Why are cricket legends from the past such WG Grace, F Tyson, J Hobbs and F Trueman disrespected?

[shaz619]

Am not an oldie like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] but what I've seen on a regular basis is modern fans ridicule legends who pioneered the sport of cricket and paved the way for our entertainment at present; were it not for them popularising the sport there would be no cricket on the scale we see today.

With regards to their greatness in comparison to the present, there is nothing really conclusive to suggest they were spectacularly god awful. Sure we can debate whether or not they would find success in this era but we need to have a bit of perspective and not judge without context given the nature of the era, peer review should also not be brushed aside and deemed completely insignificant especially when it's the only real metric we have given the lack of sufficient footage.

One thing we can't argue against is the impact these men had on our sport and people need to show a bit more respect outside the times Donald Bradman speaks highly of Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=136193]Adil_94[/MENTION] [MENTION=140417]idrizzy[/MENTION] [MENTION=136302]Haz95[/MENTION]

 

[shaz619]

People need to show some god damn respect ! [MENTION=47617]Red Devil[/MENTION] you don't see many fans insult and disrespect the likes of Bruno Sammartino, Flair, Thunder Liger and even Stan Hansen ; they were pioneers !

 

[Chrish]

Human tendency to consider all the players irrelevant before the time your mom met your dad..

 

[shaz619]

Human tendency to consider all the players irrelevant before the time your mom met your dad..

The disrespect is uncalled for, these people have a severe bias against these legends; now I understand they grew up watching modern cricket but many of us have yet we're a lot more objective when judging cricket from a historical context

 

[MMHS]

May be for two reasons -

1. The first one is obvious, people of every generation would like to praise their generation. This has a first love impact - someone 60 years old probably would boast players from that era he has followed the game more passionately.

2. The counter effect of bullying. Among all major sports, cricket is played seriously by least number of countries, even lesser when it comes to history & sports literature. And, cricket is the most biased sports when it comes to glorifying the past, because it had been a monopoly of couple of countries (basically one intellectual theme), and the priority of the game has gradually gone down in those countries, hence the literature of cricket is extremely past biased. This has resulted a sort of comparison between generations, unfortunately in an ugly way.


I read lot on sports & their history - at least 5/6 major sports that I follow. That past vs present debate is everywhere; but I don't see cricket like bullying of past. In Soccer, Tennis, Basketball, Golf, Snooker, Baseball, Chess, F1 or Badminton (I leave field hockey here, because there is a major factor of playing surface), I read lots of comparison - Pele/Fat Ronaldo, Cruyff/Playboy Ronaldo; Federer/Laver, Borg/Nadal; Chemnarlein/Shak, Jordan/James; Nicklus/Woods; Ruth/Mayes/Bonds .... so on. But, I have never read such dismissal of modern players by the old greats like cricket - it's almost like every County team of 1900s had an Imran, Marshall, Viv, Warne, Akram..... in playing XI.

Besides, Cricket is most stat dominant game, therefore comparison is obvious & most common people are not capable of comparing stats with context. There are lot more technicality than just by stats to judge this game. One silly such example I can give is one of my recent debates on WK - I do agree Godfrey Evans is a colossus of the game, because he was beyond anyone among his peers, analyzing his stats, I did find something that tells me he was a brilliant gatherer of the ball, but not a mobile WK. GE has 173 catches in 91 Tests and around 165 innings - that's about 1 par innings & much, much lower than KAkmal, despite all the later's drops. But, people of his time'll tell that GE hardly dropped anything & they are actually not wrong. Now, GE played 54 of his 91 Tests in ENG, 16 in AUS & it can't be that in his era sincks to WK were lower - and, still he averages almost half to Kamran Akmal. I tried to find the answer for me first & found that Evans was so good in gloving that he could gather almost everything coming straight to him, he was a bulky guy & the peak speed of his pacers were not that express (I won't go to KM here for unnecessary distractions) for those reasons, throughout his career he kept almost always up on wicket - therefore, it was expected that any slight thick deflection, he isn't expected to catch & hence it's not listed as drops; rather his Captains kept a fine leg slip & first slip at what will be conventional WKs spot these days. Result, he had 46 stumping as well, which was for long time a WR. Now, I judge WK on overall package - his gathering, agility, keeping against spin, leg side saves, % of regulation catches, diving catches covering 1st slip & vacant leg slip, keeping against reverse swing Yorkers & big turner on rough ... in that regard 3 best ever WK in my order was Knott, Helly & Latif and indeed Evans is among best as well. But, I am believe in general one set will discard him for his 1 catch/innings, other set will glorify him for his keeping against Bedsar, Statham, Truman as well as Laker, Lock, Peebles standing on wicket.

Personally, I never, never disrespected any greats of any era. Just like Imran of 1980s, George Giffen was a great all-rounder of 1890s & KS Ranji of 1890s what's Steve Smith today or Viv Richards & Vic Trumper are similar batsmen beyond stats, parted by 75 years. In my every all time teams, I pick players on how dominant they were among their peers. I have a little bias for the eras I have watched, and I do use my judgement of overall quality of cricket by decades, but disrespect - NEVER.

 

[Junaids]

Ignorance

 

[KingKhanWC]

I have a lot of respect for old time legends, their names are stamped in history forever and as you mentioned they were pioneers.

However it;s not fair to compare to modern cricketers as the athletisism, physical ability and pace of the game has changed. Sure there were uncovered pitches in Bradmans era but did he face the likes of the two W's reverse swing the ball at 90pmh +? Now players have to deal with all sorts of bowlings skills against them. Bradman never faced anyone like a Shoaib Akhtar who bowled 95mph+ on a regular basis. We just don't know how they would have handled these skills.

 

[Tusker]

Am not an oldie like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] but what I've seen on a regular basis is modern fans ridicule legends who pioneered the sport of cricket and paved the way for our entertainment at present; were it not for them popularising the sport there would be no cricket on the scale we see today.

With regards to their greatness in comparison to the present, there is nothing really conclusive to suggest they were spectacularly god awful. Sure we can debate whether or not they would find success in this era but we need to have a bit of perspective and not judge without context given the nature of the era, peer review should also not be brushed aside and deemed completely insignificant especially when it's the only real metric we have given the lack of sufficient footage.

One thing we can't argue against is the impact these men had on our sport and people need to show a bit more respect outside the times Donald Bradman speaks highly of Sachin Tendulkar.

Ridculing current players to stay relevant tends to backfire spectacularly.

And weren't you calling Viral Kohli a choker and few other things? If that is acceptable then so is this. Stop crying and start defending these so called legends.

 

[Hasan123]

Lol some people ovverate them without having see them play. They get enough respect imo anyway. They are legends of the game.

 

[idrizzy]

I think the disrespect comes when people compare modern players with those in the past. They automatically think the past is the past, so we can undermine their quality because there's no video footage or technology to actually measure and see how good they were.

When we do compare modern legends with past legends, the rebuttal becomes hearsay and it's only persons opinion against another.

However another thing is that despite some of these pioneers not being the greatest in that era, they understood and created an idea that'll live on forever. The most recent trend I can think of is the Dilscoop - Dilshan is probably not the best opener of the era but he created a revolutionary shot that'll change the game from years to come.

 

[Robert]

Am not an oldie like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] but what I've seen on a regular basis is modern fans ridicule legends who pioneered the sport of cricket and paved the way for our entertainment at present; were it not for them popularising the sport there would be no cricket on the scale we see today.

I don't know - the arrogance of youth, perhaps?

But when I was a young man I thought of those guys as legends because the oldies spoke so highly of them, and I respected the word of my elders. Compton was supposed to be so good you wouldn't believe it, and if that was the case, Bradman must have been a superman.....

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Because they are overrated and over glorified. They were pioneers but hardly great athletes. It would be flattering to call them professionals even, given most of them played cricket as part time work against one country. I do not disrespect them but I have no special respect for them either.

 

[On_the_up]

Seems it is the latest craze on Pakpassion.

All cricketers from the past are overrated.

Maybe some day there will be a generation who also think they know best, questioning the Pontings/Laras/Wasims/Warnes of this world, and claims of glorified tales by those who happen to be alive at the same time.

Heck, it almost happening now with Sachin being overrated, one who played for stats and rarely performed when it counted most (not a true matchwinner).

 

[kingusama92]

They deserve respect BUT it's important to remain realistic.

These players were not superhuman as their stats suggest. The level of play was average (especially in the early 1900s) and their fitness was appalling.

Modern day players get put down because their averages will never reach those obscene levels.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Seems it is the latest craze on Pakpassion.

All cricketers from the past are overrated.

Maybe some day there will be a generation who also think they know best, questioning the Pontings/Laras/Wasims/Warnes of this world, and claims of glorified tales by those who happen to be alive at the same time.

Heck, it almost happening now with Sachin being overrated, one who played for stats and rarely performed when it counted most (not a true matchwinner).

Have you seen how those past legends are hyped as if they were superhumans? Their stats are extremely misleading given they played against either Aus or England. There were no electronic devices to record or measure their heroics, so the claims of their glory are unsubstantiated. They were extremely unfit and wouldn't get into any modern team based on fitness alone (WG Grace). Half of them were not even professionals and played cricket as part time job. Their matches are not recorded to be judged on youtube. Why should people rate the ancient demi-gods so highly?

 

[On_the_up]

Have you seen how those past legends are hyped as if they were superhumans? Their stats are extremely misleading given they played against either Aus or England. There were no electronic devices to record or measure their heroics, so the claims of their glory are unsubstantiated. They were extremely unfit and wouldn't get into any modern team based on fitness alone (WG Grace). Half of them were not even professionals and played cricket as part time job. Their matches are not recorded to be judged on youtube. Why should people rate the ancient demi-gods so highly?

So guilty until proven innocent? If it isn't on youtube, it didn't happen?

Do you believe the greatness of Bradman was a myth too?

Coming back to the batsmen of today, most of them can't play the moving ball to save their lives. Are these guys better than those so called part timers? Maybe today's batsmen can play straight out pace better, but put them against bowlers who swing/seam with any regularity and they don't last 50 overs as a team.

With the bats those guys used/uncovered pitches etc, an avg of 40 is likely to be worth 50+ in this day and age.
Also, a big part of cricket is played in the mind, do you have what it takes upstairs, determination/ability to handle pressure/play according to the match situation. Can we really say these guys are better in that respect too? These days when one team gets on top, more often than not the other team just falls like a pack of cards. Gone are the days when you fought tooth and nail for 5 sessions to get a draw with no chance of victory.

I am not claiming the past players were as good as lthey are made out to be but simply assuming thnigs without actually having seen them isn't fair.

 

[Robert]

Have you seen how those past legends are hyped as if they were superhumans? Their stats are extremely misleading given they played against either Aus or England. There were no electronic devices to record or measure their heroics, so the claims of their glory are unsubstantiated.

There are some funny old things called scorecards and newspaper reports, however.

 

[Tusker]

There are some funny old things called scorecards and newspaper reports, however.

Which tell us batting techniques , fielding standards and bowling speeds ... ehh ?

 

[Tusker]

Ignorance

Really ??? Its quite amazing that you say this after all that we have discussed over a looong period of time !!

 

[kingusama92]

There are some funny old things called scorecards and newspaper reports, however.

You pick up a scorecard of any local street game and some guy will have made 300.

Does that make him GOAT?

 

[Robert]

Because they are overrated and over glorified. They were pioneers but hardly great athletes. It would be flattering to call them professionals even, given most of them played cricket as part time work against one country. I do not disrespect them but I have no special respect for them either.

Most?

Larwood, Vose, Bowes, Truman, most bowlers prior to 1950 came out of the mines. County places were fiercely sought after, because you got to breathe air that didn't kill you in a workplace that didn't bury you alive. Britain was a harder environment back then. Modern cricketers are by comparison mentally and physically soft through lack of competition.

 

[Robert]

You pick up a scorecard of any local street game and some guy will have made 300.

Does that make him GOAT?

Sure, if he turns into Miandad or Tendulkar.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Hyped up for sure. But in their era they were the best players, so respect for that.

 

[kingusama92]

Sure, if he turns into Miandad or Tendulkar.

But Miandad and Tendulkar aren't relying solely on scorecards/word of mouth.

 

[Tusker]

Have you seen how those past legends are hyped as if they were superhumans? Their stats are extremely misleading given they played against either Aus or England. There were no electronic devices to record or measure their heroics, so the claims of their glory are unsubstantiated. They were extremely unfit and wouldn't get into any modern team based on fitness alone (WG Grace). Half of them were not even professionals and played cricket as part time job. Their matches are not recorded to be judged on youtube. Why should people rate the ancient demi-gods so highly?

its one thing to overhype to the extent that boderline lies are passed off as facts (Eg Jack Hobbs had excellent technique ) but quite another thing when modern players are ridiculed using those outright lies as you can see being done by the usual suspects right here on this thread.

Then recently there was comment made by Andy Roberts where he had the cheek to say that modern cricketers are sissy's. Is that how a supposedly great cricketer talks ? And then people expect them to be respected.

 

[Tusker]

Most?

Larwood, Vose, Bowes, Truman, most bowlers prior to 1950 came out of the mines. County places were fiercely sought after, because you got to breathe air that didn't kill you in a workplace that didn't bury you alive. Britain was a harder environment back then. Modern cricketers are by comparison mentally and physically soft through lack of competition.

this post is a classic example of how half truths were sold as facts and millions of gullible folks keep repeating it until it become no less than Gospel and here we are drooling over cricketers who played some 75+ yrs ago and you are convinced that they were better physically and mentally from the current set of cricketers who are soft because they were helmets I suppose

lets see some action https://youtu.be/k0Ztiy68sPc?t=1m32s

Thats Bill Bowes - he of the bodyline fame - bowling in his pomp. And at this point Iam going to let the video do the talking for me.

Need more ?


[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=142823]Joseph Gomes[/MENTION]

 

[shaz619]

this post is a classic example of how half truths were sold as facts and millions of gullible folks keep repeating it until it become no less than Gospel and here we are drooling over cricketers who played some 75+ yrs ago and you are convinced that they were better physically and mentally from the current set of cricketers who are soft because they were helmets I suppose

lets see some action https://youtu.be/k0Ztiy68sPc?t=1m32s

Thats Bill Bowes - he of the bodyline fame - bowling in his pomp. And at this point Iam going to let the video do the talking for me.

Need more ?


[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=142823]Joseph Gomes[/MENTION]

How is it logical that you advocate those names were spectacularly god awful based on measuring speed from a video and a claim that they bowled slower then women

 

[Tusker]

How is it logical that you advocate those names were spectacularly god awful based on measuring speed from a video and a claim that they bowled slower then women, that is beyond moronic and absolutely ignorant

Its about time you realized true worth of your legends some of whom bowled slower than 120Ks. Deal with the facts.

 

[Junaids]

this post is a classic example of how half truths were sold as facts and millions of gullible folks keep repeating it until it become no less than Gospel and here we are drooling over cricketers who played some 75+ yrs ago and you are convinced that they were better physically and mentally from the current set of cricketers who are soft because they were helmets I suppose

lets see some action https://youtu.be/k0Ztiy68sPc?t=1m32s

Thats Bill Bowes - he of the bodyline fame - bowling in his pomp. And at this point Iam going to let the video do the talking for me.

Need more ?


[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=142823]Joseph Gomes[/MENTION]

I couldn't agree more about pre-WW2.

I fully accept that it was a very different game - who needs sticky wicket skills now? - and that Larwood seems to have been the only genuinely quick bowler. Bowes, Voce and Allen clearly weren't.

And you have convinced me that Larwood probably wasn't as quick as I used to think. An Aussie TV documentary a couple of years ago tried to triangulate old footage to estimate his pace, and concluded it was only in the 140's.

That makes a lot of sense. His mining background meant he was as strong as an ox, and his action has stood the Test of time. I reckon he was bowling in the 140's while his partners were possibly almost as slow as Philander or Asif or 2004-2007 McGrath, in the 120's.

 

[Tusker]

I couldn't agree more about pre-WW2.

I fully accept that it was a very different game - who needs sticky wicket skills now? - and that Larwood seems to have been the only genuinely quick bowler. Bowes, Voce and Allen clearly weren't.

Glad we agree on atleast *something* even if it took me best part of 2 yrs to convince you .. phew !!!

And you have convinced me that Larwood probably wasn't as quick as I used to think. An Aussie TV documentary a couple of years ago tried to triangulate old footage to estimate his pace, and concluded it was only in the 140's.

That makes a lot of sense. His mining background meant he was as strong as an ox, and his action has stood the Test of time. I reckon he was bowling in the 140's while his partners were possibly almost as slow as Philander or Asif or 2004-2007 McGrath, in the 120's.

And this is where it gets tricky Larwood bowled in the 70mph range and Bowes is just SLOOOW !! And in the past I have posted clips of McGrath bowling in the lower 140Ks

 

[Junaids]

this post is a classic example of how half truths were sold as facts and millions of gullible folks keep repeating it until it become no less than Gospel and here we are drooling over cricketers who played some 75+ yrs ago and you are convinced that they were better physically and mentally from the current set of cricketers who are soft because they were helmets I suppose

lets see some action https://youtu.be/k0Ztiy68sPc?t=1m32s

Thats Bill Bowes - he of the bodyline fame - bowling in his pomp. And at this point Iam going to let the video do the talking for me.

Need more ?


[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=142823]Joseph Gomes[/MENTION]

Glad we agree on atleast *something* even if it took me best part of 2 yrs to convince you .. phew !!!




And this is where it gets tricky Larwood bowled in the 70mph range and Bowes is just SLOOOW !! And in the past I have posted clips of McGrath bowling in the lower 140Ks

The Aussie documentary used a very detailed protocol to measure Larwood's speed, and they didn't find any footage below the mid-130's, with most of it in the mid-140's.

I was shocked at the time, but I accept it now.

Do you really think a miner with a long run up and flowing action bowled at the pace a woman does now?

 

[shaz619]

Its about time you realized true worth of your legends some of whom bowled slower than 120Ks. Deal with the facts.

The smart people have respect for pioneers, their contribution to cricket is unprecedented; another FACT. You on the other hand use video footage to determine how quick they bowled and claimed they bowl like women ) that is not a fact, it is stupidity

 

[The Googly]

Let me hasten to add that I think the past players should be hugely respected.

1. Batsmen faced Lillee, Thompson, Imran, and the West Indian Pace attack in the 70s and 80s without helmets. Huge thumbs up to them. They still played the hook shot. For me, this is the biggest reason to have huge respect for the past generation players.

PS: On a side note - Miandad was hit on the head by Lillee pre-helmet days and some people reckon that he was never quite the same dashing player after this.

2. They used to play on terrible pitches and on uncovered pitches. This meant their techniques were better tested.

3. Seen their bats? They were half the size of todays bats!

4. They did not reply on short boundaries.

5. Are bowlers better today or in the old days? Beyond a doubt, the best bowling era was the 70s-80s. Especially for fast bowling.

6. Batsmen - Kohli or Root from today vs the likes of Viv Richards, the Chappels, the Gavaskars, Zaheer, Miandad, Lloyd, Lara, Kalicharran, Lawrence Rowe, Majid Khan, Vishwanath, Boycott, Gower, Salim Malik, Inzi, Moyo. Seriously, the batsmen from the 70s and 80s and 90s were loads better.

7. Allrounders - Botham, Imram, Hadlee, Dev. 4 genuine allrounders of the 70s/80s. Miles better then Stokes etc.

I realize I am not going back to the 60s and beyond but I firmly believe that only fielding is better nowadays. The other skillsets were better in the older players.

 

[Tusker]

The Aussie documentary used a very detailed protocol to measure Larwood's speed, and they didn't find any footage below the mid-130's, with most of it in the mid-140's.

I was shocked at the time, but I accept it now.

Well I don't and you know why exactly

Do you really think a miner with a long run up and flowing action bowled at the pace a woman does now?

Larwood could bowl that speed for a long time than any Womens cricketer.

 

[kingusama92]

6. Batsmen - Kohli or Root from today vs the likes of Viv Richards, the Chappels, the Gavaskars, Zaheer, Miandad, Lloyd, Lara, Kalicharran, Lawrence Rowe, Majid Khan, Vishwanath, Boycott, Gower, Salim Malik, Inzi, Moyo. Seriously, the batsmen from the 70s and 80s and 90s were loads better.
.

This point is unfair.

You combined three decades into one.

70s + 80s + 90s.

Kohli and Root are from the same decade. Obviously they're not going to win a battle when you take the liberty to combine three decades of batting talent into one group.

For example Lara, Malik, Inzi, Moyo and other 90s batsmen are closer to the newer generation.

 

[Sachin136]

Let me hasten to add that I think the past players should be hugely respected.

1. Batsmen faced Lillee, Thompson, Imran, and the West Indian Pace attack in the 70s and 80s without helmets. Huge thumbs up to them. They still played the hook shot. For me, this is the biggest reason to have huge respect for the past generation players.

PS: On a side note - Miandad was hit on the head by Lillee pre-helmet days and some people reckon that he was never quite the same dashing player after this.

2. They used to play on terrible pitches and on uncovered pitches. This meant their techniques were better tested.

3. Seen their bats? They were half the size of todays bats!

4. They did not reply on short boundaries.

5. Are bowlers better today or in the old days? Beyond a doubt, the best bowling era was the 70s-80s. Especially for fast bowling.

6. Batsmen - Kohli or Root from today vs the likes of Viv Richards, the Chappels, the Gavaskars, Zaheer, Miandad, Lloyd, Lara, Kalicharran, Lawrence Rowe, Majid Khan, Vishwanath, Boycott, Gower, Salim Malik, Inzi, Moyo. Seriously, the batsmen from the 70s and 80s and 90s were loads better.

7. Allrounders - Botham, Imram, Hadlee, Dev. 4 genuine allrounders of the 70s/80s. Miles better then Stokes etc.

I realize I am not going back to the 60s and beyond but I firmly believe that only fielding is better nowadays. The other skillsets were better in the older players.

No one disrespects those players. This post is about pre-war players, not players from the 70s.

Also, 6 is completely wrong.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Let me hasten to add that I think the past players should be hugely respected.


6. Batsmen - Kohli or Root from today vs the likes of Viv Richards, the Chappels, the Gavaskars, Zaheer, Miandad, Lloyd, Lara, Kalicharran, Lawrence Rowe, Majid Khan, Vishwanath, Boycott, Gower, Salim Malik, Inzi, Moyo. Seriously, the batsmen from the 70s and 80s and 90s were loads better.

Completely nonsense post. Past cricketers have no way to be better skilled than modern players who have professional trainers, facilities and technology to assist and overcome their mistakes. You're talking out of complete bias.

 

[Robert]

I realize I am not going back to the 60s and beyond but I firmly believe that only fielding is better nowadays. The other skillsets were better in the older players.

I would say that the skill sets change with time. Batters hit for power now, but don't seem to be able to defend for long periods. Most tests finish in a win, though most pitches are roads.

England batters cannot play spin now. Our players of even thirty years ago were brought up on all sorts of wickets. Now they only see roads with occasional slow seamers. And very rarely one that takes spin.

Conversely Aussies don't have the techniques to handle seam movement any more.

 

[Robert]

The Aussie documentary used a very detailed protocol to measure Larwood's speed, and they didn't find any footage below the mid-130's, with most of it in the mid-140's.

I was shocked at the time, but I accept it now.

That sounds about right to me. If sprinter speeds have gone up by about 7% in the last eighty years, it seems likely that Larwood (the world's quickest in his day) was touching 90 mph.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Great piece my Michael Atherton on Harold Larwood a couple of days ago, click on the link for the video where he takes a trip round Trent Bridge to gain an insight into one of England's greatest eve fast bowlers.

http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...d-michael-athertons-guide-to-bodyline-captain

The ferocious fast bowler was the leader of the England attack on the famous Bodyline Ashes tour of 1932/33 and we get a glimpse of the very bowling boots, and MCC sweater, he wore during the series.

Larwood is quite rightly remembered and revered at Trent Bridge. As a local lad from the mining town of Nuncargate, he followed in his dad's footsteps by working down the mines from the age of 14 before earning a contract with Nottinghamshire four years later.

He then went on to play for England in 21 Tests, the last of which came on the Bodyline tour, where he was booed by the Australian crowds for his bowling and subsequently poorly treated at home. He was also told to apologise, which he refused to do.

A shame how he was disowned in his own country and moved to Australia as a result, since he was not picked by England again for not apologising; how many Tests did he miss out on? or was it during the back end of his career so it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] watching the footage during the bodyline series from athers video, Larwood seemed to have a very quick / explosively whippy arm ! a little similar to Wasim Akram

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Great piece my Michael Atherton on Harold Larwood a couple of days ago, click on the link for the video where he takes a trip round Trent Bridge to gain an insight into one of England's greatest eve fast bowlers.

http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...d-michael-athertons-guide-to-bodyline-captain



A shame how he was disowned in his own country and moved to Australia as a result, since he was not picked by England again for not apologising; how many Tests did he miss out on? or was it during the back end of his career so it wouldn't have mattered.

Thanks for that lovely link. I do hope that it gets [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] to review his miserly opinion of Larwood.

I think most English cricket followers with an understanding of history would place Larwood very high in the Pantheon of England fast bowlers.

The Top Five is arguably:

1. Fred Trueman
2. Harold Larwood
3. Brian Statham
4. John Snow
5. Bob Willis

You could make an argument for Jimmy Anderson to replace Bob Willis in that list.

It's true that the England cricket establishment ostracised Larwood after the 1932-33 Bodyline series. But they also ostracised his captain, Douglas Jardine, who was the mastermind of it.

Larwood "enjoyed" a master and servant relationship with Jardine. His most treasured possession was an engraved silver ashtray that Jardine gave him after the bodyline series, which bore the words: "To Harold, for the Ashes".

The greatest football book that I have ever read was written by Duncan Hamilton about the legendary Brian Clough. The same author in 2009 wrote the defining biography of Harold Larwood - another Nottinghamshire icon. I'd really recommend it - it's an awesome read.

If you do read it, you will understand that Larwood's body was hardened in the mines from the age of 14 and that he was a genuine full-time professional. And you will see that there is no earthly reason to think he bowled at the pace of a modern woman.

This was a genuinely fast bowler who was abandoned and betrayed by his country, and made welcome by the same Australia that he had terrorised 20 years earlier.

 

[Robert]

I wouldn't replace Bob with Jimmy. The former had a better strike rate and did well in India, Wi and Australia. Plus, pace.

The point about Larwood the miner is pertinent. By the time his cricket career had begun he would have had a very strong body. Compare with today's gym bunnies who seem to be made of glass.

 

[Tusker]

Let me hasten to add that I think the past players should be hugely respected.


2. They used to play on terrible pitches and on uncovered pitches. This meant their techniques were better tested.

That post is full of half truths and lies that I have dealt with many times including this point ... But this point highlights what a great job that the propaganda machinery has been doing over the decades to convert this into a near mythical fairy tale to prop up the stocks of

but uncovered wkts were abolished in the early 70s. Even before that not all matches were played on Un-covered wkts. The stte of cricket was such that if the 2 teams agreed to play on covered wkts they were allowed. Much like DRS untill recently.. Moreover there is no difference between a covered wkt and a uncovered wkt unless it rains and the batting team at that time has to resume batting on a drying pitch. Simple commonsense will tell you if that would happen in every inngs played .


If you still want to believe in the uncovered wkts story then you will have to accept that this technique in this clip is superior to the Technique of Tendulkars, Laras , Pontings, Kohli's , Roots etc ....

here is the clip: https://youtu.be/F2wXENbhueE?t=1m39s

Almost all the old era fanatics on PP stay away from getting into the nitty gritty of batting techniques as seen in that clip and there are quite a few other ckips if you think this is a one-off. Pretty sure you will do the same.

 

[Junaids]

Here is a lovely piece from BBC Grandstand presented by Steve Rider when Harold Larwood died.

Real all-star stuff - Richie Benaud, Fred Trueman and even a cameo for Douglas Jardine.

I hope [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] watches: the delivery to Woodfull in particular - which nearly killed him - looks brutally fast and skiddy, and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], like myself, will be reminded of Waqar Younis at his peak in 1990 or 1991. The ball which fractured Bertie Oldfield's skull wasn't as quick, but the Woodfull one was extremely fast.

And I don't think that MS Dhoni or a woman bowls at that pace!

I can't explain the first second of the video, except to say:

King - Love and Pride
Nick Kamen - Each Time You Break My Heart

It's hard to beat me on 80's pop in the UK!

 

[Tusker]

Thanks for that lovely link. I do hope that it gets [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] to review his miserly opinion of Larwood.

I think most English cricket followers with an understanding of history would place Larwood very high in the Pantheon of England fast bowlers.

Larwood is one of my cricketing heros whether you would believe it or not .... but that doesnt mean we need to tell lies to prop up his stature.

What is astonishing is most Bradman fanatics have high opinion of him but when you point out the fact that it was Bradman who was responsible for getting him banned by MCC then things start to go south ... which tells me all I need to know about the real reasons for supporting Larwood.

 

[Junaids]

Larwood is one of my cricketing heros whether you would believe it or not .... but that doesnt mean we need to tell lies to prop up his stature.

What is astonishing is most Bradman fanatics have high opinion of him but when you point out the fact that it was Bradman who was responsible for getting him banned by MCC then things start to go south ... which tells me all I need to know about the real reasons for supporting Larwood.

Interesting post!

I have to say, I have a very low opinion of Bradman as a human being. He had the self-centredness of Boycott minus the ability to laugh at himself.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I don't rate players from Bradman era or earlier because nobody (including myself) has seen them. The quality of cricket was very low. So many batsmen averaged 50+.

Players from that time will not survive in this era. Bradman will not even average 55. However, one should not ridicule these cricketers. They could only play in conditions available to them and helped game grow. They are rightly considered as legends of the game. For the same reason, Hobbs will always make a world XI ahead of Cook.

The cricketers from 80s-90s era were definitely better for the most part. The quality of cricket was extremely good at that time and most of the cricket fans have witnessed the greatness of players from that era.

 

[Robert]

I don't rate players from Bradman era or earlier because nobody (including myself) has seen them. The quality of cricket was very low. So many batsmen averaged 50+.

Eh? They didn't. Uncovered wickets, stickies, rampaging spin bowlers.

The era of batting average inflation is right now.

 

[TQ89]

Nobody disrespects the old guys. It is their fans who massively disrespect all the modern guys in every thread and then wanna whine when they are presented with unbiased facts.

 

[Junaids]

I don't rate players from Bradman era or earlier because nobody (including myself) has seen them. The quality of cricket was very low. So many batsmen averaged 50+.

Players from that time will not survive in this era. Bradman will not even average 55. However, one should not ridicule these cricketers. They could only play in conditions available to them and helped game grow. They are rightly considered as legends of the game. For the same reason, Hobbs will always make a world XI ahead of Cook.

The cricketers from 80s-90s era were definitely better for the most part. The quality of cricket was extremely good at that time and most of the cricket fans have witnessed the greatness of players from that era.

This is simply absurd.

Have you any idea how rubbish India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe were at Test cricket in the 1980s and 1990s?

They were all truly pathetic.

 

[TQ89]

If they were pathetic in the 80's, How pathetic must they be in the 50's when fred trueman reduces them to 0/4 and claims the no.1 spot as the GOAT bowler. Absurd right. But hey everything was faster and better in the 50's/60's because it was the good ole days.

You cant use such logic and then expect not be bashed about it.

 

[Junaids]

If they were pathetic in the 80's, How pathetic must they be in the 50's when fred trueman reduces them to 0/4 and claims the no.1 spot as the GOAT bowler. Absurd right. But hey everything was faster and better in the 50's/60's because it was the good ole days.

You cant use such logic and then expect not be bashed about it.

You really are making my arguments for me.

Do you think that India in the 1950s (Roy, Umrigar, Manjrekar, Contractor et al) were worse than Sri Lanka in 1983?

Do you think that India in the 1950s were worse than Zimbabwe in the 1990s?

Here is how a really weak Australia team did in Sri Lanka in 1982-83.

They played people like Hookes, Wood, Yallop, Woolley, Yardley and Hogan, which is to say a team similar to the "official" 1978 one minus the former Packer players.

Australia 514-4 declared
Sri Lanka 271 and 205

 

[Junaids]

If they were pathetic in the 80's, How pathetic must they be in the 50's when fred trueman reduces them to 0/4 and claims the no.1 spot as the GOAT bowler. Absurd right. But hey everything was faster and better in the 50's/60's because it was the good ole days.

You cant use such logic and then expect not be bashed about it.

Why are you just judging Trueman by how he performed against minnows?

In the Trent Bridge Test v West Indies in 1957, Trueman took 5-63 and 4-80 in spite of bowling with Statham
(the second or third best English fast bowler of all Time), Jim Laker (the world's best ever off-spinner) and Trevor Bailey.

But four of the West Indies batsmen were later knighted - Sobers, Walcott, Weekes and Worrell - and the other one was Rohan Kanhai!

Trueman took 9-143 against that batting line-up!

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] watching the footage during the bodyline series from athers video, Larwood seemed to have a very quick / explosively whippy arm ! a little similar to Wasim Akram

That's right, but he also had that sprint in to bowl like Waqar Younis.

Watching the footage again you immediately see that Larwood would be a class above any current pace bowler apart from Dale Steyn at his fastest.

 

[shaz619]

That's right, but he also had that sprint in to bowl like Waqar Younis.

Watching the footage again you immediately see that Larwood would be a class above any current pace bowler apart from Dale Steyn at his fastest.

As a modern cricket fan it is my opinion that at the very least Larwood bowled at 140, if I am to accept that he bowled like a woman; then I need something extremely conclusive because video analysis is not sufficient to measure speed; also we'd be needing a big sample from his prime and a thesis on the metrics used to determine his pace.

And some have said that modern cricket players are being disrespected, it couldn't be further from the truth because I think it's objective when we judge players from past and present objectively with context because statistics are not the be and end all when it comes to verifying greatness and contributions to our sport. If anything, these legends are belittled for the legacy they have left behind based on a narrow minded desire to overrate anything modern for the sake of it, and I didn't even grow up during that time but people do not study history I suppose.

 

[Junaids]

As a modern cricket fan it is my opinion that at the very least Larwood bowled at 140, if I am to accept that he bowled like a woman; then I need something extremely conclusive because video analysis is not sufficient to measure speed; also we'd be needing a big sample from his prime and a thesis on the metrics used to determine his pace.

And some have said that modern fans are being disrespected, it couldn't be further from the truth because I think it's objective when we judge players from past and present objectively with context because statistics are not the be and end all when it comes to verifying greatness and contributions to our sport. If anything, these oldies are belittled simply for playing in a distinct era!

Exactly!

You know that I'm a proud Englishman. But I am absolutely licking my lips at the prospect of Australia fielding an attack in The Ashes of:

Mitchell Starc
Josh Hazlewood
Pat Cummins
James Pattinson

I am well aware that that would be a once in a generation experience to have such a strong pace attack.

 

[shaz619]

Exactly!

You know that I'm a proud Englishman. But I am absolutely licking my lips at the prospect of Australia fielding an attack in The Ashes of:

Mitchell Starc
Josh Hazlewood
Pat Cummins
James Pattinson

I am well aware that that would be a once in a generation experience to have such a strong pace attack.

Hold your horses Junaids! don't get me excited, they need to resolve their pay dispute first! but it would be a mind blowing attack indeed, my prediction; Australia 5-0 But I expect The Beard and Chris Woakes to have an excellent series regardless

 

[The_Odd_One]

This is simply absurd.

Have you any idea how rubbish India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe were at Test cricket in the 1980s and 1990s?

They were all truly pathetic.

How many tests did SL and Zimbabwe play in the 80s? Both were extremely strong in the 90s.

Had Steven Smith played in Bradman's time, he would have been hailed as an ATG and part of every all time test XI.

 

[Robert]

Had Steven Smith played in Bradman's time, he would have been hailed as an ATG and part of every all time test XI.

Interesting. Whom, of the 1948 Immortals, would you drop to make way for him?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Interesting. Whom, of the 1948 Immortals, would you drop to make way for him?

Anybody not Bradman. Smith has 3 away centuries against no. 1 test sides, facing no. 1 & 2 ranked bowlers on rank turners.

 

[Tusker]

Anybody not Bradman. Smith has 3 away centuries against no. 1 test sides, facing no. 1 & 2 ranked bowlers on rank turners.

But but but Verity (and Laker) were the best spinner EVER to step foot on a cricket field as is evident from these 100s of articles written on him by Wisden ( fill in some more names ). And then there was Tiger O'Reily and Grimmet who were actually EVEN better and Bradman played against them in FC matches in uncovered wkts no less.

That will be the reply from [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]s. And once you post a clip there will be radio silence or shift of goal post to something else or just simply ignore that the footage exists and keep claiming that the spinners of that ERA were the best. This is how discussions go with the Old ERA fans.

A past discussion on Bradman where Bill Bowes was equated to Joel Garner :
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ann-the-bowling-Bradman&p=7946216#post7946216

 

[Junaids]

But but but Verity (and Laker) were the best spinner EVER to step foot on a cricket field as is evident from these 100s of articles written on him by Wisden ( fill in some more names ). And then there was Tiger O'Reily and Grimmet who were actually EVEN better and Bradman played against them in FC matches in uncovered wkts no less.

That will be the reply from [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]s. And once you post a clip there will be radio silence or shift of goal post to something else or just simply ignore that the footage exists and keep claiming that the spinners of that ERA were the best. This is how discussions go with the Old ERA fans.

A past discussion on Bradman where Bill Bowes was equated to Joel Garner :
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ann-the-bowling-Bradman&p=7946216#post7946216

And yet I am the guy who doesn't want players over thirty to be selected.

 

[Tusker]

And yet I am the guy who doesn't want players over thirty to be selected.

Does that apply to older ERA players who could part seas and walk on water ? Reading your posts it is quite clear it mainly applies to the "fragile" modern cricketer.

Just for sh!ts and giggles .... Tendulkar made about ~7000 Test runs with 20 hundreds in ~90 tests AFTER his 30th birthday. And just for fun he played another 150 ODIs and scored around 6500 runs and ended on being the highest run getter in WC 2003 and 2nd Highest in 2011 and the first one to cross the 200 barrier at age 36.

 

[Sachin136]

Anybody not Bradman. Smith has 3 away centuries against no. 1 test sides, facing no. 1 & 2 ranked bowlers on rank turners.

He has one century on a turner. The other two were on flat pitches.

 

[Robert]

Anybody not Bradman. Smith has 3 away centuries against no. 1 test sides, facing no. 1 & 2 ranked bowlers on rank turners.

Better that Lindsey Hassett and Neil Harvey? Smith plays in a fairly weak bowling era, mostly on roads.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Better that Lindsey Hassett and Neil Harvey? Smith plays in a fairly weak bowling era, mostly on roads.

Yet there are 4 people with 60+ average in Harvey's era

 

[Junaids]

Does that apply to older ERA players who could part seas and walk on water ? Reading your posts it is quite clear it mainly applies to the "fragile" modern cricketer.

Just for sh!ts and giggles .... Tendulkar made about ~7000 Test runs with 20 hundreds in ~90 tests AFTER his 30th birthday. And just for fun he played another 150 ODIs and scored around 6500 runs and ended on being the highest run getter in WC 2003 and 2nd Highest in 2011 and the first one to cross the 200 barrier at age 36.

I don't think age-related decline is new. You have shown me late-era Fred Trueman footage where his pace was clearly lower than earlier in his career.

Separate to what we commonly argue about, I think there is a real issue for someone like @Harsh_Thakor to study.

This is my hypothesis:

1. We know that fast bowlers lose pace with age.
2. I think that as high quality batsmen age beyond a certain point - I think it's generally their 33rd birthday - they lose their consistency but that the best ones maintain a high average through posting occasional huge scores.
3. This is most pronounced in foreign conditions.
4. This means that a player like Younis Khan only participates in partnerships of 70 or above roughly every sixth or seventh away innings, meaning that the team is likely to lose more often.

Yes, I know Sangakkara is one exception, and that Tendulkar was so exceptional that this happened to him only at the very end of his career, at a much older age.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] you are a hypocrite in that regard when it comes to age you have this policy of being against players beyond 31 o 32 but the folk you rate from the past had the best years of their careers during their 30s

 

[Tusker]

I don't think age-related decline is new. You have shown me late-era Fred Trueman footage where his pace was clearly lower than earlier in his career.

Separate to what we commonly argue about, I think there is a real issue for someone like @Harsh_Thakor to study.

This is my hypothesis:

1. We know that fast bowlers lose pace with age.
2. I think that as high quality batsmen age beyond a certain point - I think it's generally their 33rd birthday - they lose their consistency but that the best ones maintain a high average through posting occasional huge scores.
3. This is most pronounced in foreign conditions.
4. This means that a player like Younis Khan only participates in partnerships of 70 or above roughly every sixth or seventh away innings, meaning that the team is likely to lose more often.

Yes, I know Sangakkara is one exception, and that Tendulkar was so exceptional that this happened to him only at the very end of his career, at a much older age.

Agree with most of what you say but it applies to current ERA which puts a huge emphasis on fitness and every small issue is tracked analyzed and scrutinized (usually in public). Back in the day that 33 yr peak started much earlier but the quality of bowling and fielding and most importantly the scrutiny was soo poor that the fitness issue was greatly masked.

And then there is the fact that a lot of cricketers smoked (Hobbs, Trueman) partied (Sobers, Botham) and generally had a lifestyle that wasnt conducive to being a Professional sportsman.

Another major major factor was absense of ODI cricket which is pretty taxing on your body and ability to avoid tours to Asia.

Perhaps the greatest example of standards is the case of Len Hutton who had his arm shortened by a inch or two because of a serious accident and yet played Test and FC cricket after that. Hammond played with severe Arthritis. Unlikely that such things can happen today.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Interesting. Whom, of the 1948 Immortals, would you drop to make way for him?

I don't know but I do know that everybody would be mentioning his 60+ average.

 

[Robert]

I don't know but I do know that everybody would be mentioning his 60+ average.

I wonder if he'd have averaged 60 in that era when he would have had to bat on all kinds of uncovered pitches.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I wonder if he'd have averaged 60 in that era when he would have had to bat on all kinds of uncovered pitches.

The quality of bowling was not that great either. If someone like Hobbs with a poor batting technique could average 50+, Smith would have surely maintained his average even in that era.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

I wonder if he'd have averaged 60 in that era when he would have had to bat on all kinds of uncovered pitches.

Uncovered pitches are not easier to bat on that rank turners.