whether that is of all schools, of state
>schools [93% of the total], of secondary schools, or of children.

Which it would be makes quite a difference.

>Whichever, it's a massive reduction [the population has not changed
>significantly over the period], and we have to expect a serious
decline
>in the performance of the UK in competitive team sports. There are

>and leisure are booming, health clubs, jogging, etc. Football may
>escape the general decline because of the levels of interest in the
>population at large, because of the rewards, and because of the amount
>played in the playground, on local recs/parks, etc; but it would be
>amazing if the UK can remain competitive in cricket, hockey, and
>perhaps even athletics over the next decade or so, *unless* some daft
>policies in schools are reversed.

Strangely, I'm not prepared to argue over something about which I know
NOTHING! (A merest gleaning, yes; nothing, no!) The situation you
describe IS very sad. The fault, I suggest, lies at least as much with
the cricket authorities, who should have a vested interest in promotion
of the game, as with the schools. Sad, whichever way,

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <3444FD...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
>>> >>Now, this is completely different. The wickets WERE smaller;

>> >Well actually they were changed in 1931.
>> Well, actually they weren't.
>

> True; in England it was 1929, exc for the 1930 Australians
>who insisted on playing with the smaller wickets;

I wonder why?

>...from 1931 it was

>the Law. Which is not to say that there were not matches [esp minor
>matches] played with old equipment, perhaps for some years.

Again, you're clipping my statements to leave out the meat. So let me
repeat it again: The HEIGHT of the wicket was increased in the early
'30s; THE WIDTH REMAINED 8 INCHES UNTIL CONSIDERABLY LATER IN THE
DECADE. And
this was reflected by a large initial increase in bowled/lbw
dismissals. And, again, this applies to England only. What happened
elsewhere we don't know. I would not be surprised if wicket width
remained at 8 inches els
ewhere till the post-war standardization law.

>> But SOMETHING happened to make wicket-related dismissals
SIGNIFICANTLY
>> more com
>> mon in '38, coincident with wicket-size increase.
>

> Well, no, the 1934 Australians also played with the larger
>wickets.

Well, no, the 1934 Aussies played with the 28" x 8" wicket. Check a
photo and you'll see the proportion was 3.5:1.

> But I did note one curious statistic while checking out
>Larwood's record: of his 33 wickets in 1932-33, only one was
>"c Ames", tho' there were 15 other catches. Indeed, Ames took less
>than one catch per innings [and Oldfield was no more prolific], less
>than 20% of the total. Even third-rate WKs today [and A&O were not
>3rd-rate] do better than that, so I am driven to conclude that there
>was some aspect of the play in those years that caused fewer snicks.
>Any ideas? [I haven't checked the figures for other years, so perhaps
>1932-33 was an anomaly.]

Well, I could remark that the old keeper gloves (which I was informed
here were *identical* to the modern ones; haven't heard a retraction on
that yet) meant that they couldn't hold the ball. But I suspect the
reasons ar
e more prosaic. In general, the greater concentration on spin at the
time would make snicks and caught behinds less common (while, of
course, making stumpings far MORE common; Clyde Walcott remains the
all-time leader am
ong WI keepers in stumpings, while having kept in many fewer games than
either of the Murrays or Dujon). As far as Larwood specifically in
'32-33 is concerned, I suspect that bodyline, with the ball moving in
to the bats
man, was much less likely to result in a catch to the keeper than an
outswinger.

>> [...] The issue of monetary incentive was

>> raised primarily in response to Andy's claim that professionalism
had
>> been ar
>> ound in cricket "in the 1880's," which, for all the claims about
this
>> or that Maharajah, is nonsense when applied to most of the
cricketing
>> world.
>

> I'm not sure what your counter-claim is. Throughout the
>history cricket, *most* f-c players in the UK have been professionals;
>the first great spread of cricket in the UK came from the [pro]
touring
>XIs in the middle of the 19thC, the tours to Oz and elsewhere in the
>2nd half of the 19thC were very largely pro, etc. Until the 1930s or
>so, that means that most f-c cricket world-wide was pro. If you want
>to say that pro cricket pre-WW2 was largely [tho' not wholly] confined
>to the UK, then that's true;

If this is to agree that prior to the war, top level cricket was
limited to two countries, I agree. In fact, it's what I've been saying
for weeks!

>but doesn't invalidate my point. If you
>want to contest my claim that there were probably more pro cricketers
>in the 1880s than today, then it's no use claiming that more people
>play world-wide now, you must point to some of these new pros, for my
>expectation is that most [ie almost all] of the cricket played by the
>hundreds of millions of players in India and Pakistan, let alone the
>smaller numbers in WIndies, Sri Lanka, etc., is amateur.

Of course it is! Only the best players in most of these countries are
pros, and make their money from playing for the national teams or in
English cricket. And in the past, many promising players from these
countries ga
ve up the game because they had NO chance of making a good living!
Now, they at least have a chance! And THAT's one reason why the GLOBAL
standard of Test cricket has improved.

>And I mean
>"pro", not "world-class Test player". Does every village in India
>have its cricket professional? If so, then I stand corrected. If
>not, if only the major teams and organisations in India employ paid
>cricketers, then you're going to have problems getting up to the
>levels of professionalism in UK cricket of the olden days.

So what? What on earth does the number of pros in England have to do
with the overall quality of global Test cricket, which started this
whole discussion? Precious little!

[Walrus]

Maybe so, but what would you call it - we have leg-stump, middle stump and
off-stump. What would we call the fourth one?? :-)

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Christian Kelly wrote:

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Mike Holmans wrote:
[I wrote:]

> > I find it difficult to relate the events of the 1930s to the
> >fielding limit, introduced in 1978 as an experiment, and as a Law in
> >the 1980 Code.

Firstly an apology; I had a "thinko" and misplaced the change
by a decade; see below. Luckily, this does not affect the argument.

> To what new restriction are you referring? The 1947 Code states "The
> number of on-side fielders behind the popping crease at the instant of
> the bowler's delivery shall not exceed two." (Law 44, note 3)

Indeed it does. But not in 1947. Nor in 1948. Nor 1949, ...,
nor 1960, .... Law 44 note 3 makes its first appearance in the *1970*
printing, following a short experiment. In pre-1970 Wisdens, there is
*no* 44(3). The Laws do evolve, even between Codes!

> Since that part of the 1947 Code was introduced as a direct result of
> the Bodyline controversy (would have been earlier but for the
> suspension of international cricket for political reasons in the early
> 1940s), it is hard to see what your point is.

Nice theory, but not in accordance with the facts. The guff
about "persistent ... fast short-pitched balls at the batsman ... is
unfair" was added essentially on the spot when bodyline was deemed
undesirable. By contrast, 44(3) waited for WW2, the 1947 Code, *and*
a further 23 years before anyone thought to add it.

If you need confirmation beyond Wisden, you can find plenty
of photographs of "illegal" fields. Laker's standard "aggressive"
field had a ring of from 4 to 6 in the leg trap, and others deep on
the leg side. The "Carmody" [umbrella] field, occasionally used by
many fast bowlers of the '50s and '60s had 4 leg slips. But in the
interests of "brighter cricket" [much discussed from WW2 through to
the growth of 1-day cricket], the restriction to 2 behind square on
the leg side [and to 5 in total on the leg side] was introduced to
stop "negative" leg theory; sadly, it also stopped "positive" leg
theory [nothing to do with bodyline!].

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Stephen A Devaux wrote:
> Again, you're clipping my statements to leave out the meat. So let me
> repeat it again: The HEIGHT of the wicket was increased in the early
> '30s; THE WIDTH REMAINED 8 INCHES UNTIL CONSIDERABLY LATER IN THE
> DECADE.

Well, you must take this up with Wisden, Rait-Kerr ["The Laws
of Cricket"] and Brodribb ["Next Man In"]. Their version is that the
height and width changed simultaneously. I'll quote Brodribb, 1952 Ed,
p142:

"The height remained at 27 by 8 until 1931 when an extra inch was
again added to make the wicket now 28 by 9. [Anecdotes about 1929,
1930 and 1030-31 snipped -- ANW] Incidentally, when the bigger
stumps were introduced, many makers matched them with bails which
had not only the extra length, but were altogether bigger [... thus
breaking the half-inch rule ...]. In the Test Matches at Sydney in
1932-3, for instance, the bails were said to have projected almost
twice as much as this above the top of the stumps [...]."

Brodribb goes on to discuss other experiments with larger wickets,
including the 36x12 wicket used as a handicap in an experiment in
1837 and Wyatt's "4th stump" proposal; but "Despite the hopes ...
the increase in 1931 did not appear to make much difference to the
level of scoring, ....".

So, the Law seems to have been quite clear, and to have been
implemented at least in England, South Africa and Australia for all
important matches by 1932.

> And
> this was reflected by a large initial increase in bowled/lbw
> dismissals.

Have you considered the effect of the 1937 change to lbw?
[Actually, there were several changes from 1929 onwards, but 1937 was
the "important" change (after which balls pitching to the off side
could gain an lbw).]

> Well, no, the 1934 Aussies played with the 28" x 8" wicket. Check a
> photo and you'll see the proportion was 3.5:1.

Perhaps. I couldn't find a suitable photo "instantly". A
1932-33 photo is clearly 3.5:1 *from behind leg slip*, which is what
I'd expect a 28" x 9" wicket to show. If I ever get sufficiently
interested, I might chase up some more examples and check.

> Well, I could remark that the old keeper gloves (which I was informed
> here were *identical* to the modern ones; haven't heard a retraction on

> that yet) [...]

If that's a reference to me again, you were misinformed. My
claim was that "the equipment is ... essentially the same". Protection
[WK and batting] may be better, but there has been nothing to enhance
performance comparable with tartan tracks and fibre-glass poles [for
athletics], modern balls and rackets [tennis], more aerodynamic balls
and whippier clubs [golf], etc.

> [...] As far as Larwood specifically in

> '32-33 is concerned, I suspect that bodyline, with the ball moving in
> to the bats
> man, was much less likely to result in a catch to the keeper than an
> outswinger.

Makes you wonder how he got all those "bowled"s, then, if he
was bowling bouncing inswingers outside the leg stump.

> So what? What on earth does the number of pros in England have to do
> with the overall quality of global Test cricket, which started this
> whole discussion? Precious little!

Your initial claim was about *professionalism*. The degree of
professionalism in the UK has declined by around 70-80% since the boom
of the 1880s, and by perhaps 50% since the 1930s. So on the one hand
I see *no* evidence that the standard of f-c or Test cricket in the UK
is any higher than it was in those days [reminding you again that lack
of evidence is not evidence of lack], nor any reason based on your
arguments about increased numbers and evolution why it should be; and
on the other hand, I see no evidence that the UK is *significantly*
behind the rest of the world -- we have won Tests against every major
country in recent years [and lost some!]. If we beat you in WI over
the next few months, it will be a pleasant prospect, but not a huge
shock of "Luxembourg beats USA at baseball" dimensions. Putting those
two hands together, we have *no* evidence based on either numbers or
professionalism to claim *significantly* higher quality world-wide.
If you still want to make that claim, you will have to find *other*
evidence. Not just trolls about Compton and Larwood, but objective
evidence. I've suggested one that might be possible [viz if careers
of cricketers are shorter than their physical fitness levels might
otherwise suggest]; we may be able to think of others.

[John Hall]

In article <344775...@maths.nott.ac.uk>,

"Dr A. N. Walker" <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

This seems to disagree with what the article "Dates in Cricket History",
which appeared in a number of editions of Wisden over the years, has to
say. This was first compiled by H.S.Altham for the 1941 edition, and was
subsequently taken over by another eminent cricket historian, Rowland
Bowen. It appeared in the 1966 edition, from which I quote below, but
its appearance tended to be irregular, and it hasn't appeared for many
years. The section on The Wicket reads:

Year Stumps Height Bails Breadth
c 1700 2 22 inches 1 6 inches
c 1776 3 22 inches 1 6 inches
1785 3 22 inches 2 or 1 6 inches
1798 3 24 inches 2 or 1 7 inches
c 1819 3 26 inches 2 7 inches
c 1823 3 27 inches 2 8 inches
1931 3 28 inches 2 +9 inches

+ Optional till 1947.

<end quote>

If the more important change, that in width, was optional till 1947 we
can reasonably assume that it would have been adopted in different
countries at different dates, and possibly also for different grades of
cricket (club, first-class, Test) at different dates within a single
country.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

[Dr A. N. Walker]

John Hall wrote:
> > So, the Law seems to have been quite clear, and to have been
> >implemented at least in England, South Africa and Australia for all
> >important matches by 1932.

> This seems to disagree [...]

> If the more important change, that in width, was optional till 1947 we
> can reasonably assume that it would have been adopted in different
> countries at different dates, and possibly also for different grades of
> cricket (club, first-class, Test) at different dates within a single
> country.

Well, yes, but the Brodribb anecdotes show that the wider
wickets were in use in England for all county matches from 1929, and
in Oz and SA in Tests by 1932. My assumption would be that it was
made optional because this is the only change in the Laws since time
immemorial that *requires* all clubs, at every level, to throw away
some old equipment and buy new. We'd have the same dispensation if
the Laws changed to make boundary ropes compulsory, for eg; there'd
be a changeover period of some years while fences and paint were
permitted [but deprecated].

The fact that some club matches may have continued to be
played with old bails for a few years doesn't show that any f-c
cricket was similarly thus played. Indeed, I'd expect the counties,
and other f-c sides, to invest in new wickets every year, and to play
with up-to-date equipment. The professionals wouldn't be very happy
to switch between sizes from match to match!

[John Hall]

In article <344B8E...@maths.nott.ac.uk>,

"Dr A. N. Walker" <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

>John Hall wrote:
>> > So, the Law seems to have been quite clear, and to have been
>> >implemented at least in England, South Africa and Australia for all
>> >important matches by 1932.

>> This seems to disagree [...]
>> If the more important change, that in width, was optional till 1947 we
>> can reasonably assume that it would have been adopted in different
>> countries at different dates, and possibly also for different grades of
>> cricket (club, first-class, Test) at different dates within a single
>> country.
>
> Well, yes, but the Brodribb anecdotes show that the wider
>wickets were in use in England for all county matches from 1929,

I assume this must have been as an Experimental Law, then, as this date
is two years earlier than Bowen gives.

> and
>in Oz and SA in Tests by 1932. My assumption would be that it was
>made optional because this is the only change in the Laws since time
>immemorial that *requires* all clubs, at every level, to throw away
>some old equipment and buy new. We'd have the same dispensation if
>the Laws changed to make boundary ropes compulsory, for eg; there'd
>be a changeover period of some years while fences and paint were
>permitted [but deprecated].
>
> The fact that some club matches may have continued to be
>played with old bails for a few years doesn't show that any f-c
>cricket was similarly thus played. Indeed, I'd expect the counties,
>and other f-c sides, to invest in new wickets every year, and to play
>with up-to-date equipment. The professionals wouldn't be very happy
>to switch between sizes from match to match!
>

Sounds plausible. So the change would happen in all Tests immediately,
in all first-class cricket worldwide very quickly, but only gradually in
club cricket. The only snag with this is that (if Bowen was right), it
was only the change in width which was optional, *not* the change in
height. So clubs would have had to buy new stumps immediately, even if
they could delay buying new bails, which seems rather odd.
--
John Hall

"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
Katherine Cebrian

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Having finally been piqued into looking up the actual words of
the Law, I am now in a position to resolve this whole question!

John Hall wrote:
> > Well, yes, but the Brodribb anecdotes show that the wider
> >wickets were in use in England for all county matches from 1929,
> I assume this must have been as an Experimental Law, then, as this date
> is two years earlier than Bowen gives.

Yes, this was an experiment in the county championship.

[snippage]

> Sounds plausible. So the change would happen in all Tests immediately,
> in all first-class cricket worldwide very quickly, but only gradually in
> club cricket. The only snag with this is that (if Bowen was right), it
> was only the change in width which was optional, *not* the change in
> height.

Bowen's punctuation, if correctly reported, was misleading.
Here is Law 6 from the 1884[!] code, as revised 6th May 1931, and in
force from 1931 to 1947:

"THE WICKETS. [...] Each wicket shall be not less than eight inches
nor more than nine inches in width [...]. The stumps shall be [...]
not less than twenty-seven inches nor more than twenty-eight inches
out of the ground. The bails [similar, 4 to 4.5]. [...].
NOTES
(a) In all First-class cricket and in all matches in which teams
selected by governing bodies of Cricket are engaged, each wicket
shall be nine inches in width, [the stumps 28", bails 4.5"].
(b,c) [irrelevant]"

So there we have it. In club cricket, you could choose between large
and small wickets, or indeed any combination. But all f-c *and* all
representative cricket had to be played with the 28x9 wicket from 6th
May 1931. Whatever Steve's photos may show, if taken after 1931 and
if of high-class cricket, the wickets were either 9" wide or illegal
[and I imagine the bowlers would have been very quick to complain if
Bradman (say) was defending a narrow wicket!].

This all started with Steve's interesting discovery of a blip
in the statistics for 1938. If this is genuine, and neither a random
fluctuation nor part of a change in style, then we can now rule out
the change in wicket size as a factor. The change in the lbw law,
starting in 1935 with "lbw(n)" and finalised in 1937, is much more
likely to be the culprit.

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <344B8E...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"

<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>
>John Hall wrote:
>> > So, the Law seems to have been quite clear, and to have been
>> >implemented at least in England, South Africa and Australia for all
>> >important matches by 1932.
>> This seems to disagree [...]
>> If the more important change, that in width, was optional till 1947
we
>> can reasonably assume that it would have been adopted in different
>> countries at different dates, and possibly also for different grades
of
>> cricket (club, first-class, Test) at different dates within a single
>> country.
>

> Well, yes, but the Brodribb anecdotes show that the wider

>wickets were in use in England for all county matches from 1929, and

>in Oz and SA in Tests by 1932.

Again, no. "Anecdotes" may "suggest," but they don't "show" anything.
(You're in maths, Andy?) It certainly doesn't seem to have been the
case for Tests in England in the early/mid-'30s, (Enough already with
counties! Un
less YOU want to collect all the data to do a study on the increase in
wicket-related dismissals in COUNTY cricket, talking about it is as
relevant to the discussion as what size wicket the Massachusetts State
Cricket Lea
gue used in the Thirties!), the photos from the Thirties that I
mentioned earlier (from the book "From Grace to Botham") from the time
strongly indicate that. In response to your previous post about the
camera angle dist
orting the ratio of height to width, it's easily resolved by using
photos from over mid-on, midoff or slips. If you try this with a
modern photo, you will see that it's pretty easy to see that the ratio
in modern photos
is about 3:1, certainly NOT confusable as 3.5:1. Also, "Bat and Ball:
A Book of Cricket", first published in 1935 and republished by Magna
Books in 1994 gives the history of changes in the Laws. This is quite a
detailed
history of the Laws, including such facts as an experimental change in
the law regarding rolling of the wicket for 7 minutes, adopted in 1929,
and the adoption of the "pitching outside off stump, but striking the
batman b
etween wicket-and-wicket" lbw amendment experimentally adopted in
November 1934. It lists the size of the wicket as 27" X 8" (page 273).
Either the original editor, Thomas Moult, was just plain wrong, or the
wicket size
issue had still not crystallized at 28" X 9". Again, Andy, not proof,
but evidence.

Hey, I live in Boston, so there's a limit to the number of cricket
books and photos from the '30s that I have access to. But the photos I
DO have (one of Jardie batting from the May 1992 issue of Cricketer
International,
for instance) strongly suggest that Test wickets during the '30s were
often 8 inches wide. Surely SOMEONE with greater access can go to a
library with a ruler, look at some photos and confirm or deny this?
I'm not just
trying to prove a point here (though I think some others are trying to
DISPROVE one!); I happen to think that this is important information
for anyone with an interest in cricket history to know, *even if it
turns out to
have had NO effect on wicket-related dismissals.* If someone shows
clear evidence (which Andy certainly has NOT done) that the 28" X 9"
wicket was implemented for ALL Tests in '30-'31, that would be
meaningful and inter
esting to know. Honestly, isn't it of even PASSING interest whether
Hutton, when surpassing Bradman and Hammond at the Oval in '38, was
doing so despite defending a bigger wicket?

>My assumption would be that it was
>made optional because this is the only change in the Laws since time
>immemorial that *requires* all clubs, at every level, to throw away
>some old equipment and buy new. We'd have the same dispensation if
>the Laws changed to make boundary ropes compulsory, for eg; there'd
>be a changeover period of some years while fences and paint were
>permitted [but deprecated].
>
> The fact that some club matches may have continued to be
>played with old bails for a few years doesn't show that any f-c
>cricket was similarly thus played. Indeed, I'd expect the counties,
>and other f-c sides, to invest in new wickets every year, and to play
>with up-to-date equipment. The professionals wouldn't be very happy
>to switch between sizes from match to match!

Oh, I don't know. I expect the batsmen were always delighted to switch
to smaller wickets, and the bowlers to switch to larger ones! Even if
it would have meant doing so between wickets!

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <344E3C...@maths.nott.ac.uk> "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:

>
>Stephen A Devaux wrote:
In response to your previous post about the
>> camera angle dist
>> orting the ratio of height to width, it's easily resolved by using
>> photos from over mid-on, midoff or slips. If you try this with a
>> modern photo, you will see that it's pretty easy to see that the
ratio
>> in modern photos
>> is about 3:1, certainly NOT confusable as 3.5:1.
>

> If my trig is correct [always a dubious assumption], then the
>larger wicket from an angle of 30 degrees has the same ratio as the
>smaller wicket from an angle of 20 degrees. I'm not sure that I
>could tell the angle within 10 degrees, especially with the fore-
>shortening of telephoto lenses. The styles of "action" photos have
>changed quite a lot over the years, eg as films got faster, and the
>preferred/permitted positions of the photographers have moved too, and
>don't forget that the position may have moved up or down as well as
>round. In addition, older action photos were usually touched up.
>Finally, many older photos were posed or even faked.

I doubt they were faking them by changing the wicket sizes, unless they
had the foresight to predict this discussion!

> I'm sure that
>something *could* be worked out from old photos, and if you tell me
>that you've taken account of all the problems I'm happy to believe
>you; but it certainly isn't easy. [I speak with some vicarious
>experience of trying to take *very* accurate measurements of moon
>craters from telescopic photos, in an attempt to make contour maps.]

My previous "similar" experience and training, on military
intelligence aerial photographs of, for example, the Ho Chi Minh Trail,
was so historically unsuccessful as to probably disqualify me in this
analysis! However, I do recall that, while sizes and distances were
notoriously problematic, ratios (with appropriate angular adjustments)
were a preferred means of achieving accuracy. (Maybe that's why we
lost!)

> Another issue is the provenance of the photo. A picture of
>Jardine batting in 1933 in a named Test with other players visible
>and easily recognised is probably OK, but one merely of Jardine [who
>certainly played in Tests with both sizes of wicket] could be from
>anywhere and anytime; editors [who didn't know you were planning to
>make scientific measurements on the photo!] are not always scrupulous
>in making sure when and where the photo was taken. I haven't seen the
>photo you mention, but a photo of Jardine [claimedly] playing in a
>Test in 1932-33 is much more valuable than one of Jardine playing for
>Neasden in a benefit match for Joe Bloggs in 1928, so the temptation
>for photographer [or his heirs!] and editor is obvious. Again, I'm
>not saying that this *has* happened, merely that great care is needed.

Agreed. Again the need for further analysis.

> I agree with you that someone else's measurements would be
>useful.
>
>> Also, "Bat and Ball:
>> A Book of Cricket", [...] lists the size of the wicket as 27" X 8"

(page 273).
>> Either the original editor, Thomas Moult, was just plain wrong, or
the
>> wicket size
>> issue had still not crystallized at 28" X 9". Again, Andy, not
proof,
>> but evidence.
>

> See my previous posting on this subject. After May 1931, you
>could use large or small wicket in club cricket, but *all* f-c and
>representative cricket had to be played with the 28"x9" wicket, with
>no exemptions [as there were in some other Laws] eg for Australia.
>That was the version of the 1884 Code in operation from 1931 to 1947.
>I haven't seen this book, but if it was about "Bat and Ball", he
>perhaps wasn't too bothered about the "Wicket"! Of course, it's
always
>possible that Wisden printed the Laws, and in particular the revision
>dates, incorrectly, or that the Law was not always adhered to, but I
>know where my money would be.

If your info is accurate, it resolves a pretty huge (IMO) issue. And,
as you say, the Jardine photo could have been from anywhere, anytime.
But it doesn't yet explain to me some of the wicket ratios I saw from
matches that were pretty definitely in England in "From Botham to
Grace." Surely SOMEONE with access to an English or Aus library can
check some photos?

Actually, your lbw explanation doesn't explain everything for '38,
because, if my memory is correct, there was a big bulge in bowled
dismissals in that series.

Your info seems to be the most reliable we have so far.

[jeff...]

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:31:17 +0100, "Dr A. N. Walker"
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> wrote:

> Well, no, the 1934 Australians also played with the larger

>wickets. But I did note one curious statistic while checking out

>Larwood's record: of his 33 wickets in 1932-33, only one was
>"c Ames", tho' there were 15 other catches. Indeed, Ames took less
>than one catch per innings [and Oldfield was no more prolific], less
>than 20% of the total. Even third-rate WKs today [and A&O were not
>3rd-rate] do better than that, so I am driven to conclude that there
>was some aspect of the play in those years that caused fewer snicks.
>Any ideas? [I haven't checked the figures for other years, so perhaps
>1932-33 was an anomaly.]
>

that is something i'd noticed. ben barnett was the aust keeper in
'38, and took only three or four catches for the series. these days
you'd expect three or four per match at least.

jeff...

d+r>s TW 1/0/pw tG 4 0 WYWH 13 18
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/3359/
Great Aussie (and other) guitar tabs PLUS the AFL All Time League Ladder!

[Don Miles]

In article <60orta$s...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen A Devaux
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Interesting. Of course, as John Hall pointed out, there are two
>separate changes, one involving increasing the height by an inch, the
>other increasing the width by an inch. In several photos, including
>the '39 photo of Headley at Chelmsford, it's clear the height had been
>increased, but not the width. From the photos I've looked at, I think
>John Hall is right about the height having been increased in the early
>'30s, but the width not standardized for a few years.

My father always talked about the increase in stump height "before the
war" and said that regulars at Sussex said that when it was introduced
Maurice Tate would double his take of wickets in a season, since he so
often seemd to beat the bat and the ball just fly over rather than past
the stumps. When it didn't happen the local pundits said he'd "made a
mental adjustment" and shortened his length slightly. Always struck me
as a bit of an excuse but .... who knows.

Sadly my father is not around to ask him the dates he was talking about.
I haven't checked Tate's playing dates but does it sound about right?

Don
Don Miles
------------------------------------
For a Salute to Women's Cricket, try
http://www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last updated 1997 Oct 24

[Stephen A Devaux]

In <nZJg2PA9...@webbsoc.demon.co.uk> Don Miles

<d...@webbsoc.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>My father always talked about the increase in stump height "before the
>war" and said that regulars at Sussex said that when it was introduced
>Maurice Tate would double his take of wickets in a season, since he so
>often seemd to beat the bat and the ball just fly over rather than
past
>the stumps. When it didn't happen the local pundits said he'd "made a
>mental adjustment" and shortened his length slightly. Always struck me
>as a bit of an excuse but .... who knows.
>

Actually, this makes perfect sense to me! I suggested it earlier in
this (or a similar) thread: that with the shorter stump height, bowlers
were forced to pitch the ball up further if they wanted "bailers."
This must have increased the number of overpitched deliveries becoming
half-vollies that were then despatched for four. With the taller
stumps, bowlers would bowl a few inches shorter, and maintain a similar
number of "bailers," though fewer half-volleys.