"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War - in fact, the greatest."

"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still, I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce an abundance of great players."

Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.

"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best and most exciting cricket."

In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4-8f84-3960806e6ca5n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
>cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
>now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
>educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
>of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
>Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
>were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
>been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
>remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
>grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
>- in fact, the greatest."
>
>"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
>of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
>men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
>I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
>an abundance of great players."
>
>Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
>another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
>shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
>players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
>the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
>
>"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
>it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
>the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
>and most exciting cricket."

Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
nonsense.
--
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 Sun, 19 Feb 2023 15:39:00 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4-8f84-3960806e6ca5n@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes

>Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
>looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
>that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
>nonsense.

Well, it's a very similar claim to the ones the village idiot makes
about the 1950s, so it's not surprising that he enthusiastically
endorses another idiot.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 05:43:22 -0800, Robert Henderson wrote:

> "Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
> cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game now
> as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
> educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
> of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
> Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there were
> something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have been in
> the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these remarks
> without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a grand
> player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War - in
> fact, the greatest."
>
> "I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
> of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
> men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
> I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce an
> abundance of great players."
>
> Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
> another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
> shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
> players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
> the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
>
> "There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
> it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
> the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
> and most exciting cricket."

Another example of westerners being "emotional gossipers", just like YOU.

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >
> >
> >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
> >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
> >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
> >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
> >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
> >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
> >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
> >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
> >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
> >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
> >- in fact, the greatest."
> >
> >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
> >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
> >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
> >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
> >an abundance of great players."
> >
> >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
> >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
> >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
> >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
> >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
> >
> >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
> >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
> >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
> >and most exciting cricket."
> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
> nonsense.
> --
> 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"

It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my head:

JJ Kortright
Johnny Douglas
Gilbert Jessop
Douglass Carr
Archie McClaran
Walter Brearley
CC B Wood
Plum Warner
BJT Bosanquet
Neville Knox
Jack Crawfor,d
VFS Crawford
Frank Foster
RE "Tip" Foster
H K Foster
F S Jackson
E R Wilson

RH

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 17:44:45 UTC+2, John Hall wrote:

> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
> nonsense.
Grace was at least 20 of them, and Ranji and Fry 3 or 4 each. So it's possible.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:22:10 AM UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >
> > >
> > >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
> > >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
> > >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
> > >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
> > >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
> > >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
> > >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
> > >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
> > >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
> > >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
> > >- in fact, the greatest."
> > >
> > >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
> > >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
> > >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
> > >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
> > >an abundance of great players."
> > >
> > >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
> > >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
> > >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
> > >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
> > >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
> > >
> > >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
> > >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
> > >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
> > >and most exciting cricket."
> > Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
> > looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
> > that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
> > nonsense.
> > --
> > 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"
> It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my head:
>
> JJ Kortright
> Johnny Douglas
> Gilbert Jessop
> Douglass Carr
> Archie McClaran
> Walter Brearley
> CC B Wood
> Plum Warner
> BJT Bosanquet
> Neville Knox
> Jack Crawfor,d
> VFS Crawford
> Frank Foster
> RE "Tip" Foster
> H K Foster
> F S Jackson
> E R Wilson
>
> RH
It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my head:

Update

JJ Kortright
Johnny Douglas
Gilbert Jessop
Douglass Carr
Archie McClaran
Walter Brearley
CC B Wood
Plum Warner
BJT Bosanquet
Henry Martyn WK
Jack White
Lionel Palairet
Neville Knox
Jack Crawfor,d
VFS Crawford
C B Fry
Frank Foster
RE "Tip" Foster
H K Foster
F S Jackson
E R Wilson

Best XI from these players
Archie McClaran
C B Fry
RE "Tip" Foster
F S Jackson RFM
Gilbert Jessop RF
Jack Crawfor,d RFM
BJT Bosanquet
Henry Martyn WK
Jack White SLA
Neville Knox RF
Walter Brearley RF

RH

In message <338cfc4f-fef3-4752-80a3-a1b3ed1df31en@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
>> >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
>> >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
>> >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
>> >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
>> >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
>> >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
>> >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
>> >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
>> >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
>> >- in fact, the greatest."
>> >
>> >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
>> >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
>> >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
>> >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
>> >an abundance of great players."
>> >
>> >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
>> >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
>> >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
>> >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
>> >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
>> >
>> >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
>> >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
>> >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
>> >and most exciting cricket."
>> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
>> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
>> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
>> nonsense.
>> --
>> 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"
>
>It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to
>but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or
>seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my
>head:
>
>JJ Kortright
> Johnny Douglas
>Gilbert Jessop
>Douglass Carr
>Archie McClaran
>Walter Brearley
>CC B Wood
>Plum Warner
>BJT Bosanquet
>Neville Knox
>Jack Crawfor,d
>VFS Crawford
>Frank Foster
>RE "Tip" Foster
>H K Foster
>F S Jackson
>E R Wilson

Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
--
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"

In message <f071299a-d431-4b24-a07e-464ea7bccb86n@googlegroups.com>,
"mega...@gmail.com" <megapode@gmail.com> writes
>On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 17:44:45 UTC+2, John Hall wrote:
>
>> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
>> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
>> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
>> nonsense.
>Grace was at least 20 of them, and Ranji and Fry 3 or 4 each. So it's possible.
>

Grace was past his best by the period that Woolley seems to have had in
mind, though. And Hammond himself was three: great batsman, very useful
quick bowler, and terrific slip fielder.
--
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 21/02/2023 16:34, John Hall wrote:
> In message <338cfc4f-fef3-4752-80a3-a1b3ed1df31en@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>> On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
>>> >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
>>> >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
>>> >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
>>> >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
>>> >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
>>> >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
>>> >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
>>> >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
>>> >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
>>> >- in fact, the greatest."
>>> >
>>> >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
>>> >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
>>> >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
>>> >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
>>> >an abundance of great players."
>>> >
>>> >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
>>> >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
>>> >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
>>> >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
>>> >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
>>> >
>>> >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
>>> >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
>>> >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
>>> >and most exciting cricket."
>>> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
>>> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
>>> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
>>> nonsense.
>>> --
>>> 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"
>>
>> It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to
>> but if it was amateurs only Woolley  could have played with, against
>> or seen as a spectator  before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top
>> of my head:
>>
>> JJ Kortright
>> Johnny Douglas
>> Gilbert Jessop
>> Douglass Carr
>> Archie McClaran
>> Walter Brearley
>> CC B Wood
>> Plum Warner
>> BJT Bosanquet
>> Neville Knox
>> Jack Crawfor,d
>> VFS Crawford
>> Frank Foster
>> RE "Tip" Foster
>> H K Foster
>> F S Jackson
>> E R Wilson
>
> Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)

In the last 10 years of Tests before WWI, England's top 6 averaged
31.25, so to scrape into the side would probably have required an
average in the mid-20s. If Hammond's average of about 60 at the time of
Woolley's claim in 1938 was only worth about 25 pre-WWI, then Hobbs's
pre-WWI average of 58.42 would have worth about 140 in the 1930s.

--
David North

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:34:49 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
>them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
>compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
>you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
>and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
>players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)

It depends a lot, though, on what "good" means.

If you talk about statistics, then Woolley is clearly talking utter
rubbish. So perhaps he's not talking about what can be measured
statistically.

When I've read stuff written during the Golden Age or by participants
in it, I've usually discounted the rather flowery Boy's Own prose as
overblown.

However, since bazball came along, I've been noticing and occasionally
pointing out its similarities with the way Golden Age cricket was
described, and I don't think that it's at all a coincidence that this
team is doing things last seen, and breaking records set, in the
Golden Age. Maybe the language of the ancient writings was not as
ritually exaggerated as I had thought.

So what Woolley could easily have meant was that Hammond was the only
contemporary cricketer who could have played bazball as part of a
general lament at its disappearance. Imagine watching Root's England
and thinking how poor these players looked in comparison to those from
the Stokes era.

Which is why I can't understand an alleged student of cricket history
drivelling on about how dreadful it is that England's Test team have
revived the Golden Age in living colour.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 4:43:59 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <338cfc4f-fef3-4752...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> >> In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
> >> >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
> >> >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
> >> >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
> >> >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
> >> >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
> >> >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
> >> >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
> >> >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
> >> >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
> >> >- in fact, the greatest."
> >> >
> >> >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
> >> >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
> >> >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
> >> >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
> >> >an abundance of great players."
> >> >
> >> >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
> >> >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
> >> >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
> >> >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
> >> >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
> >> >
> >> >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
> >> >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
> >> >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
> >> >and most exciting cricket."
> >> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
> >> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
> >> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
> >> nonsense.
> >> --
> >> 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"
> >
> >It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to
> >but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or
> >seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my
> >head:
> >
> >JJ Kortright
> > Johnny Douglas
> >Gilbert Jessop
> >Douglass Carr
> >Archie McClaran
> >Walter Brearley
> >CC B Wood
> >Plum Warner
> >BJT Bosanquet
> >Neville Knox
> >Jack Crawfor,d
> >VFS Crawford
> >Frank Foster
> >RE "Tip" Foster
> >H K Foster
> >F S Jackson
> >E R Wilson
> Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
> --
> 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"

There may have been a tough of hyperbole in Woolley's assessment but there is no denying the quality of the amateurs listed for example Jack Crawford and Frank Foster both took 30 wickets in an Ashes series, FS Jackson in twenty 3 day Tests on uncovered England pitches averaged 48 (only Hobbs had a higher pre Great War war Text average )and took many useful wickets while Tip Foster set a record Test Score which lasted until Sandham beat it in the Windies in 1929/30. .

I only listed amateurs but there were plenty of high quality pros from the period eg, Hobbs, Hayward, Barnes , Lockwood, JT Brown Fielder, Rhodes, Blythe, Hirst, Johnny Tyldesley, .

RH

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 8:33:54 AM UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 4:43:59 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <338cfc4f-fef3-4752...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > >> In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
> > >> >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
> > >> >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
> > >> >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
> > >> >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
> > >> >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
> > >> >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
> > >> >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
> > >> >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
> > >> >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
> > >> >- in fact, the greatest."
> > >> >
> > >> >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
> > >> >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
> > >> >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
> > >> >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
> > >> >an abundance of great players."
> > >> >
> > >> >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
> > >> >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
> > >> >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
> > >> >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
> > >> >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
> > >> >
> > >> >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
> > >> >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
> > >> >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
> > >> >and most exciting cricket."
> > >> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
> > >> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
> > >> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
> > >> nonsense.
> > >> --
> > >> 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"
> > >
> > >It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to
> > >but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or
> > >seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my
> > >head:
> > >
> > >JJ Kortright
> > > Johnny Douglas
> > >Gilbert Jessop
> > >Douglass Carr
> > >Archie McClaran
> > >Walter Brearley
> > >CC B Wood
> > >Plum Warner
> > >BJT Bosanquet
> > >Neville Knox
> > >Jack Crawfor,d
> > >VFS Crawford
> > >Frank Foster
> > >RE "Tip" Foster
> > >H K Foster
> > >F S Jackson
> > >E R Wilson
> > Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> > them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> > compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> > you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> > and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> > players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
> > --
> > 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"
> There may have been a tough of hyperbole in Woolley's assessment but there is no denying the quality of the amateurs listed for example Jack Crawford and Frank Foster both took 30 wickets in an Ashes series, FS Jackson in twenty 3 day Tests on uncovered England pitches averaged 48 (only Hobbs had a higher pre Great War war Text average )and took many useful wickets while Tip Foster set a record Test Score which lasted until Sandham beat it in the Windies in 1929/30. .
>
> I only listed amateurs but there were plenty of high quality pros from the period eg, Hobbs, Hayward, Barnes , Lockwood, JT Brown Fielder, Rhodes, Blythe, Hirst, Johnny Tyldesley, .
>
> RH

In message <g7abvhttngmq0ktef7ppk3smsibp0eihs9@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
<snip>
>If you talk about statistics, then Woolley is clearly talking utter
>rubbish. So perhaps he's not talking about what can be measured
>statistically.
>
>When I've read stuff written during the Golden Age or by participants
>in it, I've usually discounted the rather flowery Boy's Own prose as
>overblown.
>
>However, since bazball came along, I've been noticing and occasionally
>pointing out its similarities with the way Golden Age cricket was
>described, and I don't think that it's at all a coincidence that this
>team is doing things last seen, and breaking records set, in the Golden
>Age. Maybe the language of the ancient writings was not as ritually
>exaggerated as I had thought.
>
>So what Woolley could easily have meant was that Hammond was the only
>contemporary cricketer who could have played bazball as part of a
>general lament at its disappearance. Imagine watching Root's England
>and thinking how poor these players looked in comparison to those from
>the Stokes era.

And of course many of England's players now are the same as those who
were playing under Root, but their performances have been transformed.
It just shows the difference that a positive mindset can make.
--
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 Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:24:39 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:34:49 +0000, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> >them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> >compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> >you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> >and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> >players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
> It depends a lot, though, on what "good" means.
>
> If you talk about statistics, then Woolley is clearly talking utter
> rubbish. So perhaps he's not talking about what can be measured
> statistically.
>
> When I've read stuff written during the Golden Age or by participants
> in it, I've usually discounted the rather flowery Boy's Own prose as
> overblown.

Oh dear, yet again master Unwholesome displays his lack of cricket's history. Until its abolition in 1963 the amateur loomed large in English cricket not least because the amateur was thought to be likely to play more adventurous cricket because their living did not rely on the game (This was somewhat tarnished by shametourism ). Right up to the end of the amateur the Gentlemen could put out a strong side, for example this

David Shepard
Bob Barber LBG
Peter May
Colin Cowdrey
Ted Dexter RFM
MJK Smith
Trevor Bailey RFM
A C Smith wk
Richard Hutton RF
David Sayer RF RoB
Robin Marlar

> However, since bazball came along, I've been noticing and occasionally
> pointing out its similarities with the way Golden Age cricket was
> described, and I don't think that it's at all a coincidence that this
> team is doing things last seen, and breaking records set, in the
> Golden Age. Maybe the language of the ancient writings was not as
> ritually exaggerated as I had thought.
>
> So what Woolley could easily have meant was that Hammond was the only
> contemporary cricketer who could have played bazball as part of a
> general lament at its disappearance. Imagine watching Root's England
> and thinking how poor these players looked in comparison to those from
> the Stokes era.
>
> Which is why I can't understand an alleged student of cricket history
> drivelling on about how dreadful it is that England's Test team have
> revived the Golden Age in living colour.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 8:43:11 PM UTC+11, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:24:39 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:34:49 +0000, John Hall
> > <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> > >them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> > >compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> > >you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> > >and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> > >players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
> > It depends a lot, though, on what "good" means.
> >
> > If you talk about statistics, then Woolley is clearly talking utter
> > rubbish. So perhaps he's not talking about what can be measured
> > statistically.
> >
> > When I've read stuff written during the Golden Age or by participants
> > in it, I've usually discounted the rather flowery Boy's Own prose as
> > overblown.
> Oh dear, yet again master Unwholesome displays his lack of cricket's history. Until its abolition in 1963 the amateur loomed large in English cricket not least because the amateur was thought to be likely to play more adventurous cricket because their living did not rely on the game
<SNIP>
> Trevor Bailey

Seems like the argument doesn't really hold up...
Also note how defensive Compton was as a professional, complete stonewaller....

On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 08:33:54 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 4:43:59 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <338cfc4f-fef3-4752...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > >> In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
> > >> >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
> > >> >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
> > >> >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
> > >> >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
> > >> >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
> > >> >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
> > >> >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
> > >> >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
> > >> >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
> > >> >- in fact, the greatest."
> > >> >
> > >> >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
> > >> >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
> > >> >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
> > >> >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
> > >> >an abundance of great players."
> > >> >
> > >> >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
> > >> >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
> > >> >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
> > >> >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
> > >> >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
> > >> >
> > >> >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
> > >> >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
> > >> >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
> > >> >and most exciting cricket."
> > >> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
> > >> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
> > >> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
> > >> nonsense.
> > >> --
> > >> 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"
> > >
> > >It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to
> > >but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or
> > >seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my
> > >head:
> > >
> > >JJ Kortright
> > > Johnny Douglas
> > >Gilbert Jessop
> > >Douglass Carr
> > >Archie McClaran
> > >Walter Brearley
> > >CC B Wood
> > >Plum Warner
> > >BJT Bosanquet
> > >Neville Knox
> > >Jack Crawfor,d
> > >VFS Crawford
> > >Frank Foster
> > >RE "Tip" Foster
> > >H K Foster
> > >F S Jackson
> > >E R Wilson
> > Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> > them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> > compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> > you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> > and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> > players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
> > --
> > 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"
> There may have been a tough of hyperbole in Woolley's assessment but there is no denying the quality of the amateurs listed for example Jack Crawford and Frank Foster both took 30 wickets in an Ashes series,

I don't think anyone would claim that Hammond was a better bowler than either of them.

> FS Jackson in twenty 3 day Tests on uncovered England pitches averaged 48 (only Hobbs had a higher pre Great War war Text average )and took many useful wickets while Tip Foster set a record Test Score which lasted until Sandham beat it in the Windies in 1929/30. .

It depends how far back Woolley meant when he said "before the War". Jackson's last series was in 1905. Foster's 287 was in 1902/03, both before Woolley had even made his FC debut (and after that score in Foster's first Test innings, he barely made as many again in 13 more innings, with a next-highest score of 51. Zak Crawley made 267 v Pakistan, but it didn't make him a great player).

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 05:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 8:43:11 PM UTC+11, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:24:39 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:34:49 +0000, John Hall
>> > <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
>> > >them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
>> > >compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
>> > >you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
>> > >and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
>> > >players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
>> > It depends a lot, though, on what "good" means.
>> >
>> > If you talk about statistics, then Woolley is clearly talking utter
>> > rubbish. So perhaps he's not talking about what can be measured
>> > statistically.
>> >
>> > When I've read stuff written during the Golden Age or by participants
>> > in it, I've usually discounted the rather flowery Boy's Own prose as
>> > overblown.
>> Oh dear, yet again master Unwholesome displays his lack of cricket's history. Until its abolition in 1963 the amateur loomed large in English cricket not least because the amateur was thought to be likely to play more adventurous cricket because their living did not rely on the game
><SNIP>
>> Trevor Bailey
>
>Seems like the argument doesn't really hold up...
>Also note how defensive Compton was as a professional, complete stonewaller...

He's just horrified that the England team now is playing Golden Age
cricket and hates being reminded of the fact that until now he's
always told us how good historical cricket was compared to the
present. He's faced with the dreadful choice between praising the
current England team and denouncing the Golden Age players as a bunch
of sloggers.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:46:05 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 08:33:54 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 4:43:59 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > > In message <338cfc4f-fef3-4752...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > > >On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > > >> In message <47a3013d-7186-4df4...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for
> > > >> >cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game
> > > >> >now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably
> > > >> >educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose
> > > >> >of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
> > > >> >Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there
> > > >> >were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
> > > >> >been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these
> > > >> >remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a
> > > >> >grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War
> > > >> >- in fact, the greatest."
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects
> > > >> >of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young
> > > >> >men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still,
> > > >> >I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce
> > > >> >an abundance of great players."
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Unfortunately for cricket, within a year England was plunged into
> > > >> >another war, and in my opinion the game in this country has only just
> > > >> >shown signs of getting on its feet again with a stream of fine young
> > > >> >players coming through, notably in the county of Kent. But to return to
> > > >> >the Woolley interview as he saw the game 40 years ago.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"There is little wrong with the game itself. Just a question of the way
> > > >> >it is played. It is amazing how the public steadfastly refuse to attend
> > > >> >the third day of a match when so often the last day produces the best
> > > >> >and most exciting cricket."
> > > >> Woolley was a great player, but I suggest that - like many of us - when
> > > >> looking back at the past he wore rose-tinted glasses. For him to suggest
> > > >> that pre-WW1 there were thirty players up to Hammond's standard is
> > > >> nonsense.
> > > >> --
> > > >> 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"
> > > >
> > > >It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to
> > > >but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against or
> > > >seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top of my
> > > >head:
> > > >
> > > >JJ Kortright
> > > > Johnny Douglas
> > > >Gilbert Jessop
> > > >Douglass Carr
> > > >Archie McClaran
> > > >Walter Brearley
> > > >CC B Wood
> > > >Plum Warner
> > > >BJT Bosanquet
> > > >Neville Knox
> > > >Jack Crawfor,d
> > > >VFS Crawford
> > > >Frank Foster
> > > >RE "Tip" Foster
> > > >H K Foster
> > > >F S Jackson
> > > >E R Wilson
> > > Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> > > them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> > > compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> > > you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> > > and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> > > players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
> > > --
> > > 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"
> > There may have been a tough of hyperbole in Woolley's assessment but there is no denying the quality of the amateurs listed for example Jack Crawford and Frank Foster both took 30 wickets in an Ashes series,
> I don't think anyone would claim that Hammond was a better bowler than either of them.
> > FS Jackson in twenty 3 day Tests on uncovered England pitches averaged 48 (only Hobbs had a higher pre Great War war Text average )and took many useful wickets while Tip Foster set a record Test Score which lasted until Sandham beat it in the Windies in 1929/30. .
> It depends how far back Woolley meant when he said "before the War". Jackson's last series was in 1905. Foster's 287 was in 1902/03, both before Woolley had even made his FC debut (and after that score in Foster's first Test innings, he barely made as many again in 13 more innings, with a next-highest score of 51. Zak Crawley made 267 v Pakistan, but it didn't make him a great player).

Woolley

Full name
Frank Edward Woolley
Born 27 May 1887
Tonbridge, Kent
Died 18 October 1978 (aged 91)
Chester, Nova Scotia, Canada
Height 6 ft 3[1] in (1.91 m

Cricket career Debut aged 19 in 1906

A"fter a single Second XI match in May 1906, a match in which he played alongside his brother Claud,[25] Woolley was drafted into Kent's First XI for the County Championship match against Lancashire at Old Trafford as a replacement for Blythe who had injured his hand fielding.[23] His first-class cricket debut was marked by a third-ball duck, dropping Johnny Tyldesley, who scored 295 not out, three times and taking just one wicket in Lancashire's first innings.[10][16][26] In Kent's second innings however, he scored 64 runs and he retained his place in the side for most of the remainder of the season, only dropping out of the First XI during Canterbury Cricket Week, a significant social occasion when amateur batsmen were more likely to make themselves available to play.[26]"

Hence Woolley would have had the chance to play regularly from 1906 onwards and doubtless watch FC cricket before playing for Kent. RH

In message <j19cvhletd061iv48tpdtpevheas0n2pba@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
<snip>
>He's just horrified that the England team now is playing Golden Age
>cricket and hates being reminded of the fact that until now he's always
>told us how good historical cricket was compared to the present. He's
>faced with the dreadful choice between praising the current England
>team and denouncing the Golden Age players as a bunch of sloggers.

I can't think that he would approve of Jessop, Trumper or Macartney.
--
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 Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:46:33 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <j19cvhletd061iv48tpdtpevheas0n2pba@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
><snip>
>>He's just horrified that the England team now is playing Golden Age
>>cricket and hates being reminded of the fact that until now he's always
>>told us how good historical cricket was compared to the present. He's
>>faced with the dreadful choice between praising the current England
>>team and denouncing the Golden Age players as a bunch of sloggers.
>
>I can't think that he would approve of Jessop, Trumper or Macartney.

No. What with their T20 mentality and technique, they weren't really
any good. In particular, Jessop's awful stance and holding the bat
stupidly meant that he was hardly able to defend at all.... RH

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 2:21:50 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 05:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 8:43:11 PM UTC+11, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:24:39 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:34:49 +0000, John Hall
> >> > <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >Fine players, all - some of them great - but I'd suggest that none of
> >> > >them was quite up to Hammond's standard, though it's hard when you
> >> > >compare bowlers to a batting all-rounder like Hammond. In fact even if
> >> > >you include professionals, I'd suggest that only Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes
> >> > >and possibly Woolley himself were quite as good as Hammond. (Considering
> >> > >players at their peak between 1900 and 1914.)
> >> > It depends a lot, though, on what "good" means.
> >> >
> >> > If you talk about statistics, then Woolley is clearly talking utter
> >> > rubbish. So perhaps he's not talking about what can be measured
> >> > statistically.
> >> >
> >> > When I've read stuff written during the Golden Age or by participants
> >> > in it, I've usually discounted the rather flowery Boy's Own prose as
> >> > overblown.
> >> Oh dear, yet again master Unwholesome displays his lack of cricket's history. Until its abolition in 1963 the amateur loomed large in English cricket not least because the amateur was thought to be likely to play more adventurous cricket because their living did not rely on the game
> ><SNIP>
> >> Trevor Bailey
> >
> >Seems like the argument doesn't really hold up...
> >Also note how defensive Compton was as a professional, complete stonewaller...
> He's just horrified that the England team now is playing Golden Age
> cricket and hates being reminded of the fact that until now he's
> always told us how good historical cricket was compared to the
> present. He's faced with the dreadful choice between praising the
> current England team and denouncing the Golden Age players as a bunch
> of sloggers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

I would be most interested to see present day batsmen batting without helmets, arm guards, bumper bras, massive thigh pads , modern gloves and using bats made to a specification used 30 years ago. RH

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:05:41 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:46:33 +0000, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <j19cvhletd061iv48...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> ><snip>
> >>He's just horrified that the England team now is playing Golden Age
> >>cricket and hates being reminded of the fact that until now he's always
> >>told us how good historical cricket was compared to the present. He's
> >>faced with the dreadful choice between praising the current England
> >>team and denouncing the Golden Age players as a bunch of sloggers.
> >
> >I can't think that he would approve of Jessop, Trumper or Macartney.
> No. What with their T20 mentality and technique, they weren't really
> any good. In particular, Jessop's awful stance and holding the bat
> stupidly meant that he was hardly able to defend at all.... RH

Oh dear , more forgery by master Unwholesome .... RH

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:05:41 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:46:33 +0000, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <j19cvhletd061iv48...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> ><snip>
> >>He's just horrified that the England team now is playing Golden Age
> >>cricket and hates being reminded of the fact that until now he's always
> >>told us how good historical cricket was compared to the present. He's
> >>faced with the dreadful choice between praising the current England
> >>team and denouncing the Golden Age players as a bunch of sloggers.
> >
> >I can't think that he would approve of Jessop, Trumper or Macartney.
> No. What with their T20 mentality and technique, they weren't really
> any good. In particular, Jessop's awful stance and holding the bat
> stupidly meant that he was hardly able to defend at all.... RH

This url gives quite a few good photos of Jessop's stance. Nothing like the type of stance adopted by many present day T20 merchants.

If you can't bring it up withe url put into Google Gilbert Jessop batting stance

One can see why he was nicknamed croucher but it was nothing like the monstrosities which pass for a preparatory guard today. RH

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sxsrf=AJOqlzVxBJ6KpsdQjGB6A5i6Xe1RHZKa8g:1677143142870&q=Gilbert+Jessop+batting+stance&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=JhLFXx-VoJtdQM%252C--170uWtH9V7RM%252C_%253BoI9iC4vK6f6hsM%252CM40XeU2joKHI9M%252C_%253Bm3XN3IBPaXa-kM%252CUZCc7CSbYL2IWM%252C_%253BAIhG81q1_-fiKM%252CDV18DNZZzfxr9M%252C_%253BH4xo6sk1n6Ag8M%252Ci-w3DjA55Atp0M%252C_%253B2CjrSyKZgvKSCM%252C6m2hUuaQA1Wv-M%252C_%253B5girL4pQpgJgdM%252Ca-40YuyZkAgiHM%252C_%253BWPgdg2TEzd3tYM%252CYZLJEbwmyCHdhM%252C_%253B2DdcFE009rI-pM%252Ca-40YuyZkAgiHM%252C_%253Bq16rXEd_gE7GMM%252Cy-Nha9s2LpteJM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kTRz4viXOQRsEJFl6IyK91uEBrmVw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4r5KKpav9AhWgSkEAHWeOBrcQ7Al6BAgYECY&biw=1067&bih=502&dpr=1.5

On 21/02/2023 11:22, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> "[...] For the purpose
>>> of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up
>>> Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example.

I wonder if there was an element of "needle" in Woolley singling out
Hammond? Older readers will recall that Kent, in the shape of Lord Harris,
blocked Hammond [born in Dover] from playing for Gloucs until he had formally
qualified ["The most miserable year of my life"]. Most neutral observers
thought that Kent had been very unreasonable.

>>> Before 1914 there
>>> were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have
>>> been in the England team only if at the top of his form. [...]"

See below. I agree with John that only through rose-tinted glasses
could such a claim be seriously made.

[... snip ...]
> It wasn't entirely clear the type of players Woolley was referring to

See below.

> but if it was amateurs only Woolley could have played with, against
> or seen as a spectator before WW1 here are 17 amateurs off tghe top
> of my head:
> [Kortright, Douglas, Jessop, Carr, McClaran [sic], Brearley, Wood,
> Warner, Bosanquet, Knox, Crawford*2, Foster*3, Jackson, Wilson]

Well, of course there are some great cricketers listed there, but I'd
say that only FS Jackson has a serious claim /ahead/ of Hammond to fill one
of the batting slots, that only because he was a better all-rounder/captain.
The others had their moments, but Hammond was a leading batsman for a decade.

Robert doesn't say where his article comes from, but I'm guessing an
obituary [which ICBA to check up on]. I did look at Oliver Warner's biography
of Woolley [1952, and compiled in the light of co-operation from and talking
with Woolley], and he gives a couple of paragraphs to much the same effect:

" [I]n speaking of Walter Hammond, clearly the best post-war all-rounder,
" he said that, had his career started in the earlier years of the century,
" he would have found perhaps thirty cricketers, amateur and professional,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
" of comparable stature, and would have kept his place in the England team
" only if at the top of his form. "

Later,

" Captain C. B. Fry ... spoke again and again of Hammond's "pre-war quality".
" Figures show Hammond's achievements, but his reputation was built up
" against bowling not to be compared in general quality with that faced by
" earlier batsmen. "

and

" That these pre-1914 years were in truth remarkable is proved by a random
" list of players' names: [Fry, Ranji, Jessop, Foster, MacLaren, Hirst,
" Rhodes, Jackson, Hobbs and Barnes]. "

Sorry, but an unqualified list of ten cricketers doesn't /prove/ anything.
Anyone here could produce a list of ten or a dozen cricketers from any modern
[-ish] fifteen year period, and start a debate how they compare with those of
any other era. For a start, that sort of debate is inevitably inconclusive,
and secondly it tells you nothing about the /general/ standard of either f-c
or Test cricket at that time. Fry's opinion is worth more than most, but he
too has rose-tinted spectacles, and no-one [AFAIK] has done the hard stats to
determine standards pre- and post-WW1. [For comparison, chess ratings have
been retro-fitted to the results back to year dot, and these are much more
deterministic than cricket averages; but they are still highly controversial
and open to interpretation.]

Warner has comments, presumably with Woolley's approval, about
amateurs as well:

" Up to the First World War, amateur players of high skill were abundant,
" and had the means and leisure to play regularly. The effect on
" professionals was obvious. They were proportionately fewer, and as they
" had competition from men trained -- drilled in some cases -- at schools
" and universities, they needed to be always near the top of their form
" to keep their places. "

This rather patronising view was still extant, though perhaps not prevalent,
well into the '50s. It was more common in the southern counties; northern
counties had always, from before the All-England XI, been more professional
in their approach. After WW1, and even more so after WW2, far too many
excellent cricketers were lost to the game because they couldn't afford to
play without being paid, and because [absurd as it seems to modern eyes]
the products of public schools and/or Oxbridge couldn't [officially] be paid
for sporting activities without a massive loss of face and social status.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Vivaldi