The 1930s Indians
Mike Holmans
Cricket", I picked an all-time India XI which included some players of
the pretty distant past.
I freely admitted at the time that my motive was to bang the drum for
my new favourite CK Nayudu, whose exploits against teams touring from
England in the 1920s were really the factor which made it imperative
to make India a Test country.
But the bigger argument which raged at the time was over my preference
for Amar Singh rather than Mohammed Nissar. As I recall it, the
pro-Nissar lobby dragged up his somewhat better figures in the few
Tests and his somewhat better figures in Indian domestic cricket as
the justification. My counter was that the figures weren't all that
different, and it was notable that in the commentary on the Tests and
tour, it was Amar Singh who had been singled out by Wisden, not
Nissar.
I now have another witness to call on my behalf, Sir Pelham Warner.
I've been reading his "Cricket Between Two Wars", and he definitely
comes down in my favour.
Writing of the 1932 series, he makes mention-in-despatches of Nayudu
and Nissar as fine batsman and bowler respectively, but it is on Amar
Singh that he heaps the praise. It's Amar who he thinks would be a
serious candidate for a World XI, both on this tour and again in 1936.
To understand how big a statement that was, try imagining Richie
Benaud stoutly declaring that he'd pick Steve Tikolo for a World XI,
Benaud being pretty much regarded as a universal sage and Kenya being
an up-and-coming country who can't really be expected to have
world-class players yet.
Warner, for some unaccountable reason, chose to ignore the glaring
statistical evidence which some of rsc's leading citizens would be
waving in his face, apparently thinking that his own perceptions of
the bowler's variations in line and length and the opinions of most of
the leading English batsmen of the day, who found Amar far more
tricksy and difficult to play than the relatively straightforward
Nissar, would somehow justify his view. I'm sure that those whose
cricket expertise consists mainly in being able to click in the right
places to get numbers out of Statsguru will be only too happ to show
the error of his ways.
Cheers,
Mike
John Hall
Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
[Re Amar Singh]
>I now have another witness to call on my behalf, Sir Pelham Warner.
>I've been reading his "Cricket Between Two Wars", and he definitely
>comes down in my favour.
>
>Writing of the 1932 series, he makes mention-in-despatches of Nayudu
>and Nissar as fine batsman and bowler respectively, but it is on Amar
>Singh that he heaps the praise. It's Amar who he thinks would be a
>serious candidate for a World XI, both on this tour and again in 1936.
>To understand how big a statement that was, try imagining Richie
>Benaud stoutly declaring that he'd pick Steve Tikolo for a World XI,
>Benaud being pretty much regarded as a universal sage and Kenya being
>an up-and-coming country who can't really be expected to have
>world-class players yet.
Interesting that it was Warner who before WW1 had said, following a tour
of England by Philadelphia, something to the effect that J Barton King
was arguably the best bowler of his type in the world. (The last time I
looked on CricInfo, they rather shamefully didn't seem to have a
biography of King, even though I have an idea I once submitted one.)
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
Bob Dubery
"John Hall" <news_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fx3+EMHU...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8soaavog1s72h3ukd...@4ax.com>,
> Interesting that it was Warner who before WW1 had said, following a tour
> of England by Philadelphia, something to the effect that J Barton King
> was arguably the best bowler of his type in the world. (The last time I
> looked on CricInfo, they rather shamefully didn't seem to have a
> biography of King, even though I have an idea I once submitted one.)
How serendipitous that you should mention Barton King: I've just finished
reading a piece on him in The Picador Book Of Cricket (edited by Ramachandra
Guha - and a very good anthology it is too).
King was certainly a remarkable cricketer.
He started off as a baseball pitcher (so there's hope yet for Hayward) and
played his first season of cricket in 1889. Initially he played as a batsman
but because of his physique he was tried as a bowler and took 37 wickets at
2.4 that season! This in the year in which he turned 16.
I won't repeat the whole article here, but I will chronicle (for those who,
like me, know nothing of King) some of his more remarkable bowling feats.
On his international debut (against Canada) he took 3 for 6 and 2 for 15.
The same season (1892) he was the leading American bowler against Ireland
with 19 @ 13.53.
The next season the Gentelmen Of Philadelphia played against a full strength
Australian side (on their way home from England) and King took 5 for 78 in
the first Australian innings of the first of a pair of matches. He included
Bannerman and Giffen amongst his victims.
By 1897 King was genuinely quick, a genuine all-rounder and was with the
Philadelphian team that toured England. He took 7 for 13 in 10 overs (!) as
Philadelphia bowled out a full strength Sussex for 46 - including Ranji
first ball. Ranji got some revenge in the follow-on innings and made 74 (but
in vain as Philadelphia won by 8 wickets).
He also took 5 for 95 and 7 for 72 and made 46* against Warks.
Predictably King came unstuck against WG. He beat the great man with the
first ball but Grace got an edge for 4 and went on without any more errors
to record a ton. King's figures in that match were still presentable - 2 for
100 from 36 overs.
On that tour he took 72 wickets @ 24.02 from 655.4 overs in a side that
required him to do a lot of bowling and which fielded poorly. Many counties
were interested in King, but as it was thought he would not play as a
professional alternative means of reimbursement had to be found - one county
offering to arrange a marriage with a widow who had an income of 7000 pounds
per year.
In 1901 Bosanquet took an England team to Philadelphia. In the two matches
King took 8/78, 6/57, 6/74 and 3/28 (or 23 @ 10.3)
Philadelphia toured England again in 1903 and did pretty well - winning 7,
losing 6 and drawing 2. King bowled 451 overs and took 78 @ 16.06 (and
scored 614 runs).
He must have been a sight. He would come in with the ball clasped above his
head in both hands baseball style. He was famous for his late swing (in and
out) and would produce the in-swinger with his right hand coming down from a
point over his left shoulder.
He was, in fact, one of the first bowlers to perfect swing bowling. Other
bowlers of that time could sometimes get the ball to swing by hit-or-miss
methods, but King could swing the ball, new or old, at will.
There's a lovely, possibly apocraphyl, story about him emulating a famous
baseball pitcher of the day by sending all the fielders back into the
pavilion and finishing an innings off without any assistance at all. Some
versions have him banishing the fielders and then calling one of them back
to a position 22 yards back and 4 yards to leg - stationed there so as to be
able to pick up the bails (which landed at his feet after King produced his
trademark fast, late in-swinger).
Cricketislife!
Cricket> (edited by Ramachandra> Guha - and a very good anthology it is
too).
Thanks, I was proud of my effort there!!
Cricketislife!
trying to put more doubts in Sailesh' mind..
--
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.sport.cricket
To contact in private, remove n-7o4s0paa+mm
Sailesh Krishnamurthy
>> I've just finished> reading a piece on him in The Picador Book
>> Of Cricket (edited by Ramachandra> Guha - and a very good anthology
cil> Thanks, I was proud of my effort there!!
cil> Cricketislife! trying to put more doubts in Sailesh' mind..
No worries Sai. I had met Arun Simha (CricFan) yesterday evening and
we talked about your posts, and how I mistook you for RVG. In fact,
the occasion for meeting Arun was to return his copy of "Wickets in
the East" by Guha himself.
--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh
Cricketislife!
> we talked about your posts, and how I mistook you for RVG. In fact,
> the occasion for meeting Arun was to return his copy of "Wickets in
> the East" by Guha himself.
that is a really good book, isnt it?, I am unable to procure a new copy
in India. wonder whether it is available anywhere in net, I shall search
today.. also have u read spin and other turns?
--
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.sport.cricket
To contact in private, remove nno9s+pp-a7mm
Cricketislife!
"his most destructive ball was this in-swinger ( which he called the
"angler"): he used it sparingly, on the whole, lest batsmen should learn
how to play it, so when he did bowl it generally took wickets. His
swerve was very pronounced, learnt from his baseball days: but the
pitcher "throws" and "Bart" King never threw at cricket, but always
bowled, always with a very high action. This was partly derived from his
own stature for he was a fine upstanding man of well over six feet (and
carried himself well to the end of his days, nor, even at the end, did
he look his years).
He used his in-swinger sparingly, but this tale is told about C.B. Fry,
that Fry asked him to send down a few balls in the nets. King obliged,
and bowled him his in-swinger which Fry learnt to play. In due course,
Fry came to the crease, shaped for the same type of delivery and was
flabbergasted to find himself caught first ball in the slips, for King
had bowled his more usual out-swinger."
To read more and also see a rare photo of the man, click
http://www.haverford.edu/library/cricket/site_update/famous_King.htm
-
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.sport.cricket
To contact in private, remove nn1o1s+3paa-mm
Bob Dubery
<cricketislif...@web2news.net> wrote:
>He used his in-swinger sparingly, but this tale is told about C.B. Fry,
>that Fry asked him to send down a few balls in the nets. King obliged,
>and bowled him his in-swinger which Fry learnt to play. In due course,
>Fry came to the crease, shaped for the same type of delivery and was
>flabbergasted to find himself caught first ball in the slips, for King
>had bowled his more usual out-swinger."
Damn historians! The account that I read said that King was more keen
on the in-swinger because he thought it more useful than the
out-swinger (which he couldn't produce at full pace as he had to drop
his arm to produce it) and so it was the outswinger that he used
sparingly.
Cricketislife!
> on the in-swinger because he thought it more useful than the
> out-swinger (which he couldn't produce at full pace as he had to drop
> his arm to produce it) and so it was the outswinger that he used
> sparingly.
U read Ralph Barkers' account?? If so I shall stick with his view.. I
rememebr reading his, looked a well researched peice
--
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.sport.cricket
To contact in private, remove n8oo+sp-am
Bob Dubery
"Cricketislife!" <cricketislif...@web2news.net> wrote in message
news:2616...@web2news.com...
> > Damn historians! The account that I read said that King was more keen
> > on the in-swinger because he thought it more useful than the
> > out-swinger (which he couldn't produce at full pace as he had to drop
> > his arm to produce it) and so it was the outswinger that he used
> > sparingly.
>
> U read Ralph Barkers' account?? If so I shall stick with his view.. I
> rememebr reading his, looked a well researched peice
Yes. "The American Lillee" by Ralph Barker. The only thing I've ever read
about King so I have nothing else to compare it too. It certainly seems he
was a pretty useful bowler.
John Hall
Cricketislife! <cricketislif...@web2news.net> writes:
>> Damn historians! The account that I read said that King was more keen
>> on the in-swinger because he thought it more useful than the
>> out-swinger (which he couldn't produce at full pace as he had to drop
>> his arm to produce it) and so it was the outswinger that he used
>> sparingly.
>
>U read Ralph Barkers' account?? If so I shall stick with his view.. I
>rememebr reading his, looked a well researched peice
>
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
Aditya Basrur
> In article <2616...@web2news.com>,
> Cricketislife! <cricketislif...@web2news.net> writes:
>>> Damn historians! The account that I read said that King was more
>>> keen on the in-swinger because he thought it more useful than the
>>> out-swinger (which he couldn't produce at full pace as he had to
>>> drop his arm to produce it) and so it was the outswinger that he
>>> used sparingly.
>>
>> U read Ralph Barkers' account?? If so I shall stick with his view.. I
>> rememebr reading his, looked a well researched peice
>>
> That would be in "Ten Great Bowlers"? Excellent book.
I agree. Very well written. If we're thinking of the same one, there was a
chapter on Larwood by either Bowes or Voce which was very well done.
Is this the same series that had "The Great Ones" and "Ten Great
All-Rounders"? Edited by John Arlott?
Aditya
John Hall
Aditya Basrur <firstname...@hotmail.com> writes:
>John Hall wrote:
>> In article <2616...@web2news.com>,
>> Cricketislife! <cricketislif...@web2news.net> writes:
>>>
>>> U read Ralph Barkers' account?? If so I shall stick with his view.. I
>>> rememebr reading his, looked a well researched peice
>>>
>> That would be in "Ten Great Bowlers"? Excellent book.
>
>I agree. Very well written. If we're thinking of the same one, there was a
>chapter on Larwood by either Bowes or Voce which was very well done.
We're not, it seems. The one I was thinking of was all written by
Barker. It was published in 1967 and had chapters on Spofforth, Lohmann,
Lockwood, Richardson, Barton King, Barnes, Maurice Tate, Grimmett,
Verity and O'Reilly.
>
>Is this the same series that had "The Great Ones" and "Ten Great
>All-Rounders"? Edited by John Arlott?
No. I've read "Ten Great All-rounders", which is a very good book.
Barker wrote, as well as "Ten Great Bowlers", "Ten Great Innings" and
"Ten More Great Innings".
--
John Hall
"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
Katherine Cebrian
Phil Wise
"Aditya Basrur" <firstname...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88lh1$214$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Is this the same series that had "The Great Ones" and "Ten Great
> All-Rounders"? Edited by John Arlott?
Crickey. Arlott edited a book about Bradburn and G.S Burger?
phil
>
> Aditya
>
>
Myk Cameron
I'm not sure you could categorise two sides of A4 as a book.
Myk