How Gilbert Jessop was truly an outlier in the fast scoring rates

[RH156RH]

May 1974The legend of Gilbert JessopGERALD BRODRIBB Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Gerald Brodribb profiles one of England's greatest cricketers


Gilbert Jessop in classic pose - leaping out to drive © The Cricketer
May 19, 1974 is the centenary of the birth of a cricketer to whom the epithet "unique" can genuinely be applied; he was a legend in his lifetime, and his name is still remembered in the adjective "Jessopian". No other player has created such use of his name.

In his first innings for Gloucestershire in 1894 Jessop went in after lunch to face the very fast bowling of Mold; two wickets had just fallen in consecutive balls, but Jessop hit his first ball for four, and hit another boundary in the same over. Has any other batsman in the first over of his debut made his intentions so plain? This attack on the bowling was maintained throughout a career which lasted for 21 years. Within a few seasons of his debut his big hitting was drawing comparison with great hitters of the past such as Thornton and Bonnor, but it was not so much the length of his hitting as the frequency of it that was his real achievement.

Today the average county rate of scoring must be about 50 runs an hour, which means that the individual batsman scores at about half this rate. Great batsmen have reached much faster rates, On the evidence of a high proportion of their innings, WG Grace and Hutton scored at 36 runs an hour, CB Fry and FS Jackson at 40, Hobbs, Hendren, Clem Hill and Hammond at 43, JT Tyldesley, Compton, Bradman and MacLaren at 47, McCabe and Ranji at 50, Duleepsinhji, George Cox, Macartney at 52, RE Foster, Trumper and Woolley at 55. The evidence of all Jessop's 179 scores of over 50 (some one in five of all his innings) shows that he scored these innings at a rate of 79 runs an hour. His 53 scores of over 100 were scored at nearly 83 runs an hour.

The only others to come near this pace are a few tailenders, sloggers of a quite different class such as Jim Smith or Watt. Jessop was a great batsman, who between 1894 and 1914 scored over 26,000 runs at an average of 32. If the law governing sixes had been amended before 1910 his aggregate would have been considerably increased. Up to that time you had usually to hit the ball right out of the ground to score a six, and many of Jessop's big hits brought him only four runs. He scored 53 centuries (five of them over 200) and at the time of the end of his career only 13 other batsmen had made a greater number. No less than four times Jessop scored two hundreds in the same match; CB Fry with five times was the only one to surpass this. His average score for innings over a hundred was no less than 140, which compares well with Grace 146, Richards 144, Boycott 140 and Hobbs 134.

Read more at http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketer/content/story/134791.html

RH

[John Hall]

In message <4809614a-e5e4-4031...@googlegroups.com>,
RH156RH <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>May 1974The legend of Gilbert JessopGERALD BRODRIBB

<snip>

A great player, but had you seen him bat I'm not sure that you would
have approved of his stance, for which he was known as "Croucher".
--
John Hall
"Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history
that man can never learn anything from history."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

[RH156RH]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 6:09:28 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <4809614a-e5e4-4031...@googlegroups.com>,
> RH156RH <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >May 1974The legend of Gilbert JessopGERALD BRODRIBB
> <snip>
>
> A great player, but had you seen him bat I'm not sure that you would
> have approved of his stance, for which he was known as "Croucher".
> --
> John

Not a bat waver as far as I know...RH

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketer/content/story/134791.html

Very interesting. His runs per hour certainly were remarkable (compared to his peers).

>His average score for innings over a hundred was no less than 140, which compares well with Grace 146, Richards 144, Boycott 140 and Hobbs 134

Bradman's was 234!

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 3:09:28 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> A great player, but had you seen him bat I'm not sure that you would
> have approved of his stance, for which he was known as "Croucher".

We all know that to score quickly an unorthodox stance is necessary :)

[RH156RH]

All we know about Jessop was that he crouched in his stance. As he was only 5'7" his short stature may have exaggerated his crouch posture... RH

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 9:19:35 PM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
> All we know about Jessop was that he crouched in his stance. As he was only 5'7" his short stature may have exaggerated his crouch posture... RH

5'7" was hardly short in that period.

[RH156RH]

Irrelevant to the point... RH

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:

> May 1974The legend of Gilbert JessopGERALD BRODRIBB Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Gerald Brodribb profiles one of England's greatest cricketers
>
>
> Gilbert Jessop in classic pose - leaping out to drive © The Cricketer
> May 19, 1974 is the centenary of the birth of a cricketer to whom the epithet "unique" can genuinely be applied; he was a legend in his lifetime, and his name is still remembered in the adjective "Jessopian". No other player has created such use of his name.

Bradmanesque...

>
> In his first innings for Gloucestershire in 1894 Jessop went in after lunch to face the very fast bowling of Mold; two wickets had just fallen in consecutive balls, but Jessop hit his first ball for four, and hit another boundary in the same over. Has any other batsman in the first over of his debut made his intentions so plain?

I suspect there've been a few who got crap balls and put them away

> This attack on the bowling was maintained throughout a career which lasted for 21 years. Within a few seasons of his debut his big hitting was drawing comparison with great hitters of the past such as Thornton and Bonnor, but it was not so much the length of his hitting as the frequency of it that was his real achievement.
>
> Today the average county rate of scoring must be about 50 runs an hour, which means that the individual batsman scores at about half this rate. Great batsmen have reached much faster rates, On the evidence of a high proportion of their innings, WG Grace and Hutton scored at 36 runs an hour, CB Fry and FS Jackson at 40, Hobbs, Hendren, Clem Hill and Hammond at 43, JT Tyldesley, Compton, Bradman and MacLaren at 47, McCabe and Ranji at 50, Duleepsinhji, George Cox, Macartney at 52, RE Foster, Trumper and Woolley at 55. The evidence of all Jessop's 179 scores of over 50 (some one in five of all his innings) shows that he scored these innings at a rate of 79 runs an hour. His 53 scores of over 100 were scored at nearly 83 runs an hour.
>

what were the over rates though?
and 3 day matches versus a significant number of timeless matches for some of the other players

There's no question that he was a really fast scorer but if he's receiving twice the balls per hour as a modern player it does make the difference significantly less

> The only others to come near this pace are a few tailenders, sloggers of a quite different class such as Jim Smith or Watt. Jessop was a great batsman, who between 1894 and 1914 scored over 26,000 runs at an average of 32. If the law governing sixes had been amended before 1910 his aggregate would have been considerably increased. Up to that time you had usually to hit the ball right out of the ground to score a six, and many of Jessop's big hits brought him only four runs. He scored 53 centuries (five of them over 200) and at the time of the end of his career only 13 other batsmen had made a greater number.

Yeah, but lets not ignore the fact that there had been huge changes in pitches.
100s became a lot different in the 1880s and 1890s than they were in the 1860s and 1870s so 100s became a lot more common. It's not really an even comparison for players who were much before Jessop.

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

Why do you think an above average man (height-wise, which he was by the looks of things) would be "exaggerated in his crouch posture"?

[RH156RH]

Because a short man will normally not only be shorter but either have or will seem to have disproportionately shorter arms and legs... RH

[Toby Briggs]

5’7” isn’t short, and Jessop was above average height for someone born when he was - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 6:41:30 PM UTC+1, Toby Briggs wrote:
> 5’7” isn’t short, and Jessop was above average height for someone born when he was - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855

Magnificently irrelevant to the point I made... RH

[Toby Briggs]

But you’ve made the point that he is a short man, when he wasn’t

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 7:00:57 PM UTC+1, Toby Briggs wrote:
> But you’ve made the point that he is a short man, when he wasn’t

Dear oh dear. His height is absolute regardless of the average height of his time. RH

[Andy Walker]

On 07/08/18 18:41, Toby Briggs wrote:
> 5’7” isn’t short, and Jessop was above average height for someone
> born when he was - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855

CM-J in "Who's Who of Test Cricketers" describes him as "short
and compact" but also [cf Robert's earlier comment] as having unusually
long arms [vide also action photos of his famed pick-up and throw]. I
haven't trawled Brodribb's biography of Jessop for comments on his
stature and physique, but I did note a photo of his stance, which was
decently upright. If you want to see a "croucher", look, eg, at Tom
Moores. Purely a guess, but I wonder if "Croucher" came not from his
stance but from the way he launched into his [unorthodox] strokes?

CM-J also comments, as do others, on the fact that Jessop rather
set back the cause of fast scoring, as his average is rather low for a
batsman of his ability. The suggestion is that if he had played with
rather more circumspection, he would have scored many more runs. Of
course, that's impossible to know. Certainly he's more "famous" than
many more-numerically-successful players of his era.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 7:24:28 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 07/08/18 18:41, Toby Briggs wrote:
> > 5’7” isn’t short, and Jessop was above average height for someone
> > born when he was - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855
>
> CM-J in "Who's Who of Test Cricketers" describes him as "short
> and compact" but also [cf Robert's earlier comment] as having unusually
> long arms [vide also action photos of his famed pick-up and throw]. I
> haven't trawled Brodribb's biography of Jessop for comments on his
> stature and physique, but I did note a photo of his stance, which was
> decently upright.

That would have been a posed photo, however his stance may have nothing like as extreme as many present day batsmen for his contemporaries to think he crouched. He was noted for being very much a bottom hand player which may have added to the crouching label. RHJ

If you want to see a "croucher", look, eg, at Tom
> Moores. Purely a guess, but I wonder if "Croucher" came not from his
> stance but from the way he launched into his [unorthodox] strokes?

He was noted for jumping out to the ball... RH

>
> CM-J also comments, as do others, on the fact that Jessop rather
> set back the cause of fast scoring, as his average is rather low for a
> batsman of his ability. The suggestion is that if he had played with
> rather more circumspection, he would have scored many more runs. Of
> course, that's impossible to know. Certainly he's more "famous" than
> many more-numerically-successful players of his era.
>
> --

He had a career average of 32 which was better than the vast majority of regular upper order batsmen before the Great War and was close to other leading batsmen, eg,A O Jones 31, Stoddart 32, Keith Hutchings, Lionel Palairet 33, Jackson 33, Maclaran 34 , George Gunn 35. RH

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

So what did you mean by "he was only 5'7" his short stature may have.."

Whilst his height is absolute, the term "short" never is. It is relative.

Why does must a man of above average height have an exaggerated crouch position?

[Andy Walker]

On 07/08/18 20:03, RH156RH wrote:
>> [...] I did note a photo of his stance, which was
>> decently upright.
> That would have been a posed photo, [...].

In 1900-odd there may have been need to pose bowling actions,
but not in order to photograph someone's stance.

>> CM-J also comments, as do others, on the fact that Jessop rather
>> set back the cause of fast scoring, as his average is rather low for a
>> batsman of his ability. The suggestion is that if he had played with
>> rather more circumspection, he would have scored many more runs. Of
>> course, that's impossible to know. Certainly he's more "famous" than
>> many more-numerically-successful players of his era.

> He had a career average of 32 which was better than the vast
> majority of regular upper order batsmen before the Great War and was
> close to other leading batsmen, eg,A O Jones 31, Stoddart 32,
> Keith Hutchings, Lionel Palairet 33, Jackson 33, Maclaran 34 , George
> Gunn 35. RH

But only 22 in 18 Tests. I'll give you Jones, who never produced
his county form [as a batsman] in Tests and Palairet [only two Tests], and
perhaps even Hutchings [assuming you meant Kenneth, not Keith], who got 7
Tests, but Jackson [48], "Maclaran" [sic] [34] and Gunn [40] all did much
better than Jessop in Tests. Jessop is remembered for the one Test he won,
not for the rest of his Test career; if he had produced those scores [as
adjusted for the general RPW] in modern cricket you would be calling for
him to be dropped, as you have for several batsmen with similar averages
over fewer Tests.

Players who fail to reproduce their county form in Test matches do
so for one of two reasons: either they don't have the right temperament to
step up, or else they have a technique which is found out at the higher
level. 1902 showed that Jessop was not lacking in temperament, so we have
to deduce, as CM-J did, that his technique was better suited to thrashing
county attacks than Test attacks. Nothing wrong with that; he made a very
special mark in cricket. But one suspects that if he had played in a more
orthodox way he would very likely have scored many more runs, and might
have been remembered as a scorer in the Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Hammond mould.
As before, we'll never know.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

All irrelevant to the crouching question. RH

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 11:29:06 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:

Because the taller the man the greater the need to crouch to assume a conventional stance. RH

[RH156RH]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 12:10:58 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 07/08/18 20:03, RH156RH wrote:
> >> [...] I did note a photo of his stance, which was
> >> decently upright.
> > That would have been a posed photo, [...].
>
> In 1900-odd there may have been need to pose bowling actions,
> but not in order to photograph someone's stance.

You are making the schoolboy error of assuming that someone adopting a stance without facing a bowler in order to be photographed will adopt the the same stance as they would in a match. RH

>
> >> CM-J also comments, as do others, on the fact that Jessop rather
> >> set back the cause of fast scoring, as his average is rather low for a
> >> batsman of his ability. The suggestion is that if he had played with
> >> rather more circumspection, he would have scored many more runs. Of
> >> course, that's impossible to know. Certainly he's more "famous" than
> >> many more-numerically-successful players of his era.
> > He had a career average of 32 which was better than the vast
> > majority of regular upper order batsmen before the Great War and was
> > close to other leading batsmen, eg,A O Jones 31, Stoddart 32,
> > Keith Hutchings, Lionel Palairet 33, Jackson 33, Maclaran 34 , George
> > Gunn 35. RH
>
> But only 22 in 18 Tests. I'll give you Jones, who never produced
> his county form [as a batsman] in Tests and Palairet [only two Tests], and
> perhaps even Hutchings [assuming you meant Kenneth, not Keith], who got 7
> Tests, but Jackson [48], "Maclaran" [sic] [34] and Gunn [40] all did much
> better than Jessop in Tests. Jessop is remembered for the one Test he won,
> not for the rest of his Test career; if he had produced those scores [as
> adjusted for the general RPW] in modern cricket you would be calling for
> him to be dropped, as you have for several batsmen with similar averages
> over fewer Tests.

All wonderfully irrelevant to the assessment of Jessop as a batsman overall. It is worth adding that when Jessop was first chosen for England it was as an allrounder rather than a pure batsman. RH

>
> Players who fail to reproduce their county form in Test matches do
> so for one of two reasons: either they don't have the right temperament to
> step up, or else they have a technique which is found out at the higher
> level. 1902 showed that Jessop was not lacking in temperament, so we have
> to deduce, as CM-J did, that his technique was better suited to thrashing
> county attacks than Test attacks. Nothing wrong with that; he made a very
> special mark in cricket. But one suspects that if he had played in a more
> orthodox way he would very likely have scored many more runs, and might
> have been remembered as a scorer in the Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Hammond mould.
> As before, we'll never know.

As I pointed out his career average is good compared with his contemporaries.. RH

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

Are you saying that;

1. tall men must crouch
2. short men must crouch

[RH156RH]

Tall men must crouch to achieve an orthodox stance.

Short men may crouch but also give an impression of crouching simply because they are short.

It is also important to realise that humans do not retain the same ratio of body parts to one another as a matter of course, viz:

. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry

Allometric scaling
Allometric scaling is any change that deviates from isometry. A classic example discussed by Galileo in his Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences is the skeleton of mammals. The skeletal structure becomes much stronger and more robust relative to the size of the body as the body size increases.[11] Allometry is often expressed in terms of a scaling exponent based on body mass, or body length (Snout-vent length, total length etc.). A perfectly isometrically scaling organism would see all volume-based properties change proportionally to the body mass, all surface area-based properties change with mass to the power of 2/3, and all length-based properties change with mass to the power of 1/3. If, after statistical analyses, for example, a volume-based property was found to scale to mass to the 0.9th power, then this would be called "negative allometry", as the values are smaller than predicted by isometry. Conversely, if a surface area-based property scales to mass to the 0.8th power, the values are higher than predicted by isometry and the organism is said to show "positive allometry". One example of positive allometry occurs among species of monitor lizards (family Varanidae), in which the limbs are relatively longer in larger-bodied species.[12] The same is true for some fish, e.g. the muskellunge, the weight of which grows with about the power of 3.325 of its length.[13] A 30-inch (76 cm) muskellunge will weigh about 8 pounds (3.6 kg), while a 40-inch (100 cm) muskellunge will weigh about 18 pounds (8.2 kg), so 33% longer length will more than double the weight.


RH

[Andy Walker]

On 08/08/18 07:41, RH156RH wrote:
>> In 1900-odd there may have been need to pose bowling actions,
>> but not in order to photograph someone's stance.
> You are making the schoolboy error of assuming that someone adopting
> a stance without facing a bowler in order to be photographed will
> adopt the the same stance as they would in a match. RH

Why would he not? Esp since at the time Jessop's stance would
have been well-known to many people who saw the photograph. Indeed, the
photographer was probably Beldam, who would certainly not have stood for
any nonsense.

[...]

>>> He had a career average of 32 which was better than the vast
>>> majority of regular upper order batsmen before the Great War and was
>>> close to other leading batsmen, eg,A O Jones 31, Stoddart 32,
>>> Keith Hutchings, Lionel Palairet 33, Jackson 33, Maclaran 34 , George
>>> Gunn 35. RH

>> But only 22 in 18 Tests. [...]

>> Jackson [48], "Maclaran" [sic] [34] and Gunn [40] all did much

>> better than Jessop in Tests. [...].

> All wonderfully irrelevant to the assessment of Jessop as a batsman
> overall.

Jackson, etc, were *your* red herrings.

[...]

> As I pointed out his career average is good compared with his contemporaries.. RH

F-c yes [tho' not exceptional]; but not at Test level. He scored
very quickly -- by far the quickest of serious regular batsmen, at least up
to modern times; but it mostly didn't really come off, esp at Test level.
I'm not the only person to point this out. Had it been otherwise, he would
have been a fixture in the Test side. We can only speculate what he might
have done in one-day cricket, where the ability to build an innings is less
important and scoring rapidly is paramount.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 3:02:05 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 08/08/18 07:41, RH156RH wrote:
> >> In 1900-odd there may have been need to pose bowling actions,
> >> but not in order to photograph someone's stance.
> > You are making the schoolboy error of assuming that someone adopting
> > a stance without facing a bowler in order to be photographed will
> > adopt the the same stance as they would in a match. RH
>
> Why would he not?

Because the psychological situation would be completely different. RH

Esp since at the time Jessop's stance would
> have been well-known to many people who saw the photograph. Indeed, the
> photographer was probably Beldam, who would certainly not have stood for
> any nonsense.

Beldam's photos are pretty unconvincing. The bowlers stand at the bowling crease with their arms holding a ball while their bodies show nothing of the muscular distortion of a bowler getting into his delivery stride, while batsmen stand self consciously frequently looking away from where a bowler would. RH

>
> [...]
> >>> He had a career average of 32 which was better than the vast
> >>> majority of regular upper order batsmen before the Great War and was
> >>> close to other leading batsmen, eg,A O Jones 31, Stoddart 32,
> >>> Keith Hutchings, Lionel Palairet 33, Jackson 33, Maclaran 34 , George
> >>> Gunn 35. RH
> >> But only 22 in 18 Tests. [...]
> >> Jackson [48], "Maclaran" [sic] [34] and Gunn [40] all did much
> >> better than Jessop in Tests. [...].
> > All wonderfully irrelevant to the assessment of Jessop as a batsman
> > overall.
>
> Jackson, etc, were *your* red herrings.

What red herrings? RHJ

>
> [...]
> > As I pointed out his career average is good compared with his contemporaries.. RH
>
> F-c yes [tho' not exceptional]; but not at Test level. He scored
> very quickly -- by far the quickest of serious regular batsmen, at least up
> to modern times; but it mostly didn't really come off, esp at Test level.

It came off very often outside of Tests including a double century against Yorkshire in the era of Hirst, Rhodes and Haigh and two centuries in a match against Yokshire again in the age of Hirst, Rhodes and Haigh. His record of 53 centuries and 127 50s was beaten by few players before WW1. >

I'm not the only person to point this out. Had it been otherwise, he would
> have been a fixture in the Test side. We can only speculate what he might
> have done in one-day cricket, where the ability to build an innings is less
> important and scoring rapidly is paramount.

Here is something something else about Jessop which is arresting:

Besides his cricketing ability, Jessop was an allround athlete of note. He got his Blue as a hockey goalkeeper, but fell ill and could not play in the University match. He came near getting an Association football Blue and played for The Casuals as half-back or goalkeeper. He also appeared as a wing-threequarter for Gloucester R.F.C. He would have played billiards for Cambridge against Oxford, but was gated and could not take part. In one week he made two breaks of over 150. He could run the 100 yards in 10.2 seconds and frequently entered for sports meetings. A scratch golfer, he took part in the Amateur Championship in 1914, was Secretary of the Cricketers' Golfing Society and for some years Secretary of the Edgware Club (cricinfo.com).

In 1916 whilst serving in the Lincolnshire Regiment, suffering from severe lumbago Jessop was sent to a clinic in Bath The Radiant Heat Treatment ' involved dousing with total immersion for 30 minutes at a temperature of 210–310 degrees F'. The patient was placed in an up-ended coffin like structure and steamed up. If he became too uncomfortable he could raise the lid and get out. By some 'accident' the catch fell, the attendant had gone away and Jessop was unable to summon assistance. When he was eventually rescued his heart had been seriously damaged by this terrible ordeal. In a matter of minutes the sporting life of one of the greatest athletes had come to an abrupt end. For the next 39 years Jessop was to lead a life of very limited activity. In November 1917 he was invalided out of the Army. He was able to make his living from journalism and compiled his biography: The Cricketer's Log. In 1924 he took up an appointment as Secretary of Edgware Golf Club, a position he held until 1936 when the land was sold for housing development. In 1936 Jessop moved to the Vicarage of Fordington St George, Dorchester, Dorset, to live with his son. It was at Fordington, Dorset, that he died on 11 May 1955, aged 80.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Jessop


>
> --
> Andy Walker,
> Nottingham.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 3:09:28 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:

> In message <4809614a-e5e4-4031...@googlegroups.com>,
> RH156RH <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >May 1974The legend of Gilbert JessopGERALD BRODRIBB
> <snip>
>
> A great player, but had you seen him bat I'm not sure that you would
> have approved of his stance, for which he was known as "Croucher".

That's one take on it, I've also seen it written that it came from his fielding.

[Andy Walker]

On 08/08/18 16:24, RH156RH wrote:
>>> You are making the schoolboy error of assuming that someone adopting
>>> a stance without facing a bowler in order to be photographed will
>>> adopt the the same stance as they would in a match. RH
>> Why would he not?
> Because the psychological situation would be completely different. RH

Really? So when Beldam says "Just take your guard as normal", GLJ
doesn't crouch as usual [allegedly], Beldam doesn't notice, none of the
people who see the resulting photograph comment that it looks strange, and
that is the "iconic" picture chosen by Brodribb for a book called "The
Croucher", on which he collaborated with Jessop's family and with lots
of other people who had seen Jessop. Your psychological "insights" amaze
us sometimes. Most of us would assume that that was his normal stance,
and that "croucher" came from something else, such as his [alleged] habit
of crouching as the bowler delivered.

> Beldam's photos are pretty unconvincing. The bowlers stand at the
> bowling crease with their arms holding a ball while their bodies show
> nothing of the muscular distortion of a bowler getting into his
> delivery stride, while batsmen stand self consciously frequently
> looking away from where a bowler would. RH

I think you're confused. Certainly the pictures [eg] in Ranji's
[MacLaren's!] "Jubilee" book look as you describe, but Beldam's work is
mostly from a few years later, and mostly consists of genuine action
photos. He was, after all, known as one of the first action photographers.
Incidentally, his f-c average was over 30, which, according to you, puts
him as one of the best of the period, up there with the Palairets and the
Hutchings -- one wonders why he never got a Test?

Brodribb's book also includes Beldam's photos of Jessop fielding,
taking the ball at full stretch and throwing, and manifestly not posed as
Jessop is way off balance. Serendipitously, I'm currently reading "The
Strangers Who Came Home", about the 1878 tour, which includes Beldam's
photos of Spofforth in 1904; again, manifestly not posed, as the ball
is visible just after release and as S is completely off balance.

[...]

>>> All wonderfully irrelevant to the assessment of Jessop as a batsman
>>> overall.
>> Jackson, etc, were *your* red herrings.
> What red herrings? RHJ

The cause of the "wonderfully irrelevant".

>>> As I pointed out his career average is good compared with his contemporaries.. RH
>> F-c yes [tho' not exceptional]; but not at Test level. He scored
>> very quickly -- by far the quickest of serious regular batsmen, at least up
>> to modern times; but it mostly didn't really come off, esp at Test level.

> It came off very often outside of Tests [...].

Yes, we know that. It's the very basis of his fame. But *mostly* his
scores were disappointing for a player of his calibre. That's not surprising,
given his f-c average in the low 30s and Test average in the low 20s. No other
player with those sorts of average would merit a full biography [unless for
non-cricketing reasons!]. Recently, you were suggesting that we look at the
performances of, in particular, Dawid Malan and Keaton Jennings, with a view
to dropping them. Perhaps you should look at their Test and f-c averages,
and compare with Jessop [allowing for the change in RPW]?

> Here is something something else about Jessop which is arresting:

> Besides his cricketing ability, Jessop was an allround athlete of note. [...]

Well, anyone can cut'n'paste a Wiki article. Everything you have said
is well-known, and is [for example] in Brodribb's biography. Don't get me
wrong [as you almost invariably do]; Jessop was a phenomenon. But he was also
a "might have been". It remains to be seen how far some modern players, esp
[for England] Hales and Roy and others, can emulate him.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 3:29:31 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 08/08/18 16:24, RH156RH wrote:
> >>> You are making the schoolboy error of assuming that someone adopting
> >>> a stance without facing a bowler in order to be photographed will
> >>> adopt the the same stance as they would in a match. RH
> >> Why would he not?
> > Because the psychological situation would be completely different. RH
>
> Really?

Yes, just as players rehearsing shots bears little resemblance to shots actually played against a ball.. RH

So when Beldam says "Just take your guard as normal", GLJ
> doesn't crouch as usual [allegedly], Beldam doesn't notice, none of the
> people who see the resulting photograph comment that it looks strange, and
> that is the "iconic" picture chosen by Brodribb for a book called "The
> Croucher", on which he collaborated with Jessop's family and with lots
> of other people who had seen Jessop. Your psychological "insights" amaze
> us sometimes. Most of us would assume that that was his normal stance,
> and that "croucher" came from something else, such as his [alleged] habit
> of crouching as the bowler delivered.
>
> > Beldam's photos are pretty unconvincing. The bowlers stand at the
> > bowling crease with their arms holding a ball while their bodies show
> > nothing of the muscular distortion of a bowler getting into his
> > delivery stride, while batsmen stand self consciously frequently
> > looking away from where a bowler would. RH
>
> I think you're confused.

Try this photo of Beldham himself...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=G+W+Beldam+cricketer&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikxL6vneDcAhWDyYUKHSpZAN8Q_AUICigB&biw=1455&bih=718#imgrc=eKJnVVINLI1gdM:

RH

Certainly the pictures [eg] in Ranji's
> [MacLaren's!] "Jubilee" book look as you describe, but Beldam's work is
> mostly from a few years later, and mostly consists of genuine action
> photos. He was, after all, known as one of the first action photographers.
> Incidentally, his f-c average was over 30, which, according to you, puts
> him as one of the best of the period, up there with the Palairets and the
> Hutchings -- one wonders why he never got a Test?
>
> Brodribb's book also includes Beldam's photos of Jessop fielding,
> taking the ball at full stretch and throwing, and manifestly not posed as
> Jessop is way off balance. Serendipitously, I'm currently reading "The
> Strangers Who Came Home", about the 1878 tour, which includes Beldam's
> photos of Spofforth in 1904; again, manifestly not posed, as the ball
> is visible just after release and as S is completely off balance.
>
> [...]
> >>> All wonderfully irrelevant to the assessment of Jessop as a batsman
> >>> overall.
> >> Jackson, etc, were *your* red herrings.
> > What red herrings? RHJ
>
> The cause of the "wonderfully irrelevant".

I repeat what red herrings? RH

>
> >>> As I pointed out his career average is good compared with his contemporaries.. RH
> >> F-c yes [tho' not exceptional]; but not at Test level. He scored
> >> very quickly -- by far the quickest of serious regular batsmen, at least up
> >> to modern times; but it mostly didn't really come off, esp at Test level.
> > It came off very often outside of Tests [...].
>
> Yes, we know that. It's the very basis of his fame. But *mostly* his
> scores were disappointing for a player of his calibre.

So, 53 centuries, is disappointing? By the time Jessop finished his career in 1914 I think only Percy Perrin, Grace, Phil Mead, Johnny Tyldesley, Shrewsbury, Hayward, Hobbs, Fry, Ranji, and David Denton would have scored more centuries... RH

That's not surprising,
> given his f-c average in the low 30s

Which was much better than most upper order batsmen of the time... RH

and Test average in the low 20s. No other
> player with those sorts of average would merit a full biography [unless for
> non-cricketing reasons!].

Of course they would, eg, Bob Appleyard. RH

Recently, you were suggesting that we look at the
> performances of, in particular, Dawid Malan and Keaton Jennings, with a view
> to dropping them. Perhaps you should look at their Test and f-c averages,
> and compare with Jessop [allowing for the change in RPW]?

Averages are higher today because of covered pitches, pitch inspectors, modern bats, much increased protective equipment....RH

>
> > Here is something something else about Jessop which is arresting:
> > Besides his cricketing ability, Jessop was an allround athlete of note. [...]
>
> Well, anyone can cut'n'paste a Wiki article. Everything you have said
> is well-known, and is [for example] in Brodribb's biography. Don't get me
> wrong [as you almost invariably do]; Jessop was a phenomenon. But he was also
> a "might have been". It remains to be seen how far some modern players, esp
> [for England] Hales and Roy and others, can emulate him.
>
>

They don't come close in FC cricket... RH

[David North]

On 07/08/2018 00:20, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:

> http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketer/content/story/134791.html
>
> Very interesting. His runs per hour certainly were remarkable (compared to his peers).
>
>> His average score for innings over a hundred was no less than 140, which compares well with Grace 146, Richards 144, Boycott 140 and Hobbs 134
>
> Bradman's was 234!

The above are presumably average scores (regardless of whether out), not
batting averages. Taking the list of Grace's hundreds at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-class_cricket_centuries_by_W._G._Grace,
his average score was 146.63, which more or less matches the figure
quoted, but his batting average was 182.93.

While Bradman's batting average for Test innings of 100+ was 234.47, his
average score was 185.97. I could not find a list of his FC centuries,
and no longer have a CricketArchive subscription to produce one.

--
David North

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:48:32 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> The above are presumably average scores (regardless of whether out)

I know you didn't start it, but who on earth talks about mean/average cricket scores?

[Andy Walker]

On 09/08/18 16:29, RH156RH wrote:
>>>>> You are making the schoolboy error of assuming that someone adopting
>>>>> a stance without facing a bowler in order to be photographed will
>>>>> adopt the the same stance as they would in a match. RH
>>>> Why would he not?
>>> Because the psychological situation would be completely different. RH
>> Really?
> Yes, just as players rehearsing shots bears little resemblance to
> shots actually played against a ball.. RH

It really would help if you responded to articles after you'd read
them rather than after just one word. There wasn't a ball, real or to be
imagined, or a rehearsal, just a "take your guard as normal". To repeat:

| So when Beldam says "Just take your guard as normal", GLJ
| doesn't crouch as usual [allegedly], Beldam doesn't notice, none of the
| people who see the resulting photograph comment that it looks strange, and
| that is the "iconic" picture chosen by Brodribb for a book called "The
| Croucher", on which he collaborated with Jessop's family and with lots
| of other people who had seen Jessop. Your psychological "insights" amaze
| us sometimes. Most of us would assume that that was his normal stance,
| and that "croucher" came from something else, such as his [alleged] habit
| of crouching as the bowler delivered.

[...]

>>>> [Jessop] mostly didn't really come off, esp at Test level.

>>> It came off very often outside of Tests [...].
>> Yes, we know that. It's the very basis of his fame. But *mostly* his
>> scores were disappointing for a player of his calibre.

> So, 53 centuries, is disappointing? [...]

Next time you witter on about Ramprakash and his performance in
Tests, perhaps you will pause and think about his centuries.

>> That's not surprising,
>> given his f-c average in the low 30s
> Which was much better than most upper order batsmen of the time... RH

Of course it was; most county batsmen don't get to play in Tests.
Do you see no gradations between ATG players and county-class players?
The sort that look good in the CC, perhaps gain a Test cap or three, or
even a dozen, but never really quite nail down a Test place?

FYI: 66 England batsmen had better Test averages up to 1914 than
Jessop, and 22 of those had better career f-c averages than him. Admittedly
some [eg Grieve] were "lucky" in that; OTOH, others [eg Crawford, Mitchell,
WGunn and Quaife] were close. Someone else can find out how many f-c batsmen
had career averages better than Jessop; CricInfo is pretty hopeless, AFAICT,
with f-c statistics.

Just to repeat: I have nothing against Jessop; he is an interesting
case. But his fame does not rest on his centuries or his averages, but on
the rate at which he scored.

>> Recently, you were suggesting that we look at the
>> performances of, in particular, Dawid Malan and Keaton Jennings, with a view
>> to dropping them. Perhaps you should look at their Test and f-c averages,
>> and compare with Jessop [allowing for the change in RPW]?
> Averages are higher today because of covered pitches, pitch
> inspectors, modern bats, much increased protective equipment....RH

Yes, that's why I mentioned the change in RPW.

>> [...] Don't get me

>> wrong [as you almost invariably do]; Jessop was a phenomenon. But he was also
>> a "might have been". It remains to be seen how far some modern players, esp
>> [for England] Hales and Roy and others, can emulate him.
> They don't come close in FC cricket... RH

Yes they do: Hales: f-c 37.81; Roy: f-c 37.72. But the point is
not that, it's their phenomenal striking when they get going. You can add
[eg] Bairstow [f-c 46.15, and nearly as fast in limited overs].

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[David North]

Indeed - it was an odd choice of stat.


--
David North

[RH156RH]

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 6:11:23 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 09/08/18 16:29, RH156RH wrote:
> >>>>> You are making the schoolboy error of assuming that someone adopting
> >>>>> a stance without facing a bowler in order to be photographed will
> >>>>> adopt the the same stance as they would in a match. RH
> >>>> Why would he not?
> >>> Because the psychological situation would be completely different. RH
> >> Really?
> > Yes, just as players rehearsing shots bears little resemblance to
> > shots actually played against a ball.. RH
>
> It really would help if you responded to articles after you'd read
> them rather than after just one word. There wasn't a ball, real or to be
> imagined, or a rehearsal, just a "take your guard as normal". To repeat:
>
> | So when Beldam says "Just take your guard as normal", GLJ
> | doesn't crouch as usual [allegedly], Beldam doesn't notice, none of the
> | people who see the resulting photograph comment that it looks strange, and
> | that is the "iconic" picture chosen by Brodribb for a book called "The
> | Croucher", on which he collaborated with Jessop's family and with lots
> | of other people who had seen Jessop. Your psychological "insights" amaze
> | us sometimes. Most of us would assume that that was his normal stance,
> | and that "croucher" came from something else, such as his [alleged] habit
> | of crouching as the bowler delivered.

What an hilarious absence of psychological insight. Jessop may have been embarrass by his croucher moniker and have deliberately adopted a textbook stance or when he was not facing a bowler he may not have had the psychological impetus to crouch. RH

>
> [...]
>
> >>>> [Jessop] mostly didn't really come off, esp at Test level.
> >>> It came off very often outside of Tests [...].
> >> Yes, we know that. It's the very basis of his fame. But *mostly* his
> >> scores were disappointing for a player of his calibre.
> > So, 53 centuries, is disappointing? [...]
>
> Next time you witter on about Ramprakash and his performance in
> Tests, perhaps you will pause and think about his centuries.

You are ignoring the facts that (1) Jessop was originally chosen as an allrounder and (2) he did not play that many Tests, all of which were against Oz with a few against SA. RH

>
> >> That's not surprising,
> >> given his f-c average in the low 30s
> > Which was much better than most upper order batsmen of the time... RH
>
> Of course it was; most county batsmen don't get to play in Tests.
> Do you see no gradations between ATG players and county-class players?
> The sort that look good in the CC, perhaps gain a Test cap or three, or
> even a dozen, but never really quite nail down a Test place?
>
> FYI: 66 England batsmen had better Test averages up to 1914 than
> Jessop, and 22 of those had better career f-c averages than him. Admittedly
> some [eg Grieve] were "lucky" in that; OTOH, others [eg Crawford, Mitchell,
> WGunn and Quaife] were close. Someone else can find out how many f-c batsmen
> had career averages better than Jessop; CricInfo is pretty hopeless, AFAICT,
> with f-c statistics.

Not many and even those who did often did not exceed him by much, eg, Jackson 34 and Maclaran 33. RH

>
> Just to repeat: I have nothing against Jessop; he is an interesting
> case. But his fame does not rest on his centuries or his averages, but on
> the rate at which he scored.
>
> >> Recently, you were suggesting that we look at the
> >> performances of, in particular, Dawid Malan and Keaton Jennings, with a view
> >> to dropping them. Perhaps you should look at their Test and f-c averages,
> >> and compare with Jessop [allowing for the change in RPW]?
> > Averages are higher today because of covered pitches, pitch
> > inspectors, modern bats, much increased protective equipment....RH
>
> Yes, that's why I mentioned the change in RPW.
>
> >> [...] Don't get me
> >> wrong [as you almost invariably do]; Jessop was a phenomenon. But he was also
> >> a "might have been". It remains to be seen how far some modern players, esp
> >> [for England] Hales and Roy and others, can emulate him.
> > They don't come close in FC cricket... RH
>
> Yes they do: Hales: f-c 37.81; Roy: f-c 37.72. But the point is
> not that, it's their phenomenal striking when they get going. You can add
> [eg] Bairstow [f-c 46.15, and nearly as fast in limited overs].

" The evidence of all Jessop's 179 scores of over 50 (some one in five of all his innings) shows that he scored these innings at a rate of 79 runs an hour. His 53 scores of over 100 were scored at nearly 83 runs an hour. "

Next! RH

[news.individual.net]

"RH156RH" <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4173fb51-153a-4ae3...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 6:11:23 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 09/08/18 16:29, RH156RH wrote:

>> >>>> [Jessop] mostly didn't really come off, esp at Test level.
>> >>> It came off very often outside of Tests [...].
>> >> Yes, we know that. It's the very basis of his fame. But *mostly* his
>> >> scores were disappointing for a player of his calibre.
>> > So, 53 centuries, is disappointing? [...]
>>
>> Next time you witter on about Ramprakash and his performance in
>> Tests, perhaps you will pause and think about his centuries.
>
> You are ignoring the facts that (1) Jessop was originally chosen as an
> allrounder and (2) he did not play that many Tests, all of which were
> against Oz with a few against SA. RH

So all were against Oz except 28% (31% of his innings). He averaged 24
against Australia; Ramprakash averaged 42 against them. In Australia, he
averaged 18, Ramprakash 49.

>> >> That's not surprising,
>> >> given his f-c average in the low 30s
>> > Which was much better than most upper order batsmen of the time... RH
>>
>> Of course it was; most county batsmen don't get to play in Tests.
>> Do you see no gradations between ATG players and county-class players?
>> The sort that look good in the CC, perhaps gain a Test cap or three, or
>> even a dozen, but never really quite nail down a Test place?
>>
>> FYI: 66 England batsmen had better Test averages up to 1914 than
>> Jessop, and 22 of those had better career f-c averages than him.
>> Admittedly
>> some [eg Grieve] were "lucky" in that; OTOH, others [eg Crawford,
>> Mitchell,
>> WGunn and Quaife] were close. Someone else can find out how many f-c
>> batsmen
>> had career averages better than Jessop;

I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't play Tests.

>> CricInfo is pretty hopeless, AFAICT,
>> with f-c statistics.
>
> Not many and even those who did often did not exceed him by much, eg,
> Jackson 34 and Maclaran 33. RH

Ranji 56
Fry 50
Hayward, Foster 42
WG Grace 39
Shrewsbury 37
G Gunn, Warner, Spooner 36
Abel, Druce, Quaife 35
Hirst, Hutchings, Palairet 34
W Gunn, Denton 33

(not a complete list)

We'd need to know the over rate to make a fair comparison.
--
David North

[RH156RH]

Here's a few more Test players who could have batted in the top six for England of the period FC averages


Lionel Palairet 33
Septimus Kinneir 32
Joe Hardstaff snr 31
Jack Sharp 31
JT Brown 30
Albert Ward 30
Charles McGahey30
Joe Vine 29
Albert Knight 29
F L Fane 27
Bill Brockwell 27
Alfred Lucas 26
Lord Harris 26
Len Braund 25
Frank Sugg 24
James Cranston 19
RH

Even if we are talking about 20 overs an hour then and 16 overs now Jessop would still be well ahead. RH

[RH156RH]

On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:59:54 PM UTC+1, news.individual.net wrote:

What on earth makes you think that? There were far fewer Tests played than in modern times. Plenty of regular county players in the period 1894-1914 (Jessop's career) did not play Test cricket . Here is a selection of the best - some played Test cricket but only after the Great War :

Levi George Wright (Derbyshire)
Percy Perrin (Essex)
CAG Russell (Essex)
A Dipper (Gloucs)
George Brown (Hants)
Cuthbert Burnup
HT Hardinge (Kent)
E Humphreys (Kent)
James Seymour (Kent)
Harry Makepiece (Lancs)
Ernest Tyldesley (Lancs)
CJB Wood (Leics)
Patsy Hendren (MDDX)
CJC Poole (Northants)
William Paynton (Notts)
Andrew Ducat (Surrey)
Donald Knight (Surrey)
VFS Crawford (Surrey)
E H Killick (Sussex)
HK Foster (Worcs)
F L Bowley (Worces)
John Tunnicliffe (Yorks)
B Wilson (Yorks)
Roy Kilner (Yorks)

RH

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Probably the idea that a large proportion of batsmen who averaged higher than Jessop played tests.

> There were far fewer Tests played than in modern times.

True, OTOH there was also a lot less continuity of players, various squads went to South Africa without a lot of first choice players and with the period between tests people could probably lose their spot easier by having a bad run in the county matches.

> Plenty of regular county players in the period 1894-1914 (Jessop's career) did not play Test cricket .

He's not saying that very few county players didn't play tests, he's saying that very few county players with averages higher than Jessop wouldn't have played tests.

> Here is a selection of the best - some played Test cricket but only after the Great War :

But here you're completely ignoring the periods. Jessop played first class cricket from 1894-1914, a lot of the players you've listed started more than 10 years after that. Others started 10 years before him.
You're including players who averaged in the 20s...

CAG Russell played from 1908-1930 so there's a relatively small period of overlap (and I'm not sure how much he played in the first few years.

Levi Wright played from 1883-1909 and averaged 26, if he was one of the finest players around that strongly suggests that Jessop's average being higher than a lot of other players shows that conditions changed significantly between the 1880s and the mid 1890s, which means the comparison of Jessop's average to that of players before him is heavily slanted in his direction.

Perrin was apparently not selected for England or Gentlemen vs Players because he was poor in the field.
Dipper played from 1908-1932, again his average probably has a lot to do with changing conditions. He was called up from club cricket in 1908 due to the side being a man short and only established himself in 1911, so very little overlap. Again his fielding was an issue for Tests

George Brown, average 26, again started in 1908 so late in Jessop's career.

Burnup is an interesting case (if you throw enough names out by pure chance you'll get one that's curious)
I'm not sure how available he would have been while he was at university, I expect that tours were out of the question and it's not clear what he did for work

Hardinge is another who played a long while afterwards, 1902 (at 16) to 1933. He's unlikely to have been picked as a 16 year old...
For a large part of his career Hobbs had a spot nailed down, for a significant part Sutcliffe did.
His job also got in the way, he was denied a leave of absence to go on a tour of Australia

Edward Humpries averaged 27 with the bat

James Seymour averaged slightly below Jessop and was a borderline pick for Gentlemen vs Players (again, his career went through to 1926).

Makepeace is another who debuted late in Jessop's career and played a long while after it, 1906-1930, marginally ahead of Jessop's average but averages were higher in the 20s.

Tyldesley 1909-1936 averaging in the mid 40s in first class cricket, played 14 tests. What was your point in naming him?

Can't find a CJB Woods

Hendren is another who played late in Jessop's career and well afterwards, 1907-1937. His average is going to be higher because 1920s and 1930 pitches were easier (Just like Jessop's average is higher because he played on pitches that were easier than earlier players)

CJT Pool averaged 25 (CJ Poole was born in 1921 so seems unlikely to have overlapped much with Jessop's first class career)

Wilfred Payton played from 1905-1931, again a lot of play in the 20s onwards to lift his average

Ducat is yet another player who played from 1905-1931, again a lot of it in much different conditions from Jessop.

Donald Knight averaged 30, he debuted in 1911 and finished his career in 1937. No real comparison possible there.

Vivian Crawford averaged 26. In a first class career between 1896 and 1910 in almost 300 first class matches he made 16 100s, and you're putting him forwards as one of the best around county cricket of the time? Really?

Ernest Killick averaged 26.

Harry Foster averaged mildly more than Jessop, again it may well be that his career got in the way of playing tests

Bowley averaged 29

Tunicliffe averaged 27 and was a keeper, not a reasonable comparison to Jessop.

B Wilson played from 1906-1914 and averaged 27, are you sure he was one of the best around? On what evidence?

Kilner's first class debut was in 1911, noted as not establishing himself until 1913, despite playing on until 1927 he averaged just on 30 with the bat.

In short this is another list of the type you churn out which has no relationship with what is being discussed.

[David North]

<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c2051db-5aa7-4889...@googlegroups.com...

-snip--

> Plenty of regular county players in the period 1894-1914 (Jessop's career)
> did not play Test cricket .

"He's not saying that very few county players didn't play tests, he's saying
that very few county players with averages higher than Jessop wouldn't have
played tests."

Thanks, Hamish. I'm glad someone read what I was replying to, which was "how
many f-c
batsmen had career averages [up to 1914?] better than Jessop."

Andy said that 22 of the 66 who had better Test averages up to 1914 also had
better career averages (presumably including any matches after 1914).

If we're looking for career averages up to 1914 that were better than
Jessop's, we need to:

1. subtract any of the 22 whose career averages up to 1914 were worse than
Jessop's, but surpassed it later;

2. add on any of the other 44 whose career averages up to 1914 were better
than Jessop's, but dropped below it later;

3. add on any players who had worse Test averages up to 1914 than Jessop's,
but better FC averages up to 1914;

4. add on any players who did not play Tests up to 1914, but who had better
FC averages up to 1914 than Jessop's.
--
David North

[Andy Walker]

On 16/08/18 12:45, RH156RH wrote:
> [...] Jessop may have

> been embarrass by his croucher moniker and have deliberately adopted
> a textbook stance or when he was not facing a bowler he may not have
> had the psychological impetus to crouch. RH

Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this palpable nonsense?
Or for how, supposing [absurdly] that you are right, he and/or Beldam
expected to get away with an obviously [to anyone who saw him bat] wrong
stance in an iconic photo?

Worth adding: (a) The dust jacket of Brodribb's biography shows
Jessop leaping out to drive in a characteristically "coiled" attitude.
If you compare that with the photo inside the book, it would seem clear
that as the bowler entered his delivery stride Jessop bent his knees so
that he was in a position to spring forwards as the ball was bowled.
(b) That is consonant with Jessop's own description of how he came to
"crouch", a position about which he is not in the least embarrassed in
his writing. (c) Slightly OT, I mentioned that for a modern-day croucher
you should compare Tom Moores. Before this season, he usually made 10-20
by swishing wildly and missing more than hitting. This season, he's
looked much more secure -- he made a really good half-century in the T20
at TB last week, and 43* [finishing the match with a 6] vs Yorks tonight.
If his batting finishes up like Jessop's but faster, and his WK'ing in
the class of Read's -- and it's going that way! --, Notts will be well
satisfied.

[... material well-answered by David snipped ...]

>>>> It remains to be seen how far some modern players, esp
>>>> [for England] Hales and Roy and others, can emulate him.
>>> They don't come close in FC cricket... RH
>> Yes they do: Hales: f-c 37.81; Roy: f-c 37.72. But the point is
>> not that, it's their phenomenal striking when they get going. You can add
>> [eg] Bairstow [f-c 46.15, and nearly as fast in limited overs].
> " The evidence of all Jessop's 179 scores of over 50 (some one in
> five of all his innings) shows that he scored these innings at a rate
> of 79 runs an hour. His 53 scores of over 100 were scored at nearly
> 83 runs an hour. "

80-odd per hour, esp selecting those innings where he became
well-set, corresponds to perhaps 8 runs per over [depending on the
over rate and on how much of the strike he got in such innings], so
an SR of 133, or a team score of 160 in T20. Of course, no comparison
is really possible, for all sorts of reason, but in purely numerical
terms that's not a high T20 score.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 11:13:53 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 16/08/18 12:45, RH156RH wrote:
> > [...] Jessop may have
> > been embarrass by his croucher moniker and have deliberately adopted
> > a textbook stance or when he was not facing a bowler he may not have
> > had the psychological impetus to crouch. RH
>
> Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this palpable nonsense?
> Or for how, supposing [absurdly] that you are right, he and/or Beldam
> expected to get away with an obviously [to anyone who saw him bat] wrong
> stance in an iconic photo?

Your absence of psychological insight is astonishing. No one adopts a normal stance where no bowler is involved. Watch the practice strokes made by batsmen . They have little relation to strokes made while actually playing cricket. RH RH

>
> Worth adding: (a) The dust jacket of Brodribb's biography shows
> Jessop leaping out to drive in a characteristically "coiled" attitude.

This is a sign of an unnatural pose. It is similar to the very unnatural shot of Trumper supposedly jumping out to drive... RH

> If you compare that with the photo inside the book, it would seem clear
> that as the bowler entered his delivery stride Jessop bent his knees so
> that he was in a position to spring forwards as the ball was bowled.
> (b) That is consonant with Jessop's own description of how he came to
> "crouch", a position about which he is not in the least embarrassed in
> his writing. (c) Slightly OT, I mentioned that for a modern-day croucher
> you should compare Tom Moores. Before this season, he usually made 10-20
> by swishing wildly and missing more than hitting. This season, he's
> looked much more secure -- he made a really good half-century in the T20
> at TB last week, and 43* [finishing the match with a 6] vs Yorks tonight.
> If his batting finishes up like Jessop's but faster, and his WK'ing in
> the class of Read's -- and it's going that way! --, Notts will be well
> satisfied.

T20 is irrelevant to Jessop's performances... RH

>
> [... material well-answered by David snipped ...]
>
> >>>> It remains to be seen how far some modern players, esp
> >>>> [for England] Hales and Roy and others, can emulate him.
> >>> They don't come close in FC cricket... RH
> >> Yes they do: Hales: f-c 37.81; Roy: f-c 37.72. But the point is
> >> not that, it's their phenomenal striking when they get going. You can add
> >> [eg] Bairstow [f-c 46.15, and nearly as fast in limited overs].
> > " The evidence of all Jessop's 179 scores of over 50 (some one in
> > five of all his innings) shows that he scored these innings at a rate
> > of 79 runs an hour. His 53 scores of over 100 were scored at nearly
> > 83 runs an hour. "
>
> 80-odd per hour, esp selecting those innings where he became
> well-set, corresponds to perhaps 8 runs per over [depending on the
> over rate and on how much of the strike he got in such innings], so
> an SR of 133, or a team score of 160 in T20. Of course, no comparison
> is really possible, for all sorts of reason, but in purely numerical
> terms that's not a high T20 score.
>

Irrelevant to Jessop's entirely FC career. RH

[RH156RH]

In the period 1894- 1914 there were six tours of Oz (all with 5 Tests = 30) and two tours of England with 3 Tests (1896, 1912 = 6 Tests) and 4 tours of England with 5 Tests (20 Tests). Total 56

In the same period there were two tours of England in which 3 Tests were played (6 Tests), one tour of SA when 3 Tests were played and three tours of SA in which 5 Tests (15 Tests) were played, a total of 24 Tests.

Hence, over the period 1894-1914 (21 years) only 80 Tests were played by England and only ten out of 21 winters saw an England team touring to play Tests.

The average Test schedule these days is 12 Tests a year for England. That would be 252 Tests over 21 years. RH

>
> > Plenty of regular county players in the period 1894-1914 (Jessop's career) did not play Test cricket .
>
> He's not saying that very few county players didn't play tests, he's saying that very few county players with averages higher than Jessop wouldn't have played tests.

No, he claimed regular county batsmen would very likely have played Tests, RH

>
> > Here is a selection of the best - some played Test cricket but only after the Great War :
>
> But here you're completely ignoring the periods. Jessop played first class cricket from 1894-1914, a lot of the players you've listed started more than 10 years after that. Others started 10 years before him.
> You're including players who averaged in the 20s...

That is perfectly reasonable because they all held a regular place in a county side. RH

>
> CAG Russell played from 1908-1930 so there's a relatively small period of overlap (and I'm not sure how much he played in the first few years.

Russell had six years in the CC before the War. He was 26 in 1914. The same applies to all those listed by me. Bear in mind that I was replying to a poster citing amongst others WG as having a higher average than Jessop. RH

>
> Levi Wright played from 1883-1909 and averaged 26, if he was one of the finest players around that strongly suggests that Jessop's average being higher than a lot of other players shows that conditions changed significantly between the 1880s and the mid 1890s, which means the comparison of Jessop's average to that of players before him is heavily slanted in his direction.

I put Wright forward as a long serving batsman who did not play Test cricket. You also display your lack of knowledge about batting in the period. Pitches varied considerably from county to county just as they did in the 1950s. Derbyshire was one of the counties which had very sporting pitches and consequently much lower scoring than a county such as Surrey. Moreover, scoring generally was much lower than it is today. RH

>
> Perrin was apparently not selected for England or Gentlemen vs Players because he was poor in the field.

Irrelevant to the question of players who were not selected for England with high averages. The poster did not ask for any other qualifications other
than (1) being an established county batsman and (2) not having been capped by England. RH .

> Dipper played from 1908-1932, again his average probably has a lot to do with changing conditions. He was called up from club cricket in 1908 due to the side being a man short and only established himself in 1911, so very little overlap. Again his fielding was an issue for Tests

29 in 1914. RH

>
> George Brown, average 26, again started in 1908 so late in Jessop's career.

26 in 1914. RH

>
> Burnup is an interesting case (if you throw enough names out by pure chance you'll get one that's curious)
> I'm not sure how available he would have been while he was at university, I expect that tours were out of the question and it's not clear what he did for work

As he played full seasons for Kent he would have been available to home Tests. RH

>
> Hardinge is another who played a long while afterwards, 1902 (at 16) to 1933. He's unlikely to have been picked as a 16 year old...

28 in 1914. RH

> For a large part of his career Hobbs had a spot nailed down, for a significant part Sutcliffe did.
> His job also got in the way, he was denied a leave of absence to go on a tour of Australia
>
> Edward Humpries averaged 27 with the bat

31 in 1914. RH

>
> James Seymour averaged slightly below Jessop and was a borderline pick for Gentlemen vs Players (again, his career went through to 1926).

Irrelevant because I was replying to a poster who merely stipulated "most county batsman".

34 in 1914 RH

>
> Makepeace is another who debuted late in Jessop's career and played a long while after it, 1906-1930, marginally ahead of Jessop's average but averages were higher in the 20s.
>
> Tyldesley 1909-1936 averaging in the mid 40s in first class cricket, played 14 tests. What was your point in naming him?

Six years of cricket with Lancs by 1914 by which time he was a well established batsman... RH

>
> Can't find a CJB Woods

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/23139.html

>
> Hendren is another who played late in Jessop's career and well afterwards, 1907-1937. His average is going to be higher because 1920s and 1930 pitches were easier (Just like Jessop's average is higher because he played on pitches that were easier than earlier players)

Utterly irrelevant . The question I was answering was how many regular county batsmen who played in the period 1894-1914 had not played for England before the Great War. RH

>
> CJT Pool averaged 25 (CJ Poole was born in 1921 so seems unlikely to have overlapped much with Jessop's first class career)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Pool RH

>
> Wilfred Payton played from 1905-1931, again a lot of play in the 20s onwards to lift his average

Irrelevant. All we are concerned with is his situation prior to the Great War.

He had ten years before WW1.

RH

>
> Ducat is yet another player who played from 1905-1931, again a lot of it in much different conditions from Jessop.

Irrelevant. All we are concerned with is his situation prior to the Great War,
Ten years experience before WW1. RH

>
> Donald Knight averaged 30, he debuted in 1911 and finished his career in 1937. No real comparison possible there.

Played four years before the Great War and earned earned a place in G V P. RH

>
> Vivian Crawford averaged 26. In a first class career between 1896 and 1910 in almost 300 first class matches he made 16 100s, and you're putting him forwards as one of the best around county cricket of the time? Really?
>
> Ernest Killick averaged 26.
>
> Harry Foster averaged mildly more than Jessop, again it may well be that his career got in the way of playing tests
>
> Bowley averaged 29
>
> Tunicliffe averaged 27 and was a keeper, not a reasonable comparison to Jessop.
>
> B Wilson played from 1906-1914 and averaged 27, are you sure he was one of the best around? On what evidence?
>
> Kilner's first class debut was in 1911, noted as not establishing himself until 1913, despite playing on until 1927 he averaged just on 30 with the bat.

Irrelevant, He had established himself as a county batsman (his bowling only really took off after the war). RH

>
> In short this is another list of the type you churn out which has no relationship with what is being discussed.

Translation: It is the type of data I kindly supply when asked to do so, but which members of the ng are too dim to understand or too bigoted to look at.

You are also handicapped by your general ignorance of cricket's history. RH

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 6:06:57 AM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 1:44:26 AM UTC+1, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 5:34:29 AM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:59:54 PM UTC+1, news.individual.net wrote:
> > > > "RH156RH" <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:4173fb51-153a-4ae3...@googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 6:11:23 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > > >> On 09/08/18 16:29, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > >> Someone else can find out how many f-c
> > > > >> batsmen had career averages better than Jessop;
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't play Tests.
> > >
> > > What on earth makes you think that?
> >
> > Probably the idea that a large proportion of batsmen who averaged higher than Jessop played tests.
> >
> > > There were far fewer Tests played than in modern times.
> >
> > True, OTOH there was also a lot less continuity of players, various squads went to South Africa without a lot of first choice players and with the period between tests people could probably lose their spot easier by having a bad run in the county matches.
>
> In the period 1894- 1914 there were six tours of Oz (all with 5 Tests = 30) and two tours of England with 3 Tests (1896, 1912 = 6 Tests) and 4 tours of England with 5 Tests (20 Tests). Total 56
>
> In the same period there were two tours of England in which 3 Tests were played (6 Tests), one tour of SA when 3 Tests were played and three tours of SA in which 5 Tests (15 Tests) were played, a total of 24 Tests.
>
> Hence, over the period 1894-1914 (21 years) only 80 Tests were played by England and only ten out of 21 winters saw an England team touring to play Tests.
>
> The average Test schedule these days is 12 Tests a year for England. That would be 252 Tests over 21 years. RH
>
>
> >
> > > Plenty of regular county players in the period 1894-1914 (Jessop's career) did not play Test cricket .
> >
> > He's not saying that very few county players didn't play tests, he's saying that very few county players with averages higher than Jessop wouldn't have played tests.
>
> No, he claimed regular county batsmen would very likely have played Tests, RH

Here's the discussion relevant part of the post including his comment and your response

"> > > > >> Someone else can find out how many f-c
> > > > >> batsmen had career averages better than Jessop;
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't play Tests.
> > >
> > > What on earth makes you think that?"

He's responding directly to the comment

"Someone else can find out how many f-c batsmen had career averages better than Jessop;"

with

"I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't play Tests."

Clearly he's saying that there weren't many County players with a first class average than Jessop who didn't play tests.

> >
> > > Here is a selection of the best - some played Test cricket but only after the Great War :
> >
> > But here you're completely ignoring the periods. Jessop played first class cricket from 1894-1914, a lot of the players you've listed started more than 10 years after that. Others started 10 years before him.

To clarify there I'm meaning 10 years after the start of Jessop's career.

> > You're including players who averaged in the 20s...
>
> That is perfectly reasonable because they all held a regular place in a county side. RH

That's a large step down from

"Here is a selection of the best"

> >

> > CAG Russell played from 1908-1930 so there's a relatively small period of overlap (and I'm not sure how much he played in the first few years.
>
> Russell had six years in the CC before the War. He was 26 in 1914. The same applies to all those listed by me. Bear in mind that I was replying to a poster citing amongst others WG as having a higher average than Jessop.

Grace did have a higher average than Jessop.
You'd brought in the comment

"He had a career average of 32 which was better than the vast majority of regular upper order batsmen before the Great War and was close to other leading batsmen"

> RH
> >
> > Levi Wright played from 1883-1909 and averaged 26, if he was one of the finest players around that strongly suggests that Jessop's average being higher than a lot of other players shows that conditions changed significantly between the 1880s and the mid 1890s, which means the comparison of Jessop's average to that of players before him is heavily slanted in his direction.
>
> I put Wright forward as a long serving batsman who did not play Test cricket.

You put him forwards as part of "Here is a selection of the best" after you'd completely missed the context of a comment.
now you're trying to change your story

> You also display your lack of knowledge about batting in the period.

Doesn't agree with you doesn't equate to lack of knowledge about batting in the period.

> Pitches varied considerably from county to county just as they did in the 1950s.

Pitches always vary between grounds.

> Derbyshire was one of the counties which had very sporting pitches and consequently much lower scoring than a county such as Surrey. Moreover, scoring generally was much lower than it is today. RH

Scoring in the 1880s was generally lower than in the 1890s

>
> >
> > Perrin was apparently not selected for England or Gentlemen vs Players because he was poor in the field.
>
> Irrelevant to the question of players who were not selected for England with high averages. The poster did not ask for any other qualifications other
> than (1) being an established county batsman and (2) not having been capped by England. RH .

Actually he stated there probably weren't many batsmen with a first class average higher than Jessop who didn't play tests
Apparently unwisely I assumed that your response was related to that

>
> > Dipper played from 1908-1932, again his average probably has a lot to do with changing conditions. He was called up from club cricket in 1908 due to the side being a man short and only established himself in 1911, so very little overlap. Again his fielding was an issue for Tests
>
> 29 in 1914. RH

but played a lot after WWI, where generally batsmen had better averages,
only established himself in first class cricket in 1911
Which means that his record is largely post WWI

> >
> > George Brown, average 26, again started in 1908 so late in Jessop's career.
>
> 26 in 1914. RH
>

Jessop turned 40 in 1914

> >
> > Burnup is an interesting case (if you throw enough names out by pure chance you'll get one that's curious)
> > I'm not sure how available he would have been while he was at university, I expect that tours were out of the question and it's not clear what he did for work
>
> As he played full seasons for Kent he would have been available to home Tests. RH

Maybe, he does seem the strongest case to have been unlucky in not playing tests

>
> >
> > Hardinge is another who played a long while afterwards, 1902 (at 16) to 1933. He's unlikely to have been picked as a 16 year old...
>
> 28 in 1914. RH
>

yes, but still his average almost certainly dragged up by post-war performances.

>
> > For a large part of his career Hobbs had a spot nailed down, for a significant part Sutcliffe did.
> > His job also got in the way, he was denied a leave of absence to go on a tour of Australia
> >
> > Edward Humpries averaged 27 with the bat
>
> 31 in 1914. RH

but still averages less than Jessop, which if you actually understood the thread would mean he didn't fit into the discussion.

> >
> > James Seymour averaged slightly below Jessop and was a borderline pick for Gentlemen vs Players (again, his career went through to 1926).
>
> Irrelevant because I was replying to a poster who merely stipulated "most county batsman".

Nope.

>
> 34 in 1914 RH
> >
> > Makepeace is another who debuted late in Jessop's career and played a long while after it, 1906-1930, marginally ahead of Jessop's average but averages were higher in the 20s.
> >
> > Tyldesley 1909-1936 averaging in the mid 40s in first class cricket, played 14 tests. What was your point in naming him?
>
> Six years of cricket with Lancs by 1914 by which time he was a well established batsman... RH

Which gave him the triangular series in England and the 1913-14 tour of South Africa as potential series before the war.

>
> >
> > Can't find a CJB Woods
>
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/23139.html

interesting, he doesn't appear in the England player list
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/country.html?country=1;alpha=W

> >
> > Hendren is another who played late in Jessop's career and well afterwards, 1907-1937. His average is going to be higher because 1920s and 1930 pitches were easier (Just like Jessop's average is higher because he played on pitches that were easier than earlier players)
>
> Utterly irrelevant . The question I was answering was how many regular county batsmen who played in the period 1894-1914 had not played for England before the Great War. RH

Nope, that wasn't actually the question that was asked.

> >
> > CJT Pool averaged 25 (CJ Poole was born in 1921 so seems unlikely to have overlapped much with Jessop's first class career)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Pool RH
>

Which is the CJT Pool I mentioned.

> >
> > Wilfred Payton played from 1905-1931, again a lot of play in the 20s onwards to lift his average
>
>
> Irrelevant. All we are concerned with is his situation prior to the Great War.

Quite relevant in terms of the actual point "players with average higher than Jessop"

>
> He had ten years before WW1.
>
> >

> > Ducat is yet another player who played from 1905-1931, again a lot of it in much different conditions from Jessop.
>
> Irrelevant. All we are concerned with is his situation prior to the Great War,
> Ten years experience before WW1. RH

What was his record before WWI?

> >
> > Donald Knight averaged 30, he debuted in 1911 and finished his career in 1937. No real comparison possible there.
>
> Played four years before the Great War and earned earned a place in G V P. RH

> >
> > Vivian Crawford averaged 26. In a first class career between 1896 and 1910 in almost 300 first class matches he made 16 100s, and you're putting him forwards as one of the best around county cricket of the time? Really?
> >
> > Ernest Killick averaged 26.
> >
> > Harry Foster averaged mildly more than Jessop, again it may well be that his career got in the way of playing tests
> >
> > Bowley averaged 29
> >
> > Tunicliffe averaged 27 and was a keeper, not a reasonable comparison to Jessop.
> >
> > B Wilson played from 1906-1914 and averaged 27, are you sure he was one of the best around? On what evidence?
> >
> > Kilner's first class debut was in 1911, noted as not establishing himself until 1913, despite playing on until 1927 he averaged just on 30 with the bat.
>
> Irrelevant, He had established himself as a county batsman (his bowling only really took off after the war). RH

the only tests after 1913 when he established himself in the county team was the 1913-14 tests in South Africa,

> >
> > In short this is another list of the type you churn out which has no relationship with what is being discussed.
>
> Translation: It is the type of data I kindly supply when asked to do so, but which members of the ng are too dim to understand or too bigoted to look at.

"Someone else can find out how many f-c batsmen had career averages better than Jessop;"
"I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't play Tests."

So you've completely misunderstood the question being asked and produced a list with no relation to it.

>
> You are also handicapped by your general ignorance of cricket's history.

You're handicapped by your lack of ability to read, your lack of ability to think, your lack of ability to admit a mistake and your general handicap of being a racist moron.

[Andy Walker]

On 18/08/18 20:10, RH156RH wrote:
> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 11:13:53 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 16/08/18 12:45, RH156RH wrote:
>>> [...] Jessop may have
>>> been embarrass by his croucher moniker and have deliberately adopted
>>> a textbook stance or when he was not facing a bowler he may not have
>>> had the psychological impetus to crouch. RH
>> Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this palpable nonsense?
>> Or for how, supposing [absurdly] that you are right, he and/or Beldam
>> expected to get away with an obviously [to anyone who saw him bat] wrong
>> stance in an iconic photo?
> Your absence of psychological insight is astonishing.

Do you have any evidence for this? No, of course not, you don't
do evidence, as we see from your failure to answer the above.

> No one adopts a
> normal stance where no bowler is involved.

Of course they do. Why on earth not? It's just a comfortable
position while waiting for the bowler to run up.

> Watch the practice strokes
> made by batsmen . They have little relation to strokes made while
> actually playing cricket. RH RH

But that's different. Certainly if asked to demonstrate [say]
a hook, in the absence of a ball, you might be looking in the wrong
direction, or whatever. But note that most of Beldam's cricketing
action photographs were taken with either Fry or Beldam himself bowling
at a batsman taking his normal stance in front of a wicket.

>> Worth adding: (a) The dust jacket of Brodribb's biography shows
>> Jessop leaping out to drive in a characteristically "coiled" attitude.
> This is a sign of an unnatural pose. It is similar to the very
> unnatural shot of Trumper supposedly jumping out to drive... RH

No it isn't; it *is* quite similar [though from a different
angle] to the well-known photograph of Ranji. It's exactly what I would
expect from an aggressive batsman leaping out to drive from a somewhat
crouched position.

[...]

> T20 is irrelevant to Jessop's performances... RH

Tell that to CM-J, whose pen-picture of Jessop started this
exchange [though, sadly, you will now find that difficult, and his book
in any case pre-dated T20]. CM-J clearly thought that Jessop's style
was over-aggressive, and that a more measured approach might well have
brought him many more runs [and a secure place as an ATG]. We can never
know. But the evidence seems to be that Jessop took a T20 approach to
his batting. We can see from the career records of current-day top T20
players what that costs them relative to their f-c and ListA averages
in return for Jessop-like rates of scoring.

A while back, I suggested, only partly in jest, that we could do
worse than open with Hales and Roy. If England are going to be 23-2 no
matter who we pick, it might as well be H&R who are out; but once in a
series or so England are going to be 200-0 before lunch. *That* would be
a match worth seeing.

[...]

>> 80-odd per hour, esp selecting those innings where he became
>> well-set, corresponds to perhaps 8 runs per over [depending on the
>> over rate and on how much of the strike he got in such innings], so
>> an SR of 133, or a team score of 160 in T20. Of course, no comparison
>> is really possible, for all sorts of reason, but in purely numerical
>> terms that's not a high T20 score.
> Irrelevant to Jessop's entirely FC career. RH

Not so. It confirms that Jessop's scoring rate, however much an
outlier by f-c standards, was similar to perfectly normal T20 rates, and
suggests that CM-J's claim [shared by many at the time] was correct.
Jessop himself could, of course, just smile and point to the pleasure he
brought to so many people.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:53:04 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 18/08/18 20:10, RH156RH wrote:
> > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 11:13:53 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> >> On 16/08/18 12:45, RH156RH wrote:
> >>> [...] Jessop may have
> >>> been embarrass by his croucher moniker and have deliberately adopted
> >>> a textbook stance or when he was not facing a bowler he may not have
> >>> had the psychological impetus to crouch. RH
> >> Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this palpable nonsense?
> >> Or for how, supposing [absurdly] that you are right, he and/or Beldam
> >> expected to get away with an obviously [to anyone who saw him bat] wrong
> >> stance in an iconic photo?
> > Your absence of psychological insight is astonishing.
>
> Do you have any evidence for this? No, of course not, you don't
> do evidence, as we see from your failure to answer the above.

You provide all the evidence with your incomprehension... RH

>
> > No one adopts a
> > normal stance where no bowler is involved.
>
> Of course they do. Why on earth not? It's just a comfortable
> position while waiting for the bowler to run up.
>
> > Watch the practice strokes
> > made by batsmen . They have little relation to strokes made while
> > actually playing cricket. RH
>

> But that's different.


It is psychologically exactly the same.Instead of being driven by the exigencies of an actual game it is dictated by a request from a photographer.The fact that you cannot see that shows how psychologically blind you are. RH

Certainly if asked to demonstrate [say]
> a hook, in the absence of a ball, you might be looking in the wrong
> direction, or whatever. But note that most of Beldam's cricketing
> action photographs were taken with either Fry or Beldam himself bowling
> at a batsman taking his normal stance in front of a wicket.

They are all laughably unnatural. RH

>
> >> Worth adding: (a) The dust jacket of Brodribb's biography shows
> >> Jessop leaping out to drive in a characteristically "coiled" attitude.
> > This is a sign of an unnatural pose. It is similar to the very
> > unnatural shot of Trumper supposedly jumping out to drive... RH
>
> No it isn't; it *is* quite similar [though from a different
> angle] to the well-known photograph of Ranji. It's exactly what I would
> expect from an aggressive batsman leaping out to drive from a somewhat
> crouched position.

You obviously have no experience of playing cricket or even watching it to understand how batsmen behave in a match situation. No player jumps out to play a drive with their feet in the air as Trumper does in the famous photo. RH

>
> [...]
> > T20 is irrelevant to Jessop's performances... RH
>
> Tell that to CM-J, whose pen-picture of Jessop started this
> exchange [though, sadly, you will now find that difficult, and his book
> in any case pre-dated T20]. CM-J clearly thought that Jessop's style
> was over-aggressive, and that a more measured approach might well have
> brought him many more runs [and a secure place as an ATG]. We can never
> know. But the evidence seems to be that Jessop took a T20 approach to
> his batting. We can see from the career records of current-day top T20
> players what that costs them relative to their f-c and ListA averages
> in return for Jessop-like rates of scoring.

This is the height of absurdity. In T20 there are fielding restrictions, bowling restrictions, pitches are prepared to favour batsmen, there are few close fielders and very strict implementation of wides and bouncers. In addition modern bats assist hitting. It is a completely different game to FC cricket. RH

[David North]

f<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e363c51-cea3-418e...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 6:06:57 AM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 1:44:26 AM UTC+1, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 5:34:29 AM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:59:54 PM UTC+1, news.individual.net
> > > wrote:
> > > > "RH156RH" <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:4173fb51-153a-4ae3...@googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 6:11:23 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > > >> On 09/08/18 16:29, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > >> Someone else can find out how many f-c
> > > > >> batsmen had career averages better than Jessop;
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't
> > > > play Tests.
> > >
> > > What on earth makes you think that?

--snip--

> > > Plenty of regular county players in the period 1894-1914 (Jessop's
> > > career) did not play Test cricket .
> >
> > He's not saying that very few county players didn't play tests, he's
> > saying that very few county players with averages higher than Jessop
> > wouldn't have played tests.
>
> No, he claimed regular county batsmen would very likely have played
> Tests, RH

'Here's the discussion relevant part of the post including his comment and
your response
"> > > > >> Someone else can find out how many f-c
> > > > >> batsmen had career averages better than Jessop;
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't
> > > > play Tests.
> > >
> > > What on earth makes you think that?"

'He's responding directly to the comment
'"Someone else can find out how many f-c batsmen had career averages better
than Jessop;"
'with
'"I'm guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't play
Tests."

'Clearly he's saying that there weren't many County players with a first

class average than Jessop who didn't play tests.'

If I had wanted to say what Robert claimed I said, I would have written "I'm
guessing *that there were* not many English players in the Test era who
didn't play Tests", or "I'm guessing that not many English players in the
Test era didn't play Tests" (omitting "who"). I wouldn't have written "I'm
guessing not many English players in the Test era who didn't play Tests",
because that's not a complete sentence and doesn't make sense grammatically
if you take it out of context.

--
David North

[RH156RH]

When I read the as you say grammatically incorrect and frankly incomprehensible passage you reproduced above , I mentally put in the "that there were*" to render it meaningful. RH

[grabber]

Q: Who thinks that Robert's parsing and comprehension skills are up to
scratch?
A: Not many people here.

[Andy Walker]

On 20/08/18 07:12, RH156RH wrote:
>>> Your absence of psychological insight is astonishing.
>> Do you have any evidence for this? No, of course not, you don't
>> do evidence, as we see from your failure to answer the above.
> You provide all the evidence with your incomprehension... RH

My "incomprehension" is evidence only for your incomprehensible
writing. You know nothing relevant about members of this group, so you
feel free to invent personas for us all that bear no relation to real
life, only to your imagination. Stick to facts; and provide evidence
for those facts. If you would do that, most of the abuse on here would
stop. Continuing to abuse posters here is evidence that you relish the
abuse you get in return.

[...]

>>> Watch the practice strokes
>>> made by batsmen . They have little relation to strokes made while
>>> actually playing cricket. RH

>> But that's different [from taking a stance].

> It is psychologically exactly the same.Instead of being driven by the
> exigencies of an actual game it is dictated by a request from a
> photographer

Being asked to take an action is different from being asked to
stand comfortably at the wicket. Enough people, inc Beldam and Fry, knew
in 1905 what Jessop's normal stance was that he could not have got away
with clowning around.

>> Certainly if asked to demonstrate [say]
>> a hook, in the absence of a ball, you might be looking in the wrong
>> direction, or whatever. But note that most of Beldam's cricketing
>> action photographs were taken with either Fry or Beldam himself bowling
>> at a batsman taking his normal stance in front of a wicket.
> They are all laughably unnatural. RH

Surprising then that people didn't laugh at the time.

> [...] No player

> jumps out to play a drive with their feet in the air as Trumper does
> in the famous photo. RH

In the famous photo he has *one* foot off the ground. It's not
possible to play forwards sensibly without taking the front foot off
the ground. Less well known is Beldam's photo a moment later when
Trumper is completing the stroke, with his front foot now back on the
ground and his rear foot coming to join it, all elegance and balance.

>> [...] But the evidence seems to be that Jessop took a T20 approach to

>> his batting. We can see from the career records of current-day top T20
>> players what that costs them relative to their f-c and ListA averages
>> in return for Jessop-like rates of scoring.
> This is the height of absurdity. In T20 there are fielding
> restrictions, bowling restrictions, pitches are prepared to favour
> batsmen, there are few close fielders and very strict implementation
> of wides and bouncers. In addition modern bats assist hitting. It is
> a completely different game to FC cricket. RH

Yes, we know all that. But you're, not unusually, missing the
point. You yourself pointed out, in the "Subject:", that Jessop was an
"outlier in the fast scoring rates". He didn't do that by adhering to
the "no boundaries before lunch" mantra, nor even by spending his first
half-hour getting set. He went in and attacked [almost] every ball.
That is the T20 approach. We know what that costs the best T20 players,
by looking at their averages in T20, ListA and f-c. CM-J's contention,
hinted at also by Brodribb, in both cases long before T20 was invented,
was that Jessop's approach cost him lots of runs; that his average
would have been higher if he'd taken a more orthodox approach. We'll
never know. But *if* CM-J was correct [and we can never know, but it
is at least plausible], then instead of being a fluke player who had a
good, but not all-time-great, average, he might have been an ATG player
with f-c and Test averages to match. And the world might have been a
little greyer.

You seem to find that contentious. Take it up with someone who
cares. I merely pass on the opinion.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 4:30:21 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> You yourself pointed out, in the "Subject:", that Jessop was an
> "outlier in the fast scoring rates". He didn't do that by adhering to
> the "no boundaries before lunch" mantra, nor even by spending his first
> half-hour getting set. He went in and attacked [almost] every ball.
> That is the T20 approach. We know what that costs the best T20 players,
> by looking at their averages in T20, ListA and f-c. CM-J's contention,
> hinted at also by Brodribb, in both cases long before T20 was invented,
> was that Jessop's approach cost him lots of runs; that his average
> would have been higher if he'd taken a more orthodox approach. We'll
> never know. But *if* CM-J was correct [and we can never know, but it
> is at least plausible], then instead of being a fluke player who had a
> good, but not all-time-great, average, he might have been an ATG player
> with f-c and Test averages to match. And the world might have been a
> little greyer.
>

It's amusing to see RH defending Jessop as a fast scorer while he decries the modern players attacking more...
Jessop taking risks is find but a modern player doing it is clearly ruined by 20-20...

[Mike Holmans]

Old is always better than new... RH

[RH156RH]

On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 7:30:21 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 20/08/18 07:12, RH156RH wrote:
> >>> Your absence of psychological insight is astonishing.
> >> Do you have any evidence for this? No, of course not, you don't
> >> do evidence, as we see from your failure to answer the above.
> > You provide all the evidence with your incomprehension... RH
>
> My "incomprehension" is evidence only for your incomprehensible
> writing. You know nothing relevant about members of this group, so you
> feel free to invent personas for us all that bear no relation to real
> life, only to your imagination. Stick to facts; and provide evidence
> for those facts. If you would do that, most of the abuse on here would
> stop. Continuing to abuse posters here is evidence that you relish the
> abuse you get in return.

Translation: Dr B-M thrashes around desperate to understand what is going on... rH

>
> [...]
> >>> Watch the practice strokes
> >>> made by batsmen . They have little relation to strokes made while
> >>> actually playing cricket. RH
> >> But that's different [from taking a stance].
> > It is psychologically exactly the same.Instead of being driven by the
> > exigencies of an actual game it is dictated by a request from a
> > photographer
>
> Being asked to take an action is different from being asked to
> stand comfortably at the wicket. Enough people, inc Beldam and Fry, knew
> in 1905 what Jessop's normal stance was that he could not have got away
> with clowning around.

He would not be clowning. Moreover, it is very unlikely indeed that any viewer of "action photographs" of that period would have cried foul if a player adopted a different stance to the one a player used ion a match..RH

>
> >> Certainly if asked to demonstrate [say]
> >> a hook, in the absence of a ball, you might be looking in the wrong
> >> direction, or whatever. But note that most of Beldam's cricketing
> >> action photographs were taken with either Fry or Beldam himself bowling
> >> at a batsman taking his normal stance in front of a wicket.
> > They are all laughably unnatural. RH
>
> Surprising then that people didn't laugh at the time.

See above. The period in question was not one in which realistic photos were commonplace. The only thing spectators could go by when considering a player in a photo was their recollection of watching them. Judging a player's stance without video or stills taken with fast film bur purely from memory is difficult. RH

>
> > [...] No player
> > jumps out to play a drive with their feet in the air as Trumper does
> > in the famous photo. RH
>
> In the famous photo he has *one* foot off the ground.

Trumper looks as though he is executing a ballet manoeuvr, viz:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Victor+Trumper&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWmsOux4vdAhUII8AKHY3CA2IQ_AUICigB&biw=1455&bih=718

RH

All wondrously irrelevant to the point I was replying to. Jessop was playing FC cricket not T20. Ergo, he had to handle the conditions of FC cricket. The idea that the likes of Bairstow would score as quickly in fc cricket as they do in T20 (your inference) is objectively ridiculous. RH

[RH156RH]

More meaningless abuse by Grabber... ERH

[Andy Walker]

On 26/08/18 21:34, RH156RH wrote:
>> [...] Enough people, inc Beldam and Fry, knew

>> in 1905 what Jessop's normal stance was that he could not have got away
>> with clowning around.
> He would not be clowning. Moreover, it is very unlikely indeed that
> any viewer of "action photographs" of that period would have cried
> foul if a player adopted a different stance to the one a player used
> ion a match..RH

You don't think that someone who knew Jessop [which includes every
regular f-c cricketer in England] and his stance would have noticed that
a photo of him didn't look much like the real thing? Or that Brodribb,
who knew Jessop personally, would deliberately have selected a "wrong"
photo for a book entitled "The Croucher"? The only explanation you have
provided for such a thing is that Jessop was ashamed of his real stance,
a notion that is completely at odds with Jessop's own writings.

[...]

>> Surprising then that people didn't laugh at the time.
> See above. The period in question was not one in which realistic
> photos were commonplace. The only thing spectators could go by when
> considering a player in a photo was their recollection of watching
> them.

Why would it have to be a recollection? Jessop continued to play
at the top level for nearly a decade after the photo.

>> [...] But *if* CM-J was correct [and we can never know, but it

>> is at least plausible], then instead of being a fluke player who had a
>> good, but not all-time-great, average, he might have been an ATG player
>> with f-c and Test averages to match. And the world might have been a
>> little greyer.
> All wondrously irrelevant to the point I was replying to. Jessop was
> playing FC cricket not T20. Ergo, he had to handle the conditions of
> FC cricket. The idea that the likes of Bairstow would score as
> quickly in fc cricket as they do in T20 (your inference) is
> objectively ridiculous. RH

But that wasn't the point you were replying to; as is your wont,
you were replying to a complete misunderstanding of CM-J's point, in
accordance with your usual standards of "Translation:". CM-J's claim
was that *if* Jessop had played more in keeping with f-c norms of the
period, he might well have scored many more runs. The relevance of [eg]
Bairstow is not that he would score amazingly quickly in f-c cricket --
we know that he does not -- but that we know how much trying to score
at a Jessopian rate costs him. His f-c average is 46, his T20 average
is 25. For Hales, it's 38 to 29; Roy 38 to 27; Morgan 34 to 26;
Root 49 to 32; Cook 47 to 32. CM-J's claim was based on his intuition
[but is a point made by many writers on Jessop] as he could not have
known what T20 would bring by way of fast scoring; and the figures
seem to justify it.

Please don't bother to explain how you deduced what my "inference"
is. It's already incomprehensible. Your "objectively ridiculous" idea
bears no relation to anything I have written.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 11:21:11 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 26/08/18 21:34, RH156RH wrote:
> >> [...] Enough people, inc Beldam and Fry, knew
> >> in 1905 what Jessop's normal stance was that he could not have got away
> >> with clowning around.
> > He would not be clowning. Moreover, it is very unlikely indeed that
> > any viewer of "action photographs" of that period would have cried
> > foul if a player adopted a different stance to the one a player used
> > ion a match..RH
>
> You don't think that someone who knew Jessop [which includes every
> regular f-c cricketer in England] and his stance would have noticed that
> a photo of him didn't look much like the real thing?

No, I am staying something completely different, namely, that in a world without action photos as a commonplace and completely without video or film able to capture realistically what a person is doing in terms of movement, people would could not make a meaningful comparison between what they saw in action and the crude representations of the action in the film of the day. RH

Or that Brodribb,
> who knew Jessop personally, would deliberately have selected a "wrong"
> photo for a book entitled "The Croucher"? The only explanation you have
> provided for such a thing is that Jessop was ashamed of his real stance,
> a notion that is completely at odds with Jessop's own writings.

No, I have provided another explanation, namely, that someone asked to pose for
a photo will behave very differeentlu from someone playing in a match. RH

> [...]
> >> Surprising then that people didn't laugh at the time.

See above... RH

I was replying top your absurd comparison between Jessop playing FC cricket and modern players playing T20... RH

>
> Please don't bother to explain how you deduced what my "inference"
> is. It's already incomprehensible. Your "objectively ridiculous" idea
> bears no relation to anything I have written.
>
>

> Nottingham.

[David North]

Below is a list of Jessop's Test innings. I have filled in all of the
figures that are available in Charles Davis's Test database. That
includes the number of balls faced for 18 of his 32 innings. In those 18
innings, he scored 381 runs off 317 balls at a scoring rate of 120 per
100 balls.

Note: the 6s column shows hits over the boundary; the runs awarded
(where not 6) are shown on the right. If 6 runs had been awarded, that
would have added 6 runs to the total for the above 18 innings,
increasing the scoring rate to 122.

Runs Mins BF 4s 6s Opp Ground Start Date
51 62 - 9 0 Aus Lord's 15-Jun-99
4 2 2 1 0 Aus Lord's 15-Jun-99
24 16 - 5 0 Aus Sydney 13-Dec-01
27 20 15 2 1* Aus Melbourne 01-Jan-02 *5
32 31 - 5 0 Aus Melbourne 01-Jan-02
1 5 4 0 0 Aus Adelaide 17-Jan-02
16 15 - 2 1* Aus Adelaide 17-Jan-02 *5
0 1 1 0 0 Aus Sydney 14-Feb-02
15 19 21 2 0 Aus Sydney 14-Feb-02
35 21 - 5 1* Aus Melbourne 28-Feb-02 *5
16 25 - - 0 Aus Melbourne 28-Feb-02
6 9 7 1 0 Aus Birmingham 29-May-02
DNB - - - - Aus Lord's 12-Jun-02
12 7 6 1 0 Aus Sheffield 03-Jul-02
55 52 49 8 0 Aus Sheffield 03-Jul-02
13 15 9 2 0 Aus The Oval 11-Aug-02
104 77 80 14 3* Aus The Oval 11-Aug-02 *1x5, 2x4
0 1 1 0 0 Aus Nottingham 29-May-05
DNB - - - - Aus Nottingham 29-May-05
93 76 63 14 1 SA Lord's 01-Jul-07
0 1 2 0 0 SA Leeds 29-Jul-07
10 4 8 1 0 SA Leeds 29-Jul-07
2 6 8 0 0 SA The Oval 19-Aug-07
11 5 - 2 0 SA The Oval 19-Aug-07
22 20 23 2 0 Aus Birmingham 27-May-09
DNB - - - - Aus Birmingham 27-May-09
abs - - - - Aus Leeds 01-Jul-09
abs - - - - Aus Leeds 01-Jul-09
3 10 - 0 0 SA Lord's 10-Jun-12
16 10 12 2 0 SA Leeds 08-Jul-12
1 4 6 0 0 SA Leeds 08-Jul-12

This link shows the highest scoring rates for batsmen who faced at least
100 balls in innings for which the number of balls faced is recorded on
Cricinfo:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_strike_rate;qualmin1=100;qualval1=balls_faced;size=200;template=results;type=batting

Only two of those players scored at more than 90 per 100 balls: Tibby
Cotter (108) and Praveen Kumar (94), both of whom averaged under 15. The
fastest with an average of 20+ is Shahid Afridi (SR 87, Avg 36.5).

--
David North

[David North]

On 30/08/2018 20:20, David North wrote:

> Below is a list of Jessop's Test innings. I have filled in all of the
> figures that are available in Charles Davis's Test database. That
> includes the number of balls faced for 18 of his 32 innings.

That should read "18 of his 26 innings".

--
David North

[RH156RH]

Yes, Jessop truly was unique... RH

[Andy Walker]

On 28/08/18 18:43, RH156RH wrote:
>> You don't think that someone who knew Jessop [which includes every
>> regular f-c cricketer in England] and his stance would have noticed that
>> a photo of him didn't look much like the real thing?
> No, I am staying something completely different, namely, that in a
> world without action photos as a commonplace and completely without
> video or film able to capture realistically what a person is doing in
> terms of movement, people would could not make a meaningful
> comparison between what they saw in action and the crude
> representations of the action in the film of the day. RH

A photo of a batsman's *stance* is not an action photo in the way
that a photo of a hook or of a bowling action might be.

>> Or that Brodribb,
>> who knew Jessop personally, would deliberately have selected a "wrong"
>> photo for a book entitled "The Croucher"? The only explanation you have
>> provided for such a thing is that Jessop was ashamed of his real stance,
>> a notion that is completely at odds with Jessop's own writings.
> No, I have provided another explanation, namely, that someone asked to pose for
> a photo will behave very differeentlu from someone playing in a match. RH

This is a *stance* we're talking about, not someone being asked
to pose in a different way from usual; and a stance that everyone who
saw Jessop would be familiar with.

[...]

> I was replying top your absurd comparison between Jessop playing FC
> cricket and modern players playing T20... RH

You were [and are] just showing that you didn't understand the
comparison. The [perfectly reasonable] contention was that Jessop might
well have had a much better average if he had played in a style closer
to the norms of f-c cricket. The examples of Hales/Roy/Morgan/Root/Cook
that I gave in my previous post show that modern batsmen gain between
30% [Morgan] and 53% [Root] [and Bairstow 84%], despite the loss of the
advantages you quoted, in moving from around 8 runs per over to rates
normal for f-c cricket. Go figure.

It's not heresy to suggest that Jessop might well have done much
better as a more conventional batsman. It's often been suggested, and
Jessop himself seems to have thought it probably true. But he had more
fun, and fame, his way.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:43:11 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 28/08/18 18:43, RH156RH wrote:
> >> You don't think that someone who knew Jessop [which includes every
> >> regular f-c cricketer in England] and his stance would have noticed that
> >> a photo of him didn't look much like the real thing?
> > No, I am staying something completely different, namely, that in a
> > world without action photos as a commonplace and completely without
> > video or film able to capture realistically what a person is doing in
> > terms of movement, people would could not make a meaningful
> > comparison between what they saw in action and the crude
> > representations of the action in the film of the day. RH
>
> A photo of a batsman's *stance* is not an action photo in the way
> that a photo of a hook or of a bowling action might be.

SIGH. It is a person doing just the same as self-consciously portraying any other physical action for the camera... RH

>
> >> Or that Brodribb,
> >> who knew Jessop personally, would deliberately have selected a "wrong"
> >> photo for a book entitled "The Croucher"?

He would have been limited to the photos he was able to get with the technology of the time and the mentality of the subject... RH

The only explanation you have
> >> provided for such a thing is that Jessop was ashamed of his real stance,
> >> a notion that is completely at odds with Jessop's own writings.
> > No, I have provided another explanation, namely, that someone asked to pose for
> > a photo will behave very differeentlu from someone playing in a match. RH
>
> This is a *stance* we're talking about, not someone being asked
> to pose in a different way from usual; and a stance that everyone who
> saw Jessop would be familiar with.

Irrelevant. It is the self-conscious nature of the action which matters. As an extreme bounded mind that will be beyond your comprehension... RH

>
> [...]
> > I was replying top your absurd comparison between Jessop playing FC
> > cricket and modern players playing T20... RH
>
> You were [and are] just showing that you didn't understand the
> comparison. The [perfectly reasonable] contention was that Jessop might
> well have had a much better average if he had played in a style closer
> to the norms of f-c cricket. The examples of Hales/Roy/Morgan/Root/Cook
> that I gave in my previous post show that modern batsmen gain between
> 30% [Morgan] and 53% [Root] [and Bairstow 84%], despite the loss of the
> advantages you quoted, in moving from around 8 runs per over to rates
> normal for f-c cricket. Go figure.

No, was that Jessop's batteing could be compared with T20 batting. That is objectively absurd because DFC and T20 cricket are radically different animals... RH

>
> It's not heresy to suggest that Jessop might well have done much
> better as a more conventional batsman.

Then he wouldn't have been Jessop,. Dear oh dear, are there no limits to the psychological and sociological blindness of the extreme bounded mind! RH
#

[Andy Walker]

On 02/09/18 09:11, RH156RH wrote:
>> A photo of a batsman's *stance* is not an action photo in the way
>> that a photo of a hook or of a bowling action might be.
> SIGH. It is a person doing just the same as self-consciously
> portraying any other physical action for the camera... RH

Don't be so daft. ...

>>>> Or that Brodribb,
>>>> who knew Jessop personally, would deliberately have selected a "wrong"
>>>> photo for a book entitled "The Croucher"?
> He would have been limited to the photos he was able to get with the
> technology of the time and the mentality of the subject... RH

... You think that it was not possible in 1905 to get a photo of
a man in a crouched position ["as if starting a race" -- GLJ]? Phooey.
The obvious explanation is that Jessop took a more-or-less normal stance
while the bowler walked back and started his run-up, and adopted a more
crouched position as part of his normal action on starting to play his
shot, and from which he was able to spring forward, as in the action
photos of him in play. The "human catapult".

[...]
>>> I was replying top your absurd comparison between Jessop playing FC
>>> cricket and modern players playing T20... RH
>> You were [and are] just showing that you didn't understand the
>> comparison. The [perfectly reasonable] contention was that Jessop might
>> well have had a much better average if he had played in a style closer

>> to the norms of f-c cricket. [...]

> No, was that Jessop's batteing could be compared with T20 batting.
> That is objectively absurd because DFC and T20 cricket are radically
> different animals... RH

You are just showing, again, that you didn't understand the point
being made. Your innumeracy is showing.

>> It's not heresy to suggest that Jessop might well have done much
>> better as a more conventional batsman.
> Then he wouldn't have been Jessop,.

Which is what I have said several times during this thread. It is
not inconsistent with the suggestion that he might well have scored many
more runs from a more conventional approach.

You're repeating yourself again, so consider this as a final reply
unless you can contribute something other than new absurd "insults".

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:03:38 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 02/09/18 09:11, RH156RH wrote:
> >> A photo of a batsman's *stance* is not an action photo in the way
> >> that a photo of a hook or of a bowling action might be.
> > SIGH. It is a person doing just the same as self-consciously
> > portraying any other physical action for the camera... RH
>
> Don't be so daft. ...

More hilarious psychological bewilderment from Dr B-M... RH

>
> >>>> Or that Brodribb,
> >>>> who knew Jessop personally, would deliberately have selected a "wrong"
> >>>> photo for a book entitled "The Croucher"?
> > He would have been limited to the photos he was able to get with the
> > technology of the time and the mentality of the subject... RH
>
> ... You think that it was not possible in 1905 to get a photo of
> a man in a crouched position ["as if starting a race" -- GLJ]? Phooey.

No, I am saying Jessop would not have adopted a normal stance because he was put in an abnormal psychological position...Dear oh dear... RH


> The obvious explanation


"Obvious" only to an extreme bounded mind ... RH

is that Jessop took a more-or-less normal stance
> while the bowler walked back and started his run-up, and adopted a more
> crouched position as part of his normal action on starting to play his
> shot, and from which he was able to spring forward, as in the action
> photos of him in play. The "human catapult".

More psychological incomprehension from Dr B-M... RH

>
> [...]
> >>> I was replying top your absurd comparison between Jessop playing FC
> >>> cricket and modern players playing T20... RH
> >> You were [and are] just showing that you didn't understand the
> >> comparison. The [perfectly reasonable] contention was that Jessop might
> >> well have had a much better average if he had played in a style closer
> >> to the norms of f-c cricket. [...]
> > No, was that Jessop's batteing could be compared with T20 batting.
> > That is objectively absurd because DFC and T20 cricket are radically
> > different animals... RH
>
> You are just showing, again, that you didn't understand the point
> being made. Your innumeracy is showing.

It has nothing do with numeracy and everything to do with psychology... RH

>
> >> It's not heresy to suggest that Jessop might well have done much
> >> better as a more conventional batsman.
> > Then he wouldn't have been Jessop,.
>
> Which is what I have said several times during this thread.

Dream on... RH

It is
> not inconsistent with the suggestion that he might well have scored many
> more runs from a more conventional approach.
>
> You're repeating yourself again, so consider this as a final reply
> unless you can contribute something other than new absurd "insults".

Translation: Purely descriptive commentary on your mind and its limitations... RH

[grabber]

On 04/09/2018 07:46, RH156RH wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:03:38 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:

...

You're repeating yourself again, so consider this as a final reply
>> unless you can contribute something other than new absurd "insults".
>
>
> Translation: Purely descriptive commentary on your mind and its limitations... RH

But whenever he encounters any descriptive commentary about his own
limitations, poor old thin-skinned Rodders is the first to squeal about
"abuse". Silly old fraud.

[RH156RH]

Translation: I highlight abuse to show what the abuse making creature is... RH

[grabber]

Don't be silly. People will have read what your correspondent has
written and made up their own mind about it. No-one is going to change
their mind about it just because you squeal "abuse". And we are all the
less likely to do so because we have seen that you respond the same way
to reasoned criticism as you do to out-and-out name-calling.

[RH156RH]

SIGH. You do not understand the psychology. It is the perpetrator of the abuse who is disconcerted by my drawing to general attention their crude abuse ...RH

[grabber]

More tosh. When someone tells you to eff off and you respond with the
formula, why should they be disconcerted? Your response merely tells
them that the blow, such as it was, landed.

And when you use the same formula to respond to substantive criticism,
it simply shows that you are unable to provide any substantive rebuttal.

[Mike Holmans]

And if one sensibly has the moron killfiled, one does not see its
response anyway. If I later see it quoted, well, as you say, it merely
tells me that the moron has no substantive answer, which simply
confirms that I was right and, as usual, he was wrong.

Cheers,

Mike

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:43:01 PM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
> On 04/09/2018 19:24, RH156RH wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 5:30:26 PM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
> >> On 04/09/2018 09:42, RH156RH wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:54:01 AM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
> >>>> On 04/09/2018 07:46, RH156RH wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:03:38 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> You're repeating yourself again, so consider this as a final reply
> >>>>>> unless you can contribute something other than new absurd "insults".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translation: Purely descriptive commentary on your mind and its limitations... RH
> >>>>
> >>>> But whenever he encounters any descriptive commentary about his own
> >>>> limitations, poor old thin-skinned Rodders is the first to squeal about
> >>>> "abuse". Silly old fraud.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Translation: I highlight abuse to show what the abuse making creature is... RH
> >>
> >> Don't be silly. People will have read what your correspondent has
> >> written and made up their own mind about it. No-one is going to change
> >> their mind about it just because you squeal "abuse". And we are all the
> >> less likely to do so because we have seen that you respond the same way
> >> to reasoned criticism as you do to out-and-out name-calling.
> >
> > SIGH. You do not understand the psychology. It is the perpetrator of the abuse who is disconcerted by my drawing to general attention their crude abuse ...RH
>
> More tosh.

Translation: more psychological incomprehension... RH

[grabber]

On 05/09/2018 10:44, RH156RH wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:43:01 PM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
>> On 04/09/2018 19:24, RH156RH wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 5:30:26 PM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/2018 09:42, RH156RH wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:54:01 AM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/09/2018 07:46, RH156RH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:03:38 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> You're repeating yourself again, so consider this as a final reply
>>>>>>>> unless you can contribute something other than new absurd "insults".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: Purely descriptive commentary on your mind and its limitations... RH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But whenever he encounters any descriptive commentary about his own
>>>>>> limitations, poor old thin-skinned Rodders is the first to squeal about
>>>>>> "abuse". Silly old fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: I highlight abuse to show what the abuse making creature is... RH
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly. People will have read what your correspondent has
>>>> written and made up their own mind about it. No-one is going to change
>>>> their mind about it just because you squeal "abuse". And we are all the
>>>> less likely to do so because we have seen that you respond the same way
>>>> to reasoned criticism as you do to out-and-out name-calling.
>>>
>>> SIGH. You do not understand the psychology. It is the perpetrator of the abuse who is disconcerted by my drawing to general attention their crude abuse ...RH
>>
>> More tosh.
>
>
>
> Translation: more psychological incomprehension... RH

RH inability to deal with the argument (visible below) duly noted.

[max.it]

Poor Rodders resorts to psychological mumbo jumbo that only he
understands.
Of course the person highlighting unpleasant facts about Rodders isn't
disconcerted by Rodders or his notebook. It just proves that he is an
even bigger arsehole than the last time he cried about 'facts'.

It's all very attention seeking snowflakery, getting especially
offended, expecting others to be offended for you. Who would have
thunk it, oul Rodders being a snowflake and all that.

max.it

>
>> When someone tells you to eff off and you respond with the
>>> formula, why should they be disconcerted? Your response merely tells
>>> them that the blow, such as it was, landed.
>>>
>>> And when you use the same formula to respond to substantive criticism,
>>> it simply shows that you are unable to provide any substantive rebuttal.
>>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 13:20:07 +0100, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 11:56:56 +0100, grabber <g...@bb.er> wrote:
>
>>On 05/09/2018 10:44, RH156RH wrote:

>>> Translation: more psychological incomprehension... RH
>>
>>RH inability to deal with the argument (visible below) duly noted.
>
>Poor Rodders resorts to psychological mumbo jumbo that only he
>understands.
>Of course the person highlighting unpleasant facts about Rodders isn't
>disconcerted by Rodders or his notebook. It just proves that he is an
>even bigger arsehole than the last time he cried about 'facts'.

Whenever Rodders says "note the abuse", someone who reads his rubbish
could put "Translation: I have lost the argument and am flailing about
trying to deflect attention... RH"

Cheers,

Mike

[max.it]

Maybe google translate has a script for Rodderish.

max.it