Was WG Grace a cheat?
Michael Jameson
sledging, failure to walk, spitting the dummy, ball tampering etc has
reminded me of a story I once read about WG Grace. I'm not sure that I
remember it perfectly but it went roughly like this -
Grace was fielding close to the bat. The bowler bowled, the batsman
blocked and the ball dribbled to Grace, who picked it up and apparently
threw it back to the bowler. The batsman straightened up and started
'farming' the pitch a bit. As the batsman walked out of his crease,
Grace took the ball from where he had hidden it under his beard and
threw down the stumps, appealing for a run out.
If this is true, was it cheating?
Mick.
--
"You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS
Eliot).
Mike Holmans
<m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Discussions of modern-day cricketers' woeful lack of sportsmanship,
>sledging, failure to walk, spitting the dummy, ball tampering etc has
>reminded me of a story I once read about WG Grace. I'm not sure that I
>remember it perfectly but it went roughly like this -
>
>Grace was fielding close to the bat. The bowler bowled, the batsman
>blocked and the ball dribbled to Grace, who picked it up and apparently
>threw it back to the bowler. The batsman straightened up and started
>'farming' the pitch a bit. As the batsman walked out of his crease,
>Grace took the ball from where he had hidden it under his beard and
>threw down the stumps, appealing for a run out.
>
>If this is true, was it cheating?
It was sharp practice. A number of Laws were written to close
loopholes which Grace exploited - such as the one which means you have
to appeal at the time, not the next morning after you've had a word
with the umpire about whether the last ball of the day should have
been given out.
Grace was lightyears ahead of his contemporaries in ability as a
player, but he was approximately as obnoxious on the field of play as
Arjuna Runnertunga.
Cheers,
Mike
Bob Dubery
Bob Dubery
<m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>Discussions of modern-day cricketers' woeful lack of sportsmanship,
>sledging, failure to walk, spitting the dummy, ball tampering etc has
>reminded me of a story I once read about WG Grace. I'm not sure that I
>remember it perfectly but it went roughly like this -
>
>Grace was fielding close to the bat. The bowler bowled, the batsman
>blocked and the ball dribbled to Grace, who picked it up and apparently
>threw it back to the bowler. The batsman straightened up and started
>'farming' the pitch a bit. As the batsman walked out of his crease,
>Grace took the ball from where he had hidden it under his beard and
>threw down the stumps, appealing for a run out.
>
>If this is true, was it cheating?
The bit about the ball being hidden in his beard is probably
apocraphyl, but there is no doubt the incident happened. In a Test
match too.
Earlier in the same match the Aussie fast bowler Spofforth ("The
Demon") had halted in his run-up and motioned to show that he could
have run out one of the england batters. They asked him "is that how
you play the game" and he allowed that it wasn't.
Spofforth was pretty mad at Grace and famously went out in England's
second innings and took 7 for not many and won the match.
This was the match that prompted the famous mock obituary of English
cricket and so Grace's skulduggery actually led to England and
Australia playing for the Ashes.
Grace was a famous cheat and gamesman. I don't believe he ever
chucked, but he did just about everything else.
It would start with the toss: English coins in those days would have
Queen Victoria on one side, Britannia on the other. The coin would be
tossed and if Grace was particularly keen to win the toss he'd call
"The lady", wait for the coin to land and then bat or bowl as he
pleased.
One match was several overs old before the opposing captain realised
that there hadn't been a toss and that WG and EM Grace had simply
walked out together with bat and pads and got the game underway.
Talking of brother EM, an umpire's nightmare was turning up for a
"friendly" game and finding WG and EM as opposing captains.
WG would often defy umpires too. After all, the crowd hadn't paid to
see the umpire give decisions but to see Grace bat. He was once bowled
first ball and declined to walk, terming the delivery a "trial ball".
There was no end to the shenanigans when Grace was around.
John Hall
Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>A number of Laws were written to close
>loopholes which Grace exploited - such as the one which means you have
>to appeal at the time, not the next morning after you've had a word
>with the umpire about whether the last ball of the day should have
>been given out.
>
>Grace was lightyears ahead of his contemporaries in ability as a
>player,
You could say that he was lightyears ahead of his time when it came to
gamesmanship, too. Mind you, I suspect that some of the stories about
him are apocryphal, and either never happened or originally featured
some more obscure players.
--
John Hall
"Take the tone of the company you are in."
The Earl of Chesterfield (1694-1773)
John Hall
Bob Dubery <mega...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Talking of brother EM, an umpire's nightmare was turning up for a
>"friendly" game and finding WG and EM as opposing captains.
EM was a fearsome character. It's said that, in comparison to EM, WG was
just a big softy.
Richard Kelly
> apocraphyl, but there is no doubt the incident happened. In a Test
> match too.
>
> Earlier in the same match the Aussie fast bowler Spofforth ("The
> Demon") had halted in his run-up and motioned to show that he could
> have run out one of the england batters. They asked him "is that how
> you play the game" and he allowed that it wasn't.
>
> Spofforth was pretty mad at Grace and famously went out in England's
> second innings and took 7 for not many and won the match.
>
> This was the match that prompted the famous mock obituary of English
> cricket and so Grace's skulduggery actually led to England and
> Australia playing for the Ashes.
Which test match was this?
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>In article <3e1c4199....@10.100.2.1>,
> Bob Dubery <mega...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Talking of brother EM, an umpire's nightmare was turning up for a
>>"friendly" game and finding WG and EM as opposing captains.
>
>EM was a fearsome character. It's said that, in comparison to EM, WG was
>just a big softy.
Grace biographer Simon Rae tells about one "friendly" game in which EM
and WG were the captains and which started with an argument
immediately prior to the toss about who the umpires should listen to.
WG won because of his greater eminence, but mere reputation wasn't
going to stop EM trying.
A while back I made a post about the game in which Kortright came out
with his famous retort "Are you leaving so soon, Doctor? There's still
one stump standing." Anybody who wants to look for that can find it
using Google. That match (Gloucestershire against Essex) is as fine an
example as you could hope to find of Grace's penchant for
opportunistic sharp-practice. It even features the Grace party trick
of shouting the umpire down.
Michael Jameson
> In article <dldo1vkocuhf4di2s...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >A number of Laws were written to close
> >loopholes which Grace exploited - such as the one which means you have
> >to appeal at the time, not the next morning after you've had a word
> >with the umpire about whether the last ball of the day should have
> >been given out.
> >
> >Grace was lightyears ahead of his contemporaries in ability as a
> >player,
>
> You could say that he was lightyears ahead of his time when it came to
> gamesmanship, too. Mind you, I suspect that some of the stories about
> him are apocryphal, and either never happened or originally featured
> some more obscure players.
'Sharp practise', 'gamesmanship' - I think a lot of modern naughtiness
could come under these headings too. It doesn't excuse modern shenanigans
but I'd prefer not to hear moans about how the standards of sportsmanship
have declined since the days of such gentlemen as the good Doctor.
Michael Jameson
[...]
> There was no end to the shenanigans when Grace was around.
Thanks, Bob. Great to read some of those historical bits'n'pieces. I'll
have to dig out some of my cricket history books.
John Hall
I think Mike Holmans and I agree with you, rather than disagree as you
seem to think. The point that we have been trying to make is that the
Doctor's standard of sportsmanship was no higher than that of modern
players, indeed probably lower than most of them.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>In article <3E1D4C40...@hunterlink.net.au>,
> Michael Jameson <m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> writes:
>>John Hall wrote:
>>
>>> In article <dldo1vkocuhf4di2s...@4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>> >A number of Laws were written to close
>>> >loopholes which Grace exploited - such as the one which means you have
>>> >to appeal at the time, not the next morning after you've had a word
>>> >with the umpire about whether the last ball of the day should have
>>> >been given out.
>>'Sharp practise', 'gamesmanship' - I think a lot of modern naughtiness
>>could come under these headings too. It doesn't excuse modern shenanigans
>>but I'd prefer not to hear moans about how the standards of sportsmanship
>>have declined since the days of such gentlemen as the good Doctor.
>
>I think Mike Holmans and I agree with you, rather than disagree as you
>seem to think. The point that we have been trying to make is that the
>Doctor's standard of sportsmanship was no higher than that of modern
>players, indeed probably lower than most of them.
Quite. It's hilarious hearing people referring to sportsmanship having
declined "since WG", implying that he was himself a sportsman. It's
certainly the case that standards of sportsmanship have declined since
his day, because most of his contemporaries were not as
ultra-competitive as he, but he was quite outrageous - my point was
that he was probably personally responsible for more Laws being
drafted to curb the kind of things he got up to than any other player
before or since. WG would have been very much at home in the modern
game, where the general attitude is "it's all right as long as you can
get away with it" or "if it's not explicitly prohibited, I'll do it".
Cheers,
Mike
Colin Kynoch
Which is why anyone who considers gamesmanship to be a new phenomenom is
missing out on the history of the game.
Colin Kynoch
Colin Kynoch
Michael Jameson wrote:
> Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>There was no end to the shenanigans when Grace was around.
>
>
> Thanks, Bob. Great to read some of those historical bits'n'pieces. I'll
> have to dig out some of my cricket history books.
There is a great book on the history of Shenanigans in cricket.
IIRC is is called "It's not cricket"
Sorry I don't have more details, it is at home and I am at work (150kms
apart)
Colin Kynoch
JLichterm
> Michael Jameson wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>There was no end to the shenanigans when Grace was around.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Bob. Great to read some of those historical bits'n'pieces. I'll
> > have to dig out some of my cricket history books.
>
> There is a great book on the history of Shenanigans in cricket.
>
> IIRC is is called "It's not cricket"
Simon Rae. Still on my shelf, unread. will get to it in March, I hope.
Michael Jameson
> Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:<3E1DF88D...@iprimus.com.au>...
> > Michael Jameson wrote:
> > > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
> > >>There was no end to the shenanigans when Grace was around.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Bob. Great to read some of those historical bits'n'pieces. I'll
> > > have to dig out some of my cricket history books.
> >
> > There is a great book on the history of Shenanigans in cricket.
> >
> > IIRC is is called "It's not cricket"
>
> Simon Rae. Still on my shelf, unread. will get to it in March, I hope.
Thanks to you both. I'll put it on my wish list.
Michael Jameson
[...]
> >'Sharp practise', 'gamesmanship' - I think a lot of modern naughtiness
> >could come under these headings too. It doesn't excuse modern shenanigans
> >but I'd prefer not to hear moans about how the standards of sportsmanship
> >have declined since the days of such gentlemen as the good Doctor.
>
> I think Mike Holmans and I agree with you, rather than disagree as you
> seem to think.
'Scuse me then, I hadn't taken that pov and was just sounding off.
> The point that we have been trying to make is that the
> Doctor's standard of sportsmanship was no higher than that of modern
> players, indeed probably lower than most of them.
Yes, that's the impression we share. Just saw a few moments in one of my
tapes ('A to Z of Cricket') where Robin Bailhache and the narrator were
bemoaning the way respect for umpires had gone out of the game, ditto the
gentlemanly play of the amateur. Not to say no amateurs were ever gentlemanly
or no respect was ever given to umps but it isn't hard to find players
pushing the limits way back when...
Michael Jameson
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:04:10 +0000, John Hall <news_...@jhall.co.uk>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >In article <3E1D4C40...@hunterlink.net.au>,
> > Michael Jameson <m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> writes:
[...]
> >>'Sharp practise', 'gamesmanship' - I think a lot of modern naughtiness
> >>could come under these headings too. It doesn't excuse modern shenanigans
> >>but I'd prefer not to hear moans about how the standards of sportsmanship
> >>have declined since the days of such gentlemen as the good Doctor.
> >
> >I think Mike Holmans and I agree with you, rather than disagree as you
> >seem to think. The point that we have been trying to make is that the
> >Doctor's standard of sportsmanship was no higher than that of modern
> >players, indeed probably lower than most of them.
>
> Quite. It's hilarious hearing people referring to sportsmanship having
> declined "since WG", implying that he was himself a sportsman.
Pretty much what I encountered in the videotape I just mentioned in my reply
to John Hall. Grainy footage of WG thumping the ball in the nets with Robin
Bailhache and the narrator moaning about the declining sportsmanship that
would have made the great players of old wince. <ahem>
> It's
> certainly the case that standards of sportsmanship have declined since
> his day, because most of his contemporaries were not as
> ultra-competitive as he,
Okay, that's a fair point - the 'average standard of sportsmanship' (if we
could estimate such a thing) might well be lower.
> but he was quite outrageous - my point was
> that he was probably personally responsible for more Laws being
> drafted to curb the kind of things he got up to than any other player
> before or since.
...which suggests he did not share the same idea of the spirit of the game as
those drafting the laws, otherwise he would have known what they meant and not
twisted his way around them.
> WG would have been very much at home in the modern
> game, where the general attitude is "it's all right as long as you can
> get away with it" or "if it's not explicitly prohibited, I'll do it".
Yes, that's how it seems. Perhaps it's more widespread now - but it's not new.
Mike Holmans
<m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>> but he was quite outrageous - my point was
>> that he was probably personally responsible for more Laws being
>> drafted to curb the kind of things he got up to than any other player
>> before or since.
>
>...which suggests he did not share the same idea of the spirit of the game as
>those drafting the laws, otherwise he would have known what they meant and not
>twisted his way around them.
Or that he relied on everyone else abiding by the spirit meant and
shamelessly exploited the letter for his own advantage.
I think it's insufficiently realised that WG Grace was bigger than the
game itself in a way unimaginable today. Although his only actual
official position was captain of Gloucestershire (and one or two other
sides, including, passingly, England), his perceived authority was as
if he were President of the ECB, the Players' Association, the ICC,
the board which appointed the umpires, and head of Sky Sports all
rolled into one. And boy, did he know it.
Cheers,
Mike
Bobs
Michael Jameson wrote:
>
> Yes, that's the impression we share. Just saw a few moments in one of my
> tapes ('A to Z of Cricket') where Robin Bailhache and the narrator were
> bemoaning the way respect for umpires had gone out of the game, ditto the
> gentlemanly play of the amateur. Not to say no amateurs were ever gentlemanly
> or no respect was ever given to umps but it isn't hard to find players
> pushing the limits way back when...
Nostalgia is like remembering old sex. You remember all the good stuff and forget
the bad.
>
>
>
> Mick.
> --
> "You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS Eliot).
--
Make something idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Michael Jameson
[...]
> I think it's insufficiently realised that WG Grace was bigger than the
> game itself in a way unimaginable today.
I've certainly picked up that he was a man we don't have a comparison for in terms
of influence (and other ways) - but as you say, that leaves his role unimaginable
to me.
> Although his only actual
> official position was captain of Gloucestershire (and one or two other
> sides, including, passingly, England), his perceived authority was as
> if he were President of the ECB, the Players' Association, the ICC,
> the board which appointed the umpires, and head of Sky Sports all
> rolled into one. And boy, did he know it.
The narrator of this video described him as second in popularity only to Queen
Victoria.
Bob Dubery
<m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>'Sharp practise', 'gamesmanship' - I think a lot of modern naughtiness
>could come under these headings too. It doesn't excuse modern shenanigans
>but I'd prefer not to hear moans about how the standards of sportsmanship
>have declined since the days of such gentlemen as the good Doctor.
The jury's out on wether he was a GOOD doctor or not.
He was once 85 or thereabouts not out at close. The opposition were
countenancing a huge score the next day and then Grace was called out
to attend at a troublesome birth.
Now the opposition was happy. He'd be up all night and no doubt short
of sleep and compararatively easy pickings.
He resumed the next morning in good form and cheer. He was asked how
the delivery had gone:
"Terrible!"
<plays the ball>
"I lost the child."
<plays next ball>
"I lost the mother."
<plays next ball>
"I did manage to save the father."
Bob Dubery
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Quite. It's hilarious hearing people referring to sportsmanship having
>declined "since WG", implying that he was himself a sportsman. It's
>certainly the case that standards of sportsmanship have declined since
>his day, because most of his contemporaries were not as
>ultra-competitive as he, but he was quite outrageous - my point was
>that he was probably personally responsible for more Laws being
>drafted to curb the kind of things he got up to than any other player
>before or since. WG would have been very much at home in the modern
>game, where the general attitude is "it's all right as long as you can
>get away with it" or "if it's not explicitly prohibited, I'll do it".
It's quite possible that WG was allowed to get away with a lot too.
He certainly made a mockery of his supposedly amateur status. In fact
he earned orders of magnitude more than any professional of his time.
This was all well known but overlooked because of the power struggle
between Lord's and south on one hand and the professionals and t he
north on the other. It suited Lord's to strengthen their hand by
claiming the greatest star in Cricket as an amateur and admitting him
to their ranks - even if it meant that they had to lay themselves open
to charges of hypocrisy by turning a blind eye to Grace's ruthless
money-making.
Possibly he was allowed to get away with more in other regards too.
Immediately Post-Grace (PG?) CB Fry was allowed to get away with
egregious chucking largely because the english umpires of the day
couldn't bring themselves to call this great player and distinguished
amateur gentleman.
Bob Dubery
<m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> I think it's insufficiently realised that WG Grace was bigger than the
>> game itself in a way unimaginable today.
>
>I've certainly picked up that he was a man we don't have a comparison for in terms
>of influence (and other ways) - but as you say, that leaves his role unimaginable
>to me.
He was also way ahead of this contemporaries as a player. Grace's
career figures, taken in isolation, are very good but hardly
Bradmanesque - but stack them up agains those of the people he played
with and then see how they look. He was a run machine.
His penchant for sharp practice and provocation may have reduced his
effectiveness. Certainly the incident that sparked this thread almost
certainly cost England a match and a series. It should have been a
doddle for England, they went in to bat a second time needing 85 to
win. But Grace's gamesmanship had Spofforth so worked up that he first
barged into the England dressing room and harangued and insulted Grace
mercilessly, and then produced a magnificent bowling display to win
the game for Australia.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>IIRC is is called "It's not cricket"
Reviewed upon this very forum. Written by Grace biographer Simon Rae.
It's a very good book and an excellent read. It was nominated for the
Cricket Society's book of the year award.
It will also disabuse the reader of the notion that gamesmanship,
sledging, ball tampering, chucking, match-fixing, failing to walk and
all other forms of cricketing skulduggery are recent innovations.
Bob Dubery
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>my point was
>that he was probably personally responsible for more Laws being
>drafted to curb the kind of things he got up to than any other player
>before or since.
Huh? I'd suggest that of Mike Brearley, but not of Grace. This is not
to say that Brearley was a cheat and Grace a saint, but I can't think
of too many law changes that can reasonably be traced back to Grace.
For Brearley I can think of the introduction of the circle in ODIs,
and the stipulation that unused helmets must be placed behind the
keeper.
Even Jardine couldn't provoke a rule change.
Phil Wise
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e1eb728....@10.100.2.1...
Akin to asking Curtley to take his watch off (or whatever it was)? Those
who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it...
Anyway, in AA Thomson's book about Grace he has a hundred stories about
sharp practice, some alleged, some true. Thomson makes the point that
umpires got the better of Grace at least as much as he got the better of
them. There's also a story about an opposition fielder who cut his throat
on a picket boundary fence, and Dr Grace held the wound together for
three-quarters of an hour with his hand (thus probably keeping the guy
alive) while help and equipment was retreived.
phil
phil
John Hall
Phil Wise <phil...@paradise.jim.nz> writes:
>Anyway, in AA Thomson's book about Grace he has a hundred stories about
>sharp practice, some alleged, some true.
That must be a very enjoyable book. Thomson is one of my favourite
cricket writers (dare I say that I prefer him to Cardus?), but I haven't
read that one.
> Thomson makes the point that
>umpires got the better of Grace at least as much as he got the better of
>them. There's also a story about an opposition fielder who cut his throat
>on a picket boundary fence, and Dr Grace held the wound together for
>three-quarters of an hour with his hand (thus probably keeping the guy
>alive) while help and equipment was retreived.
I believe that he struggled to qualify as a doctor, not being the
academic sort, but then the Graces were a family of doctors so it was
expected. But as a GP, I've read that he was very popular, and poor
patients who couldn't pay their bills would have them conveniently
overlooked. If his profiting from cricket (as a supposed amateur) partly
went to that cause, then they can perhaps be forgiven. And of course he
had to pay for a locum all through the cricket season.
--
John Hall
"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
Katherine Cebrian
John Hall
Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> writes:
>Which is why anyone who considers gamesmanship to be a new phenomenom
>is missing out on the history of the game.
Yep. And it even goes back pre-Grace. There was heavy betting on cricket
until the MCC stopped it circa 1850, and where you get heavy betting
then skullduggery is almost a foregone conclusion.
John Hall
Bob Dubery <mega...@hotmail.com> writes:
>The jury's out on wether he was a GOOD doctor or not.
>
>He was once 85 or thereabouts not out at close. The opposition were
>countenancing a huge score the next day and then Grace was called out
>to attend at a troublesome birth.
>
>Now the opposition was happy. He'd be up all night and no doubt short
>of sleep and compararatively easy pickings.
>
>He resumed the next morning in good form and cheer. He was asked how
>the delivery had gone:
>
>"Terrible!"
><plays the ball>
>"I lost the child."
><plays next ball>
>"I lost the mother."
><plays next ball>
>"I did manage to save the father."
A great story, but I think we can conclude that Grace making a joke
rather than that he was callous about the welfare of his patients.
Colin Kynoch
JLichterm wrote:
> Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:<3E1DF88D...@iprimus.com.au>...
>
>>Michael Jameson wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Dubery wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There was no end to the shenanigans when Grace was around.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks, Bob. Great to read some of those historical bits'n'pieces. I'll
>>>have to dig out some of my cricket history books.
>>>
>>There is a great book on the history of Shenanigans in cricket.
>>
>>IIRC is is called "It's not cricket"
>>
>
> Simon Rae. Still on my shelf, unread. will get to it in March, I hope.
Tis a very interesting read.
Well compiled
And amusing style of writing
Colin Kynoch
Colin Kynoch
Bob Dubery wrote:
Maybe someone should send copies to Daniel Laidlaw, Anil, Elmo Rodpuller
and that guy with the Phd that LArry though was so wonderful
Colin Kynoch
Michael Jameson
Of course, one rather pragmatic method of skullduggery is for the old
hands at a game to persuade those new to it that skullduggery is
un-traditional, deeply frowned upon and harshly treated - while indulging
in it themselves to the limit.
Jim Garner
>> The point that we have been trying to make is that the
>> Doctor's standard of sportsmanship was no higher than that of modern
>> players, indeed probably lower than most of them.
There's plenty of evidence that W.G. indulged in sharp practice. But I
really think that after his departure the standard of sportsmanship
improved and may more recently have declined.
When I played regularly, there was very little cheating and players
normally would walk if they had been caught out. We would lend players
to the other team and if there was an umpire short, somebody from the
batting side would stand in.
At a somewaht higher level, I remember Lindwall in a test match holding
the ball near the wicket while some batsman was merrily hoppitying down
the pitch.
When Larwood bust his foot, he bowled the last two or three ballls of his
over as lobs, and Ponsford just quietly played them back to him. The
bodyline tactic was perceived as unsporting by the standards of the day,
yet bouncers today haVE turned cricket into a contact sport.
--
Jim Garner, sage and dogsbody. an...@ncf.ca (filtered, see below).
E-mail is filtered out unless subject line includes "GRAN"
(613) 526-4786; 759B Springland, Ottawa, ON K1V 6L9 Canada
"Buy the steak, not the sizzle"
Jim Garner
>
> He was also way ahead of this contemporaries as a player. Grace's
> career figures, taken in isolation, are very good but hardly
> Bradmanesque - but stack them up agains those of the people he played
> with and then see how they look. He was a run machine.
About a couple of years ago, I took the batting figures of Grace and
Bradman at the same age (covering about 10 matches IIRC). I've lost the
figurs now and I can't be bothered to do it all over again, but what I
learned was that although Bradman scored far more runs, he and Grace
scored a fairly similar percentage of the runs scored by their teams.
Mind you, there were more declarations on the Bradman side of the
calculation, which somewhat skews the results.
Bob Dubery
0-571-1957303)
Although a large body of humorous anecdotes grew up around Grace's
medical career ("Is Dr Grace in?""Of course, he's been in since
lunchtime on Tuesday," etc) the evidence suggests that in fact he was
as conscientious GP as he was a cricketer. "From early morn till late
in the evening you will find W.G. toiling at his profession, trudging
through the rain, sunshine and storm as cheerful as if he were playing
cricket," his biographer Brownlee recorded, and those he served held
him in high regard. His bedside manner may have been gruff, but he was
undoubedly kind; his huge presence must of itself have been
reassuring, and his naturally optimistic personality can only have
worked as a tonic. His expertise was probably no greater then might
have been expected, though he apparently had one talent of particular
value in the crowded slums of Stapleton Road. He was "tremendously
good at smelling the air when there was smallpox around" and
distinguishing it from the far less dangerous chicken pox. The oral
tradition also suggests that he often omitted to send bills to his
poorest patients. ... Far from hibernating in a cave, W.G spent the
best part of 20 winters building up a deserved reputation as a
competent, trusted and well-loved doctor in the Bristol area.
Yuk Tang
"Jim Garner" <an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:avokj7$938$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> When Larwood bust his foot, he bowled the last two or three ballls of his
> over as lobs, and Ponsford just quietly played them back to him.
So what was the point of making Larwood stand at, well, point? The man was
obviously injured, and Bradman could easily have proceeded to aim everything
his way. And Bradman being Bradman, I can't see him refraining to do so.
To keep him on the field was a useless psychological ploy which fortunately
did not matter.
Cheers, ymt.
Bob Dubery
> He was also way ahead of this contemporaries as a player. Grace's
> career figures, taken in isolation, are very good but hardly
> Bradmanesque - but stack them up agains those of the people he played
> with and then see how they look. He was a run machine.
To illustrate just how he stacked up against his contemporaries...
Grace scored his 50th ton 10 years and 57 days after his first class
debut. In that time - from the date of his debut until he got his 50th
century - only 109 other first class centuries were made in England.
Grace scored 50 of the 159 centuries scored in the country since his
debut.
One of Grace's biographers notes: "to equal WG's 50 centuries in the
same period, it requires the combined centuries of the next 13 most
successful century-scorers in England".
Grace was way ahead of his contemporaries.
Bob Dubery
> There's plenty of evidence that W.G. indulged in sharp practice. But I
> really think that after his departure the standard of sportsmanship
> improved and may more recently have declined.
Grace played his last FC fixture in 1908. He was, during his career,
as pre-eminent as a gamesman as he was as a batsman. But there was not
an immediate improvement on his retirement.
In 1909 we had one of the most egregious examples ever of time wasting
when Frank Wooley waited 18 minutes to receive his first ball in test
cricket. Wooley was on stike. Warwick Armstrong bowled a series of
"trial balls" before he felt actually ready to present a delivery to
Wooley. Several of these were allowed to roll to the boundary without
intervention from the lethargic fielders. Armstrong was regarded by
many as "the Australian WG".
Armstrong unleashed Gregory and McDonald on England in 1921. Armstrong
was an unsentimental captain and Jardine points out that he had a
precedent in Armstrong who often set fields with only one or two men
on the off.
Bumper wars in the pre-war period were defended by Middlesex batsman
Cyril Foley who wrote "the bowler bowls at the batsman for the very
good reason that there is nothing else for him to bowl at."
Bouncers and bodyline might not be strictly gamesmanship, and Grace,
who was a very good player of fast bowling, might not have minded
being on the receiving end of them.
How recent is recent?
In 1954 Hutton led England in a remarkably ill-tempered tour of the
West Indies. Clyde Walcott, writing in 1999, wrote that the series was
"ruined for many because Hutton allowed some of the fieriest
characters in his side to offend against the laws and the spirit of
the laws. Some of the language directed against our players was
apalling and would not be tolerated today." Hutton was under fire for,
amongst other things, the action of Tony Lock but he argued that
Lock's action was no worse than Ramadhin's.
In 1957 things were hardly better for the West Indies who copped a
torrent of abuse against Surrey. Even in the aftermath of 1954 Worrell
described the language in this match as "much more violent than
anything that we had ever heard during a game."
Several 1950's county sides - notably Glamorgan - were also famous for
their verbal abuse.
In the early 1980s we had Somerset declaring a one-day innings closed
at 0-0 to ensure their passage into the next round of the tournament
on run-rate; the infamous under-arm ball; Gavaskar objecting so
strongly to an LBW decision against him that he took his batting
partner off the field; and "Lillee kicks Miandad" headlines. All of
this by the end of 1981 with plenty still to come in that decade.
Grace was perhaps one of the most assiduous practitioners of
gamesmanship that the game has seen (though he may suffered because
due to his fame his every move was chronicled and there is a good deal
of apocrypha surrounding him), but, sad to say, one can scratch the
surface of even the most apparently serene cricketing era and find a
large amount of untowards behaviour and sharp practice lurking.
Bob Dubery
> When Larwood bust his foot, he bowled the last two or three ballls of his
> over as lobs, and Ponsford just quietly played them back to him. The
> bodyline tactic was perceived as unsporting by the standards of the day,
> yet bouncers today haVE turned cricket into a contact sport.
Today? Well you've alluded to the bodyline series which is not
remembered for the underuse of the fast, short delivery. Grace himself
took plenty of blows from fast bowlers in his time - as did many of
his contemporaries. McDonald and Gregory hit several english batsman
in 1921 (their bowling and Armstrong's field placings were cited as a
precedent by Douglas Jardine), and immediately post WW2 there were
concerns about the amount of bouncers dished out by Lindwall and
Miller. Hutton rememeberd this barrage and, when he was captain in an
Ashes series, was happy to reciprocate once he had a few fast bowlers
at his disposal. Hall and Griffiths were a fearsome proposition in the
1960s as were Pollock and Heine... The 1970s saw Snow, Lillee and
Thompson and the advent of the West Indian 4-pronged pace attacks.
The only really new things about bouncers are that tail-enders are on
the receiving end these days and there's a limit of 2 to the over.
Colin Kynoch
Bob Dubery wrote:
> an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jim Garner) wrote in message news:<avokj7$938$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
<snip>
> Grace was perhaps one of the most assiduous practitioners of
> gamesmanship that the game has seen (though he may suffered because
> due to his fame his every move was chronicled and there is a good deal
> of apocrypha surrounding him), but, sad to say, one can scratch the
> surface of even the most apparently serene cricketing era and find a
> large amount of untowards behaviour and sharp practice lurking.
Just read Keith Miller's book Cricket Crossifre and noted quite a few
"unsavoury incidents"
Colin Kynoch
Cicero
> an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jim Garner) wrote in message
news:<avokj7$938$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> > There's plenty of evidence that W.G. indulged in sharp practice. But I
> > really think that after his departure the standard of sportsmanship
> > improved and may more recently have declined.
> Hmm...
>
> Grace played his last FC fixture in 1908. He was, during his career,
> as pre-eminent as a gamesman as he was as a batsman. But there was not
> an immediate improvement on his retirement.
Sad and fitting that Grace and Trumper both passed away in 1915.
Winston Churchill
news:3e2123af$0$7197$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Trumper, long a favourite of mine, died of a kidney disease
known as nephritis. About five years ago, I became quite ill
(I'll spare you the details) and wound up in hospital
receiving intravenous antibiotics. I was, errrm, not in a
fit state when the doctor said to me that I have
thus-and-such, sometimes known as nephritis, I smiled and
said "that's great! same as Trumper, huh?"
This exchange has since gone on to become one of those
family legends, trotted out when explaining the extent of my
obsession with the game.
cheers
Winny
==========
who, in six days time, will have outlived Trumper
Cicero
"Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4EaU9.192$zV....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I thought he had Brights Disease?
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jim Garner) wrote in message news:<avokj7$938$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> There's plenty of evidence that W.G. indulged in sharp practice. But I
>> really think that after his departure the standard of sportsmanship
>> improved and may more recently have declined.
>Hmm...
>
>Grace played his last FC fixture in 1908. He was, during his career,
>as pre-eminent as a gamesman as he was as a batsman. But there was not
>an immediate improvement on his retirement.
>
>In 1909 we had one of the most egregious examples ever of time wasting
>when Frank Wooley waited 18 minutes to receive his first ball in test
>cricket. Wooley was on stike. Warwick Armstrong bowled a series of
>"trial balls" before he felt actually ready to present a delivery to
>Wooley. Several of these were allowed to roll to the boundary without
>intervention from the lethargic fielders. Armstrong was regarded by
>many as "the Australian WG".
Just as a note here the Australian captain in 1909 was Monty Noble so
responsibility for that one would have to be shared.
>
>Armstrong unleashed Gregory and McDonald on England in 1921.
always an interesting series
here are the bowling figures
Australia Bowling
---------------------------O-----M----R---W-----Avg---Best---5i-10w--
TJE Andrews 13 0 67 1 67.00 1-23 0 0
JM Gregory 182.2 35 552 19 29.05 6-58 1 0
EA McDonald 205.5 32 668 27 24.74 5-32 2 0
HSTL Hendry 52 11 135 3 45.00 2-18 0 0
CG Macartney 13 4 30 0
AA Mailey 124.4 18 398 12 33.16 4-55 0 0
WW Armstrong 127 50 212 8 26.50 2- 6 0 0
CE Pellew 12 3 31 0
JM Taylor 8 1 26 1 26.00 1-25 0 0
HL Collins 7 0 39 0
So while McDonald and Gregory did bowl more than anybody else Mailey
and Armstrong weren't that far behind them for over bowled.
In addition Grgory and McDonalds runs per over don't really suggest a
legside attack , Armstrong was noted as personally bowling extreme leg
theory in quite a few sources that I've seen.
>Armstrong
>was an unsentimental captain and Jardine points out that he had a
>precedent in Armstrong who often set fields with only one or two men
>on the off.
Yes, to his own bowling of leg breaks.
In much the same way that Frank Foster bowled leg theory as a medium
pacer. It was a defensive tactic designed to frustrate the batsman
out.
>
>In 1954 Hutton led England in a remarkably ill-tempered tour of the
>West Indies. Clyde Walcott, writing in 1999, wrote that the series was
>"ruined for many because Hutton allowed some of the fieriest
>characters in his side to offend against the laws and the spirit of
>the laws. Some of the language directed against our players was
>apalling and would not be tolerated today." Hutton was under fire for,
>amongst other things, the action of Tony Lock but he argued that
>Lock's action was no worse than Ramadhin's.
For the interested Lock's faster ball was, according to Trevor Bailey,
faster than quite a few fast bowlers in country cricket.
>
>In the early 1980s we had Somerset declaring a one-day innings closed
>at 0-0 to ensure their passage into the next round of the tournament
>on run-rate; the infamous under-arm ball; Gavaskar objecting so
>strongly to an LBW decision against him that he took his batting
>partner off the field; and "Lillee kicks Miandad" headlines. All of
>this by the end of 1981 with plenty still to come in that decade.
You forget a shoulder charge of an umpire.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Winston Churchill
>
> "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4EaU9.192$zV....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > Trumper, long a favourite of mine, died of a kidney
disease
> > known as nephritis.
<snip>
>
> I thought he had Brights Disease?
>
Yep. More commonly known these days as nephritis.
cheers
Winny
==========
Who knows far more about kidney diseases than he ever wanted
to...
Cicero
> You forget a shoulder charge of an umpire.
Colin Croft. We should never forget. It was disgraceful- and nothing can
ever excuse it.
Cicero
> "Cicero" <tezz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3e213b38$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4EaU9.192$zV....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> > > Trumper, long a favourite of mine, died of a kidney
> disease
> > > known as nephritis.
> <snip>
> >
> > I thought he had Brights Disease?
> >
>
> Yep. More commonly known these days as nephritis.
Would it still be fatal these days ( I guess not as you are posting). But
would it have made him ill earlier than he died?
John Hall
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>On 11 Jan 2003 23:40:21 -0800, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
>wrote:
>>
>
>always an interesting series
>here are the bowling figures
>Australia Bowling
>---------------------------O-----M----R---W-----Avg---Best---5i-10w--
>
>TJE Andrews 13 0 67 1 67.00 1-23 0 0
>JM Gregory 182.2 35 552 19 29.05 6-58 1 0
>EA McDonald 205.5 32 668 27 24.74 5-32 2 0
>HSTL Hendry 52 11 135 3 45.00 2-18 0 0
>CG Macartney 13 4 30 0
>AA Mailey 124.4 18 398 12 33.16 4-55 0 0
>WW Armstrong 127 50 212 8 26.50 2- 6 0 0
>CE Pellew 12 3 31 0
>JM Taylor 8 1 26 1 26.00 1-25 0 0
>HL Collins 7 0 39 0
>
>So while McDonald and Gregory did bowl more than anybody else Mailey
>and Armstrong weren't that far behind them for over bowled.
>In addition Grgory and McDonalds runs per over don't really suggest a
>legside attack , Armstrong was noted as personally bowling extreme leg
>theory in quite a few sources that I've seen.
His very low runs per over figure would tend to support that
interpretation. The aim was presumably to bottle up the batsmen in
between bursts from Gregory and McDonald.
>
>>Armstrong
>>was an unsentimental captain and Jardine points out that he had a
>>precedent in Armstrong who often set fields with only one or two men
>>on the off.
>
>Yes, to his own bowling of leg breaks.
>In much the same way that Frank Foster bowled leg theory as a medium
>pacer. It was a defensive tactic designed to frustrate the batsman
>out.
Yep. It wasn't the equivalent of Bodyline, though if Armstrong had
thought of Bodyline and believed that it was his most effective tactic
then he was a ruthless enough character to have used it. But since he
won 8 Tests in a row against England in 1920-1 and 1921, you could say
he didn't have a need for Bodyline.
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)
Winston Churchill
It *could* be fatal these days, but it can be treated fairly
simply with antibiotics, so anyone with access to modern
medical facilities is unlikely to die from it. In Trumper's
day, of course, there was no such thing.
It's *very* painful. While he was conscious, he would have
been in a huge amount of pain before he died.
cheers
Winny
==========
in office since 1997
Moby
> It *could* be fatal these days, but it can be treated fairly
> simply with antibiotics, so anyone with access to modern
> medical facilities is unlikely to die from it. In Trumper's
> day, of course, there was no such thing.
>
> It's *very* painful. While he was conscious, he would have
> been in a huge amount of pain before he died.
OTOH, the change in pain killers is probably to the detriment of actual pain
killing these days. If only they weren't also addictive drugs that killed
you.
Moby
Poppies everywhere.
Colin Lord
As far as I know that depends on the type of Nephritis (general term for a
series of kidney inflamations). Chronic occurances resulting in an incurable
slow deterioration of the kidneys, and renal failure. It worse if it
develops in the over 20s.
Michael Jameson
Kinda like his commentating...
Michael Jameson
> "Cicero" <tezz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3e213b38$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4EaU9.192$zV....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> > > Trumper, long a favourite of mine, died of a kidney
> disease
> > > known as nephritis.
> <snip>
> >
> > I thought he had Brights Disease?
> >
>
> Yep. More commonly known these days as nephritis.
http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/2218.html -
Bright's disease
Synonyms:
Acute glomerulonephritis, acute nephritic syndrome, acute nephritis.
Associated persons:
Richard Bright
Description:
A vague and obsolete term for disease of the kidneys - acute or chronic.
Usually refers to nonsuppurative inflammatory or degenerative kidney
diseases characterized by proteinuria and hematuria and sometimes by
oedema, hypertension, and nitrogen retention. Prevalent in males; onset
at any age; highest incidence between 3 and 7 years of age.
Bio of Richard Bright, MD -
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/biolib/hc/robinson/bright.html
Winston Churchill
news:XXcU9.4188$UB4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gicU9.242$zV....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > It's *very* painful. While he was conscious, he would
have
> > been in a huge amount of pain before he died.
>
> As far as I know that depends on the type of Nephritis
(general term for a
> series of kidney inflamations). Chronic occurances
resulting in an incurable
> slow deterioration of the kidneys, and renal failure. It
worse if it
> develops in the over 20s.
You are right, nephritis is a general term, there are
several variants. That part of the conversation I will only
continue in alt.medical.kidneys!
On the matter of whether Trumper was in pain, he is various
reported as having died in a great amount of pain. Right now
I have Pollard's "Australian Cricket" to hand and it is
mentioned there under Trumper's entry. I have read similar
things elsewhere though.
Michael Jameson
'Nephritis' is used loosely enough to refer to both chronic and acute
disease and is best just interpreted as "there's something wrong with
your kidneys". More specific diagnoses are commonly also made, certainly
if the problem is chronic or results in co-morbidity. If there's no
further diagnosis made it usually means there was a 'simple' acute
kidney infection - which is usually painful - and, as with Winny, it can
be treated immediately and successfully.
I don't know Trumper's more specific diagnosis, if it was ever made, but
if he had an acute attack then it's unlikely to be fatal these days, as
Winny says. A chronic disease can also be called nephritis when first
diagnosed and is more of a problem. It could be congenital, it could be
physiological deterioration, it could be a bug which is not responsive
to antibiotics and can't be shifted. Even so, nowadays it might be
managed for years with just medication and diet; if more serious then
dialysis or a kidney transplant would be required.
Chronic kidney failure is not, in itself, painful. If Trumper was
basically undergoing kidney failure without acute infection and
inflammation he would not have suffered much, if any, pain. Without
kidney function death occurs over about five days for an average person
and their subjective experience is of slipping slowly into a coma -
thought and perception become fuzzy, self-awareness slowly recedes and
memory function fails until the brain largely shuts down and after a
handful more hours the heart stops.
Note that since Trumper was very fit he probably would have returned to
Test level within a month if he'd had modern treatment for acute
nephritis.
Michael Jameson
> "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gicU9.242$zV....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> > It *could* be fatal these days, but it can be treated fairly
> > simply with antibiotics, so anyone with access to modern
> > medical facilities is unlikely to die from it. In Trumper's
> > day, of course, there was no such thing.
> >
> > It's *very* painful. While he was conscious, he would have
> > been in a huge amount of pain before he died.
>
> OTOH, the change in pain killers is probably to the detriment of actual pain
> killing these days.
???
> If only they weren't also addictive drugs that killed
> you.
Take it easy. I've been on codeine, pethidine, morphine, fentonyl, half a dozen
others. None have killed me and I'm not addicted to them either. Pain
specialists these days are much less concerned about addiction than they used
to be - and rightly so. A normal patient without predisposition to addiction
won't have any trouble self-administering narcotics while necessary and giving
them up when the pain's gone. Basically, the pain-killer is like a sponge; you
use it to soak up the pain but not to feel high. It's normal to feel a bit
woozy but if you're feeling high you've used more than necessary. Most modern
pain teams in Aus prescribe self-administered post-op narcotics wherever
possible and most modern patients use them responsibly. If you've ever had too
much morphine in your system you'll know why - it's a horrible feeling. The
biggest difficulty is the occasional patient who just loves the drugs and is
predisposed to addiction but generally there are some red flags for that.
> Moby
> Poppies everywhere.
Winston Churchill
message news:3E217A88...@hunterlink.net.au...
> I don't know Trumper's more specific diagnosis, if it was
ever made, but
> if he had an acute attack then it's unlikely to be fatal
these days, as
> Winny says.
You're right. The accounts that I have read make it sound
like an infection. He was in a lot of pain and had no
history, as far as I can tell, of any problems.
Interestingly enough, he was a non-smoker and a teetotaller.
I have taken this as a warning and drink and smoke heavily.
> Note that since Trumper was very fit he probably would
have returned to
> Test level within a month if he'd had modern treatment for
acute
> nephritis.
Yep, you wouldn't expect him to be hospitalised for more
than 3 or 4 days (and probably less). He would be weakened
for a week or two (much like a bad case of the flu) and that
would be that.
Moby
> Moby wrote:
>
> > "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:gicU9.242$zV....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > > It *could* be fatal these days, but it can be treated fairly
> > > simply with antibiotics, so anyone with access to modern
> > > medical facilities is unlikely to die from it. In Trumper's
> > > day, of course, there was no such thing.
> > >
> > > It's *very* painful. While he was conscious, he would have
> > > been in a huge amount of pain before he died.
> >
> > OTOH, the change in pain killers is probably to the detriment of actual
pain
> > killing these days.
>
> ???
>
> > If only they weren't also addictive drugs that killed
> > you.
>
> Take it easy. I've been on codeine, pethidine, morphine, fentonyl, half a
dozen
> others. None have killed me and I'm not addicted to them either.
I was also thinking about measuring, quality control etc.
Moby
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>You forget a shoulder charge of an umpire.
Yes... and a fine display of stump kicking in the same series.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>Yes, to his own bowling of leg breaks.
>In much the same way that Frank Foster bowled leg theory as a medium
>pacer. It was a defensive tactic designed to frustrate the batsman
>out.
Aha!
Though there were precedents in county cricket, though probably not
quite what was seen in the infamous series.
I always thought it a bit odd that a tough, thick-skinned character
like Jardine would spend time trying to justify bodyline beyond saying
"we never contravened the laws" or that he just took things to their
logical conclusion.
Maybe he was more sensitive than he is portrayed, or maybe he was
offered a lot of money for his memoirs.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>
>Yep. It wasn't the equivalent of Bodyline, though if Armstrong had
>thought of Bodyline and believed that it was his most effective tactic
>then he was a ruthless enough character to have used it. But since he
>won 8 Tests in a row against England in 1920-1 and 1921, you could say
>he didn't have a need for Bodyline.
But Jardine, a similarly ruthless and unsentimental character, DID
have a need.
Necessity was the mother of invention. I'm not blaming Bodyline on
Bradman, but there's no doubt that the Don presented England in
general and Jardine in particular with a unique problem. There is a
school of thought that says that Jardine was appointed captain because
he was bloody-minded enough to do whatever had to be done to curb
Bradman.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jim Garner) wrote in message news:<avokj7$938$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>
>> When Larwood bust his foot, he bowled the last two or three ballls of his
>> over as lobs, and Ponsford just quietly played them back to him. The
>> bodyline tactic was perceived as unsporting by the standards of the day,
>> yet bouncers today haVE turned cricket into a contact sport.
>
>Today? Well you've alluded to the bodyline series which is not
>remembered for the underuse of the fast, short delivery. Grace himself
>took plenty of blows from fast bowlers in his time - as did many of
>his contemporaries.
Although it's interesting to try and guess how many of them were
deliberate considering the pitches of the day.
When a batsman gets a standing ovation for blocking three shooters
because the crowd knows that any of them could have reared up and hit
him in the head...
That's the sort of thing that makes comparing players between periods
damned hard. If you watch a modern player half the time they get out
to the first straight ball that keeps low, is that because the bowling
is faster or is it that the batsmen are just not used to it? How well
would they adjust?
>
>The only really new things about bouncers are that tail-enders are on
>the receiving end these days and there's a limit of 2 to the over.
Two above shoulder height. Which really isn't the ball that the
Windies (for example) caused problems with, it tended to be upper
chest or jumping to just get to neck level (an umpire isn't likely to
call that if it's gloved)
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 21:28:34 +0000, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>my point was
>>that he was probably personally responsible for more Laws being
>>drafted to curb the kind of things he got up to than any other player
>>before or since.
>
>Huh? I'd suggest that of Mike Brearley, but not of Grace. This is not
>to say that Brearley was a cheat and Grace a saint, but I can't think
>of too many law changes that can reasonably be traced back to Grace.
While I don't know for sure whether they were the only factors in a
rule change there was
- a ball lodged in Grace's clothing and Grace and his partner ran a
few runs
- Grace appealing straight after an interval after the umpire
mentioned during it that he was surprised that there hadn't been an
appeal on the last ball because he'd have given the batsman out.
>
>For Brearley I can think of the introduction of the circle in ODIs,
>and the stipulation that unused helmets must be placed behind the
>keeper.
>
>Even Jardine couldn't provoke a rule change.
Moby
"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
news:3e229208...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Although it's interesting to try and guess how many of them were
> deliberate considering the pitches of the day.
> When a batsman gets a standing ovation for blocking three shooters
> because the crowd knows that any of them could have reared up and hit
> him in the head...
>
> That's the sort of thing that makes comparing players between periods
> damned hard. If you watch a modern player half the time they get out
> to the first straight ball that keeps low, is that because the bowling
> is faster or is it that the batsmen are just not used to it? How well
> would they adjust?
It's a bit like pro-golfers and "bad" courses. A recent tourney in
Australia was called off because the course was apparently too hard. It
looked a lot better than most courses I've managed to play on over the last
few years.
They probably do have the skill to play in such tough conditions, but that
skill has been so tuned to playing on well-prepared surfaces that they no
longer have the contingency plans in place that would save them from the
over-run chip shot or shooting cricket ball.
OTOH, test bowlers would probably create a life-threatening minefield out of
a perfectly normal lower-grade pitch.
Moby
Ron Knight
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:21:35 GMT, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 21:28:34 +0000, Mike Holmans
> ><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>my point was
> >>that he was probably personally responsible for more Laws being
> >>drafted to curb the kind of things he got up to than any other player
> >>before or since.
> >
> >Huh? I'd suggest that of Mike Brearley, but not of Grace. This is not
> >to say that Brearley was a cheat and Grace a saint, but I can't think
> >of too many law changes that can reasonably be traced back to Grace.
>
> While I don't know for sure whether they were the only factors in a
> rule change there was
> - a ball lodged in Grace's clothing and Grace and his partner ran a
> few runs
> - Grace appealing straight after an interval after the umpire
> mentioned during it that he was surprised that there hadn't been an
> appeal on the last ball because he'd have given the batsman out.
The current Law on declaration stipulates that it must be made while the
ball is dead. I don't have a cite, but my understanding is that Grace
once declared after sending a catch up into the air but before it was
caught, so that his average would reflect a not-out, and that the
stipulation that the ball must be dead before a declaration can be made
is a result of this incident.
I believe also, as the other side of your first example, that Grace (and
perhaps others before the Law was changed) claimed a catch by grabbing a
ball that had lodged in the batsman's shirt. Now such balls are dead
upon lodgement. The Law change may have been a result of this
consideration as well as the one you cite.
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
Satya Nitta
>
> That's the sort of thing that makes comparing players between periods
> damned hard. If you watch a modern player half the time they get out
> to the first straight ball that keeps low, is that because the bowling
> is faster or is it that the batsmen are just not used to it? How well
> would they adjust?
From the little historical footage I've seen thus far, I tend to lean
towards your initial hypothesis. I doubt very much whether any batsman
in any generation has the reflexes to keep one of Akhthar's or
Thommo's specials out if the wickets were anywhere near as uneven as
they used to be. Even if the bowler was of Gillespie's pace, it is by
no means an easy task to do so. I subscribe to the school of thought
that suggests that bowlers have gotten quicker over time (certainly
from the 1920's or 30's to modern times) and that it is perfectly
reasonable to expect that they have since the general atheleticity of
the sportsmen has increased over the same period in most other sports.
However, I don't think one can extend that arguement to suggest that
batsmen today are any more skilled than batsman of the past since
skill as a batsman has little to do with how athletic a batsman is.
As to how quick Larwood was, I seem to vaguely recall reading
somewhere that attemps have been made to "time" him from historical
footage, but I wonder whether any such measurements are accurate
enough to consider seriously. Any information on such attempts will be
most appreciated.
Satya
Spaceman Spiff
Cicero <tezz...@optusnet.com.au> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> news:<avokj7$938$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>>> But I really think that after his departure the standard of
>>> sportsmanship improved and may more recently have declined.
>> Hmm...
>>
>> Grace played his last FC fixture in 1908. He was, during his career,
>> as pre-eminent as a gamesman as he was as a batsman. But there was
>> not an immediate improvement on his retirement.
>
why is it sad? did you expect both of them to be alive and kicking today?
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
There was something I had caught inside screaming hard to make it go
And tied me down low, it doesn't seem you really have to
Close you eyes to see, you've been all you'll be to me
Though I know you don't mean to be, it's just too late
And we can't relate at all
John Hall
>pacer. It was a defensive tactic designed to frustrate the batsman
>out.
My understanding is that Foster was close to being genuinely fast (and
also a left-armer), so I wouldn't have expected him to bowl leg theory.
Could you be thinking of Fred Root, who I believed bowled it a lot at
county level (though I don't recall if he played in Tests).
--
John Hall
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>In article <3e21351b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>>In much the same way that Frank Foster bowled leg theory as a medium
>>pacer. It was a defensive tactic designed to frustrate the batsman
>>out.
>
>My understanding is that Foster was close to being genuinely fast (and
>also a left-armer), so I wouldn't have expected him to bowl leg theory.
>Could you be thinking of Fred Root, who I believed bowled it a lot at
>county level (though I don't recall if he played in Tests).
You would post this now that I'm back in London but my Fred Root book
is up North, wouldn't you?
Root certainly played Tests, but he didn't bowl as much leg-theory in
them as he would have liked, because some captains didn't like it.
Root is a passionate advocate of leg theory, and claims all sorts of
precedents as well as claiming to have invented it, so his evidence is
a bit funny, but you'll have to wait until the weekend to find the
verbum ex cathedra from the high priest of leg theory on what Foster
did. It was certainly *a* Foster, though not Frank himself, who
encouraged Root in the development of leg theory while Root was at
Fostershire.
Cheers,
Mike
Bob Dubery
> My understanding is that Foster was close to being genuinely fast (and
> also a left-armer), so I wouldn't have expected him to bowl leg theory.
David Frith describes Foster as "six feet tall, fast left arm, with a
high fluid action, he swung the ball prodigiously from around the
wicket, was exceedingly fast off the patch, and claimed many of his
wickets in the leg-trap of close fielders." Sounds like he was a
handfull. Perhaps that's "medium" where Hamish comes from :-)
Bob Dubery
> On 11 Jan 2003 23:49:42 -0800, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
> >Grace himself
> >took plenty of blows from fast bowlers in his time - as did many of
> >his contemporaries.
>
> Although it's interesting to try and guess how many of them were
> deliberate considering the pitches of the day.
> When a batsman gets a standing ovation for blocking three shooters
> because the crowd knows that any of them could have reared up and hit
> him in the head...
Well usually when WG was playing cricket somebody on the other side
was getting riled. Certainly both Kortright and Spofforth deliberately
bowled fast and short at Grace.
But there's also no doubt that pitches in those days made life harder
for the batsman. The Lord's pitches of the time were notorious, and
the MCC only started attending to the matter after George Summers got
hit on the head and then died on the train home after the match.
Grace was the best player of fast bowling of his day. Kortright once
bowled a sequence of fast yorkers at a military officer who raised the
toes on his left foot when taking guard against the great fast bowler.
Kortright warned the offender that he allowed no one but WG to "cock
his toe" at him and ordered the batsman to desist. The batsman
wouldn't and so Kortright began his bombardment - it ended with a
broken foot.
Bob Dubery
> county level (though I don't recall if he played in Tests).
Wisden lists Root as playing in 3 tests against Australia in 1926.
Mad Hamish
>In article <3e21351b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>>In much the same way that Frank Foster bowled leg theory as a medium
>>pacer. It was a defensive tactic designed to frustrate the batsman
>>out.
>
>My understanding is that Foster was close to being genuinely fast (and
>also a left-armer), so I wouldn't have expected him to bowl leg theory.
>Could you be thinking of Fred Root, who I believed bowled it a lot at
>county level (though I don't recall if he played in Tests).
Checking in World Cricketers - A Biographical Dictionary by
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
He bowled left-arm fast-medium, with a short run and beautifully easy
action, his delivery seeming to hurry off the ground and rush batsmen
into their strokes... one of the pioneers of leg-theory bowling he was
consulted by Douglas Jardine before the bodyline tour of Australia.
from The Datsun Book of Australian Test Cricket by RS Whittington
As his new ball partner after the First test of 1911-12 Barnes was to
have that inducking, l;ate-lifting lefthanded pace bowler Frank Foster
whose field settings, to his subsequent disgust, were to form the
basis of the 'Bodyline' fields Douglas Jardine employed in 1932-33.
From The Ashes - a Centenary by Ray Illingworth and Kenneth Gregory
Foster was medium-pace through the air - at least when seen from the
pavilion - whose deliveries came form the pitch with trebled velocity.
The wicketkeeper stood up; when the ball eluded him it reached the
boundary as quickly as a thunderbolt by Earnest Jones.
so medium pacer might be a little understated (I suspect that I was
only remembering part of the Illingworth passage) but he does seem to
have bowled leg-theory. One report has him bowling a fair bit around
the wicket and I suspect that he probably had a fair inswinger.
I suspect that
John Hall
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
[Frank Foster evidence snipped]
>so medium pacer might be a little understated (I suspect that I was
>only remembering part of the Illingworth passage) but he does seem to
>have bowled leg-theory.
He does, from the reports you quote.
> One report has him bowling a fair bit around
>the wicket and I suspect that he probably had a fair inswinger.
My guess is that the leg theory would have been bowled when he was
bowling over the wicket though. A left-armer bowling round the wicket at
even medium pace couldn't bowl leg-theory without giving his
wicketkeeper a torrid time, I would think, even when the ball didn't
swing.
--
John Hall
"One half of the world cannot understand
the pleasures of the other."
From "Emma" by Jane Austen (1775-1817)
Rodger Donaldson
>One of Grace's biographers notes: "to equal WG's 50 centuries in the
>same period, it requires the combined centuries of the next 13 most
>successful century-scorers in England".
>
>Grace was way ahead of his contemporaries.
Of course, one might also point out it helps to be able to refuse to
leave the crease even when bowled.
--
Rodger Donaldson rod...@diaspora.gen.nz
Bob Dubery
(Rodger Donaldson) wrote:
>Of course, one might also point out it helps to be able to refuse to
>leave the crease even when bowled.
You utter bounder! There is a well documented incidence of Doctor
Grace leaving the crease when at least one stump was still standing.