On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/16/2023 8:22 AM, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> <spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>>
>>>>      Much the same way as Root.  Superior placement, splitting the
>>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball.  Can't quite imagine Bradman
>>>> playing ramps;  but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>>>> once he'd seen them in action.  Hobbs likewise.  Neither of them were
>>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>>
>>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>> for the Australian side.
>>
>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could
>> score a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in
>> 1930), even allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly
>> capable of scoring pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more
>> willing to play aerial shots than he was in Tests.
>
>
>
>
> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken but
> he wouldn't make it to T20 team.

I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi. The
first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v WI
in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his century
took 3 hours according to Wisden.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152318.html

Here's a list of Test hundreds before lunch:

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283003.html

> One fast century doesn't prove that he will be a great T20 player.

That was far from Bradman's only fast century.

--
David North

In message <d25b170a-6637-479a-8fe9-105640083539n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
>
>He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.

Indeed. I didn't intend to imply that he couldn't if he wished to.

>
>I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers,
>just as he was better in all other batting skills.
>

I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
--
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"

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:45:24 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <d25b170a-6637-479a...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> >> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
> >
> >He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.
> Indeed. I didn't intend to imply that he couldn't if he wished to.
> >
> >I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers,
> >just as he was better in all other batting skills.
> >
> I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
> today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
> I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
> --
> 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"

Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory. I also have nagging a suspicion that he may have used a bat with a shorter handle than normal.

As for his batting technique see Don Bradman's batting technique see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bradman%27s_batting_technique

RH

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:53:50 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> That was far from Bradman's only fast century.

IIRC he's still the only player to score 300 Test runs in a day.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:26:59 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory.

That's above average height for his time. Not sure how it compares to other cricketers.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:26:59 PM UTC+11, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:45:24 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <d25b170a-6637-479a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> > >On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > >> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
> > >
> > >He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.
> > Indeed. I didn't intend to imply that he couldn't if he wished to.
> > >
> > >I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers,
> > >just as he was better in all other batting skills.
> > >
> > I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
> > today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
> > I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
> Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory. I also have nagging a suspicion that he may have used a bat with a shorter handle than normal.
>
which puts him about 3 inches taller than Tendulkar who used a 3 lb 2 oz bat,

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:53:48 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken but
>> he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>
>I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi. The
>first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v WI
>in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his century
>took 3 hours according to Wisden.

I suspect this could be a reference to I v WI at Mumbai 78-79, when
Gavaskar was 28* overnight and was then 4th out for 205 out of 334 on
day 2. It doesn't seem unlikely that he made 72 in the morning and was
100* at lunch; it seems a bit less likely that he was 128* (or
better).

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/16/2023 11:53 PM, David North wrote:
> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/16/2023 8:22 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>>> <spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Much the same way as Root.  Superior placement, splitting the
>>>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball.  Can't quite imagine Bradman
>>>>> playing ramps;  but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>>>>> once he'd seen them in action.  Hobbs likewise.  Neither of them were
>>>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>>>
>>>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>>>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>>>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>>>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>>> for the Australian side.
>>>
>>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could
>>> score a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in
>>> 1930), even allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly
>>> capable of scoring pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more
>>> willing to play aerial shots than he was in Tests.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken
>> but he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>
> I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi. The
> first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v WI
> in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his century
> took 3 hours according to Wisden.
>

I remember Gavaskar publicly declaring that "offense is the best form of
defense" and went on a rampage before lunch against Marshall and Holding
in that Delhi test.

I vaguely (since it happened 35+ yrs ago) remember that he scored a
century before lunch.

I actually watched that innings. He scored a century in 94 balls.

You can read this column about his counter attacking Delhi innings after
fans were upset with his performance in the previous test match at
Kanpur where fearsome Marshall knocked the bat out of Gavaskar's hand.

Hook-filled and Bradmanesque

Sunil Gavaskar's 29th Test century came against two of the most
ferocious quicks of all time
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-best-i-ve-watched-sunil-gavaskar-s-29th-test-century-452776

His footwork that day was almost divine. He did not weave and duck at
the crease, but played what I still think is the best exhibition of
hooking I have watched. As if knowing the intent of the bowlers before
they had released the ball, Gavaskar got into perfect position to hook,
and raced to his half-century off just 37 balls. He took 57 more to
record his 29th century, a feat achieved by only man before him - Donald
Bradman.

Gavaskar had reserved his best to match the greatest batsman the history
of the game has known.

> https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152318.html
>
> Here's a list of Test hundreds before lunch:
>
> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283003.html
>
>> One fast century doesn't prove that he will be a great T20 player.
>
> That was far from Bradman's only fast century.
>

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 9:34:51 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:26:59 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory.
> That's above average height for his time. Not sure how it compares to other cricketers.

OK. Bradman was 5'7"

RH

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 03:50:10 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 18:31:55 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
><hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
>>> In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
>>> keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
>>>
>>I think that's a story about Trumper, apart from 48 when he was saving energy for the tests Bradman tended to keep punishing county attacks
>
>Peter Judge saw it happen in 1948. Though not off his bowling. And the
>Somerset bowler whose autobiog was "The hand that bowled Bradman" also
>recounts it.

Peter also said that he treated bowlers with the respect they
deserved. Good balls were defended, bad balls went for 4, and those in
between went for 1, 2 or 3 depending on what DGB thought of them.
Since Peter did bowl at him, one cannot entirely dismiss it, but to
the extent that it may be true, it seems like a case of wild
over-interpretation. However, I entirely believe his assertion that
Bradman would offer the odd comment about how a bowler was doing when
he was at the non-striker's end. (During a Test in Oz in 1946-7, he
had Compton to dinner and showed him what he was doing wrong.)

Cheers,

Mike

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 08:38:40 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
>today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
>I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.

Their mass may be greater, but that doesn't mean they feel heavier.
They are much better balanced now and require less effort for the same
reward if the batter has good technique.

Which reminds me: in denying that T20 is a slogfest, I'm not saying
there's no slogging. There has always been slogging in every form of
the game. What I am saying is that there is now a whole new range of
attacking shots which look very unfamiliar but are played with
considerable elegance and panache, which is only achievable through
practice and honing of technique. It is wilful blindness to deny the
great skill and technique required for them.

I can remember that when the reverse sweep came in in the 80s, Mike
Gatting was thought to be good at it, but his reverse sweep was pretty
ponderous and fairly awkward. Watching Joe Root these days, there's no
difference in how natural his sweeps are, whichever direction they're
going in.

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/17/2023 6:44 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 08:38:40 +0000, John Hall
> <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
>> today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
>> I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
>
> Their mass may be greater, but that doesn't mean they feel heavier.
> They are much better balanced now and require less effort for the same
> reward if the batter has good technique.
>
> Which reminds me: in denying that T20 is a slogfest, I'm not saying
> there's no slogging. There has always been slogging in every form of
> the game. What I am saying is that there is now a whole new range of
> attacking shots which look very unfamiliar but are played with
> considerable elegance and panache, which is only achievable through
> practice and honing of technique. It is wilful blindness to deny the
> great skill and technique required for them.
>

Especially the 360 degree hitting of AB De Villiers and Surya Kumar
Yadav, not to mention big hitters like Chris Gayle, Bairstow, Maxwell,
Butler and recent newcomers like Harry Brook, Cameron Green in T20s.

T20s brought lot of innovative shots like ramps, scoops, reverse pulls etc.

> I can remember that when the reverse sweep came in in the 80s, Mike
> Gatting was thought to be good at it, but his reverse sweep was pretty
> ponderous and fairly awkward. Watching Joe Root these days, there's no
> difference in how natural his sweeps are, whichever direction they're
> going in.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 9:49:27 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 9:34:51 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:26:59 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory.
> > That's above average height for his time. Not sure how it compares to other cricketers.
> OK. Bradman was 5'7"

It's unlike you to get an objective stat wrong...

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:44:16 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> I can remember that when the reverse sweep came in in the 80s, Mike
> Gatting was thought to be good at it, but his reverse sweep was pretty
> ponderous and fairly awkward. Watching Joe Root these days, there's no
> difference in how natural his sweeps are, whichever direction they're
> going in.

My hazy recollection is that when it first came in I think the reverse sweep was normally a lot less powerful than a sweep, it was generally more of a lap than a full blooded sweep, now it's common to see people clouting 4s and 6s with.a reverse sweep or reverse pull.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
>> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
>> depending on format.
>>
>> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
>> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
>> accurately-set field.
>>
>I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
>and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?

When a bowler delivers a ball 25kph slower than usual, the batter gets
his shot wrong and it goes straight down the throat of the one fielder
in the deep on that side of the field (he had to come in a couple of
metres), as I've just seen Archer do to Rossington, I'm very much
inclined to credit the bowler and captain, not blame the batter.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:47:02 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> >> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
> >> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
> >> depending on format.
> >>
> >> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
> >> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
> >> accurately-set field.
> >>
> >I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
> >and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
> When a bowler delivers a ball 25kph slower than usual, the batter gets
> his shot wrong and it goes straight down the throat of the one fielder
> in the deep on that side of the field (he had to come in a couple of
> metres), as I've just seen Archer do to Rossington, I'm very much
> inclined to credit the bowler and captain, not blame the batter.
>
Yeah, I can understand it if they're fooled by a slower ball or get done by a massive amount of spin or something but when they get a shortish ball just outside off-stump with nothing on it and smack it straight to midwicket it annoys me - unless they're in a situation where everything must go or have heaps of wickets left for the number of overs so the risk was worthwhile

How's Archer looking?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 06:21:46 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:47:02 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:

>> When a bowler delivers a ball 25kph slower than usual, the batter gets
>> his shot wrong and it goes straight down the throat of the one fielder
>> in the deep on that side of the field (he had to come in a couple of
>> metres), as I've just seen Archer do to Rossington, I'm very much
>> inclined to credit the bowler and captain, not blame the batter.
>>
>Yeah, I can understand it if they're fooled by a slower ball or get done by a massive amount of spin or something but when they get a shortish ball just outside off-stump with nothing on it and smack it straight to midwicket it annoys me - unless they're in a situation where everything must go or have heaps of wickets left for the number of overs so the risk was worthwhile

As is pretty obvious, I'm a glass half-full sort. I'm not going to try
and deny that there's a fair amount of sloppy cricket in T20. If you
want to find reasons to be annoyed and dissatisfied, there are endless
opportunities. I would much rather concentrate on the good bits and
accept the sloppy stuff as the nature of this particular beast; I'd be
as annoyed as helll seeing in a Test, but I'm not watching a Test when
I'm watching T20.

>
>How's Archer looking?

I'd love to be able to find fault so as not to sound stupid. He bowled
two successive leg-side wides today, which might I suppose indicate
the rustiness the always insightful Mark Nicholas attributed it to. Or
it might not.

I don't understand how he does what he does. He just seems to lope up
to the stumps and lazily turn his arm over, yet it comes out at 94mph
if he wants it to. Obviously, since that's the sort of speed which
looks like medium pace when compared with Tyson's 118 mph, it
shouldn't be surprising that it seems so effortless, but (not having
seen Tyson in Australia in 1954-5) I haven't seen anyone else bowl
that fast without looking as though they were putting a whole lot of
effort into it. And with what appears to be an identical action, he
drops one in at 77mph for a simple wicket straight down wide third
man's throat.

He also ran out a non-striker by fielding the ball which the batter
hit, turning rapidly and throwing down the striker's wicket before he
could get there, which isn't that easy for a quickie.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:43:01 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:44:16 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> I can remember that when the reverse sweep came in in the 80s, Mike
>> Gatting was thought to be good at it, but his reverse sweep was pretty
>> ponderous and fairly awkward. Watching Joe Root these days, there's no
>> difference in how natural his sweeps are, whichever direction they're
>> going in.
>
>My hazy recollection is that when it first came in I think the reverse sweep was normally a lot less powerful than a sweep, it was generally more of a lap than a full blooded sweep, now it's common to see people clouting 4s and 6s with.a reverse sweep or reverse pull.

Which is because by now, it's a natural shot since they have been
playing it for years and they're entirely confident in their ability
to execute.

And that's why only bowling at extreme pace doesn't work: if it's
short, tapping it on its way past so it goes over deep third man and
if it's full then ramping it over deep fine leg merely require nerve
and delicacy of touch.

Cheers,

Mike

On 17/01/2023 11:02, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:53:48 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not
mistaken but
>>> he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>>
>> I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi. The
>> first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v WI
>> in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his century
>> took 3 hours according to Wisden.
>
> I suspect this could be a reference to I v WI at Mumbai 78-79, when
> Gavaskar was 28* overnight and was then 4th out for 205 out of 334 on
> day 2. It doesn't seem unlikely that he made 72 in the morning and was
> 100* at lunch; it seems a bit less likely that he was 128* (or
> better).
Charles Davis has session-by-session scores for that Test, which show
that Gavaskar was 109* at lunch.

http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1970s/1978IW/1978IWsess.pdf

He also has session scores for the Delhi Test that I mentioned above
(which I didn't notice before), where Gavaskar was 62* out of 99/1 at
lunch (which would have put him roughly on course for his 100 in 3 hours
as Wisden says).

http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IWsess.pdf

--
David North

On 17/01/2023 11:08, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/16/2023 11:53 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2023 8:22 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>>> In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike
>>>> Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Much the same way as Root.  Superior placement, splitting the
>>>>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball.  Can't quite imagine Bradman
>>>>>> playing ramps;  but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>>>>>> once he'd seen them in action.  Hobbs likewise.  Neither of them were
>>>>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>>>>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>>>>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>>>>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>>>> for the Australian side.
>>>>
>>>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could
>>>> score a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in
>>>> 1930), even allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly
>>>> capable of scoring pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more
>>>> willing to play aerial shots than he was in Tests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken
>>> but he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>>
>> I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi. The
>> first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v
>> WI in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his
>> century took 3 hours according to Wisden.
>>
>
>
>
> I remember Gavaskar publicly declaring that "offense is the best form of
> defense" and went on a rampage before lunch against Marshall and Holding
> in that Delhi test.
>
> I vaguely (since it happened 35+ yrs ago) remember that he scored a
> century before lunch.
>
> I actually watched that innings. He scored a century in 94 balls.

Correct - 94 balls in 180 minutes, according to Charles Davis.

http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IW50.pdf

"Major Statistical Sources: Indian and West Indian newspapers. West
Indies Cricket Annual."

http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IWcov.pdf

It seems likely that the paper would have mentioned it if he had made
100 before lunch.

For comparison, Bradman's 100 before lunch took 145 balls (so much
slower in those terms), but only 99 minutes.

http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA50.pdf

Bradman was helped by the fact that 46 overs were bowled (in 2 hours)
before lunch, despite only 9 of them being bowled by a spinner (Tyldesley).

http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA3bbb1.pdf

--
David North

On 17/01/2023 11:49, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 9:34:51 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:26:59 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory.
>> That's above average height for his time. Not sure how it compares to other cricketers.
>
> OK. Bradman was 5'7"

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-height-of-men-for-selected-countries?country=~AUS

According to that, the average height for an Australian man born in 1910
(the nearest it shows to Bradman's DOB) was 172.7cm, which is 5' 8".

--
David North

On 1/21/2023 4:29 AM, David North wrote:
> On 17/01/2023 11:08, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/16/2023 11:53 PM, David North wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/2023 8:22 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>>>> In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike
>>>>> Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Much the same way as Root.  Superior placement, splitting the
>>>>>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball.  Can't quite imagine
>>>>>>> Bradman
>>>>>>> playing ramps;  but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse
>>>>>>> shots,
>>>>>>> once he'd seen them in action.  Hobbs likewise.  Neither of them
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>>>>>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>>>>>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>>>>>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>>>>> for the Australian side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could
>>>>> score a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in
>>>>> 1930), even allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly
>>>>> capable of scoring pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be
>>>>> more willing to play aerial shots than he was in Tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken
>>>> but he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>>>
>>> I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi.
>>> The first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd
>>> was v WI in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then
>>> his century took 3 hours according to Wisden.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember Gavaskar publicly declaring that "offense is the best form
>> of defense" and went on a rampage before lunch against Marshall and
>> Holding in that Delhi test.
>>
>> I vaguely (since it happened 35+ yrs ago) remember that he scored a
>> century before lunch.
>>
>> I actually watched that innings. He scored a century in 94 balls.
>
> Correct - 94 balls in 180 minutes, according to Charles Davis.
>
> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IW50.pdf
>
> "Major Statistical Sources: Indian and West Indian newspapers. West
> Indies Cricket Annual."
>
> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IWcov.pdf
>
> It seems likely that the paper would have mentioned it if he had made
> 100 before lunch.
>
> For comparison, Bradman's 100 before lunch took 145 balls (so much
> slower in those terms), but only 99 minutes.
>
> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA50.pdf
>
> Bradman was helped by the fact that 46 overs were bowled (in 2 hours)
> before lunch, despite only 9 of them being bowled by a spinner (Tyldesley).
>
> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA3bbb1.pdf
>

I guess my memory DIDN'T serve me right.

But strangely another Indian fan also thought that Gavaskar scored a
century before lunch in one session in the same test in Delhi.

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.cricket/c/msbh4_mY3-4/m/HcBOAJESbAgJ

1990, the good old days of lot of cricket fans peacefully enjoying
discussing cricket UNTIL the EVIL CIA NSA MI6 Psychopaths INFESTED
cricket newsgroups in 2003/2004 and DESTROYED our mental peace forever
with their "gangstalking, electronic harassment and remote programming
of cricket fans" and also "Artificially creating problems" between fans
by programming one fan to insult another fan, like they "remotely
programmed" Robert Dixon and Hamish Laws recently to INSULT/OFFEND me.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:40:57 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17/01/2023 11:02, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:53:48 +0000, David North
> > <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> >>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not
>mistaken

> > I suspect this could be a reference to I v WI at Mumbai 78-79, when
> > Gavaskar was 28* overnight and was then 4th out for 205 out of 334 on
> > day 2. It doesn't seem unlikely that he made 72 in the morning and was
> > 100* at lunch; it seems a bit less likely that he was 128* (or
> > better).
>Charles Davis has session-by-session scores for that Test, which show
>that Gavaskar was 109* at lunch.

Given the way humans manage to mix up their memories a bit, I can
easily see SMG being 100+* at lunch lodging in memory and getting it
confused with a different fast innings some 30 or 40 years later.

Cheers,

Mike

On 21/01/2023 13:57, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 4:29 AM, David North wrote:
>> On 17/01/2023 11:08, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2023 11:53 PM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/16/2023 8:22 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>>>>> In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike
>>>>>> Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
>>>>>>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine
>>>>>>>> Bradman
>>>>>>>> playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse
>>>>>>>> shots,
>>>>>>>> once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>>>>>>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20
player.
>>>>>>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>>>>>>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>>>>>> for the Australian side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could
>>>>>> score a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in
>>>>>> 1930), even allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly
>>>>>> capable of scoring pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be
>>>>>> more willing to play aerial shots than he was in Tests.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not
>>>>> mistaken but he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi.
>>>> The first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd
>>>> was v WI in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then
>>>> his century took 3 hours according to Wisden.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I remember Gavaskar publicly declaring that "offense is the best form
>>> of defense" and went on a rampage before lunch against Marshall and
>>> Holding in that Delhi test.
>>>
>>> I vaguely (since it happened 35+ yrs ago) remember that he scored a
>>> century before lunch.
>>>
>>> I actually watched that innings. He scored a century in 94 balls.
>>
>> Correct - 94 balls in 180 minutes, according to Charles Davis.
>>
>> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IW50.pdf
>>
>> "Major Statistical Sources: Indian and West Indian newspapers. West
>> Indies Cricket Annual."
>>
>> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IWcov.pdf
>>
>> It seems likely that the paper would have mentioned it if he had made
>> 100 before lunch.
>>
>> For comparison, Bradman's 100 before lunch took 145 balls (so much
>> slower in those terms), but only 99 minutes.
>>
>> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA50.pdf
>>
>> Bradman was helped by the fact that 46 overs were bowled (in 2 hours)
>> before lunch, despite only 9 of them being bowled by a spinner
>> (Tyldesley).
>>
>> http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA3bbb1.pdf
>>
>
>
>
>
> I guess my memory DIDN'T serve me right.
>
> But strangely another Indian fan also thought that Gavaskar scored a
> century before lunch in one session in the same test in Delhi.
>
>
>
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.cricket/c/msbh4_mY3-4/m/HcBOAJESbAgJ
He also thought it wasn't on the first day, which it was. And his first
thought was that the last to do it was Majid Khan, which was several
years before Gavaskar's innings. Majid was, at the time, the last to do
it on the first day, but Greg Chappell had done it (going from 76* to
176) on the 2nd day at Christchurch in 1981/82, which no-one mentioned
in that conversation.

--
David North