On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:35:54 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> 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.

I generally agree, but one thing we do overlook a bit is playing careers overlap quite a bit.

Just an example - Bradman's last Test was in 1948, and Richie Benaud's first was in 1952. *Someone* would've played with both of them. That player's subjective comments on the quality of both would have quite a bit more credence IMO.

On 23/02/2023 17:35, Andy Walker wrote:
> 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.
>
>>>>                               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. [...]"
>
>     Robert doesn't say where his article comes from, but I'm guessing an
> obituary [which ICBA to check up on].

Yes, it's from his Wisden obituary.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/frank-woolley-22518

--
David North

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:35:48 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

> no-one [AFAIK] has done the hard stats to
>determine standards pre- and post-WW1.

And how would that work?

Since essentially the same players for England over the last 3 years
have had a run of 17 matches with one win followed by what already
looks to be 11 wins out of 12, it's a bit difficult to argue that
there was some magic which transformed dreadful players into excellent
ones overnight, although the stats would probably seem to indicate it.

I'm fairly convinced that pre-WW1 cricket was a lot more adventurous,
and that a lot of the moaning about declining standards in the
inter-war period was in fact a reflection of the larger number of
players dependent on contract renewal and the conservatism and caution
which stems therefrom. Whether they were "better" or "worse" because
they played the game in a completely different style is not something
which I think can be readily determined from sets of numbers.

It seems highly likely that the early 20s and late 40s were periods
when cricket went backwards because a whole swathe of players had had
their careers interrupted, tragically terminated and the like and it
would take time to bring on the next generation, but otherwise there
is very little reason to believe that cricket has, uniquely among
major sports, not exhibited a gradual raising of standards throughout
history.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:36:56 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> but otherwise there
> is very little reason to believe that cricket has, uniquely among
> major sports, not exhibited a gradual raising of standards throughout
> history.

Does anyone serious suggest otherwise?

Check out this 1950s gymnastics;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnneR1Q9uK4&ab_channel=AmazingXpress

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:35:48 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> " 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. "

There is a good deal of truth to that assessment. Hammond's era was
characterised by flat pitches - it was always said to be 250-2 at tea
at Trent Bridge. And he certainly didn't get tested against fast
bowling in the county championship. In the entire inter-war period,
the fast bowlers to play in England were pre-chest injury Arthur
Gilligan, Alec Skelding, Harold Larwood and Ken Farnes. He'd probably
have faced both Skelding and Larwood in the same season, and early
Gilligan and Skelding before that, but otherwise it's a maximum of two
games a season against a serious fast bowler.

One can easily see why the pre-WW1 lot weren't very impressed with
their immediate successors.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:42:56 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:35:48 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > " 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. "
> There is a good deal of truth to that assessment. Hammond's era was
> characterised by flat pitches - it was always said to be 250-2 at tea
> at Trent Bridge. And he certainly didn't get tested against fast
> bowling in the county championship. In the entire inter-war period,
> the fast bowlers to play in England were pre-chest injury Arthur
> Gilligan, Alec Skelding, Harold Larwood and Ken Farnes. He'd probably
> have faced both Skelding and Larwood in the same season, and early
> Gilligan and Skelding before that, but otherwise it's a maximum of two
> games a season against a serious fast bowler.
>
> One can easily see why the pre-WW1 lot weren't very impressed with
> their immediate successors.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

These were also genuine fast bowlers from the 1930s

Bill Copson - Derby
HD "Hopper Read, " - Essex
Stan Nichols - Essex
George Beslee (Kent) Norman Harding - Kent
Jim Smith - Middlesex
Lauri Gray - Middlesex
Ted "Nobby" Clarke (Northants
Harold Butletr - Notts
Alf Gover - Surrey
Bill Bowes - Yorks

RH

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:43:04 AM UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:42:56 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:35:48 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > " 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. "
> > There is a good deal of truth to that assessment. Hammond's era was
> > characterised by flat pitches - it was always said to be 250-2 at tea
> > at Trent Bridge. And he certainly didn't get tested against fast
> > bowling in the county championship. In the entire inter-war period,
> > the fast bowlers to play in England were pre-chest injury Arthur
> > Gilligan, Alec Skelding, Harold Larwood and Ken Farnes. He'd probably
> > have faced both Skelding and Larwood in the same season, and early
> > Gilligan and Skelding before that, but otherwise it's a maximum of two
> > games a season against a serious fast bowler.
> >
> > One can easily see why the pre-WW1 lot weren't very impressed with
> > their immediate successors.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> These were also genuine fast bowlers from the 1930s
>
> Bill Copson - Derby
> HD "Hopper Read, " - Essex
> Stan Nichols - Essex
> George Beslee (Kent) Norman Harding - Kent
> Jim Smith - Middlesex
> Lauri Gray - Middlesex
> Ted "Nobby" Clarke (Northants
> Harold Butletr - Notts
> Alf Gover - Surrey
> Bill Bowes - Yorks
>
> RH

There were also these foreign genuine fast bowlers Hammond had to face

Australian
Ernie McCormick
SA
Robert Crisp

NZ
Jack Cowie

Windies
Learie Constantine
Martindale
John
HC Griffith

India
Mohamed Nissar

RH

In message <2dmgvhh7kcfceiljmnlnvp8sea54pt81nq@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:35:48 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>> " 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. "
>
>There is a good deal of truth to that assessment. Hammond's era was
>characterised by flat pitches - it was always said to be 250-2 at tea
>at Trent Bridge. And he certainly didn't get tested against fast
>bowling in the county championship. In the entire inter-war period,
>the fast bowlers to play in England were pre-chest injury Arthur
>Gilligan, Alec Skelding, Harold Larwood and Ken Farnes. He'd probably
>have faced both Skelding and Larwood in the same season, and early
>Gilligan and Skelding before that, but otherwise it's a maximum of two
>games a season against a serious fast bowler.

It's a fair point, but you can add Ted McDonald to the list of truly
fast bowlers that he faced. I remember reading a piece by Cardus on
Hammond - it may have been his Wisden obituary - in which he waxes
lyrical about an innings by Hammond (IIRC it was 180-odd) against
Lancashire in which he hooked McDonald time and again. Admittedly it's
only one data point, but it suggests that he could play fast bowling
pretty well. Though now that I check, I see that McDonald was born in
1891, so may have slowed up a bit by the time Hammond faced him in the
mid-1920s. If I had time, I'd look up how he got on against Constantine
and Martindale in Tests against WI, as they were pretty quick.

<snip>
--
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 Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:21:20 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:52:18 +0000, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <2dmgvhh7kcfceiljm...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >>On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:35:48 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> " 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. "
> >>
> >>There is a good deal of truth to that assessment. Hammond's era was
> >>characterised by flat pitches - it was always said to be 250-2 at tea
> >>at Trent Bridge. And he certainly didn't get tested against fast
> >>bowling in the county championship.
> >
> >It's a fair point, but you can add Ted McDonald to the list of truly
> >fast bowlers that he faced. I remember reading a piece by Cardus on
> >Hammond - it may have been his Wisden obituary - in which he waxes
> >lyrical about an innings by Hammond (IIRC it was 180-odd) against
> >Lancashire in which he hooked McDonald time and again. Admittedly it's
> >only one data point, but it suggests that he could play fast bowling
> >pretty well.
> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

master Unwholesome once again is caught out by his lack of cricket's history. Here are all the genuinely fast English bowlers operating in the 1920s: who have not been mentioned:

Bill Copson - Derbyshire
Essex Stan Nichools
Kent WS Cornwallis
Leics Alan Shipman
Mddx Gubby Allen
Northants Ted Clark
Notts Frank Mathews
Surrey Bill Hitch
Warks Harry Howell
RH

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:20 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
>
Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county championship pre WWI?

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 1:59:27 PM UTC, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:20 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
> > am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
> > it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
> > have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
> >
> Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county championship pre WWI?

Yes. Here is a list covering the 20 years from 1895 to 1914

Derbys

Bill Bestwick
Arthur Warren
Arthur Davidson

Essex
J Kortright

Gloucs
Gilbert Jessop

Hampshire
Heskith-Prichard
Tom Soar

Kent
Arthur Fielder
Bill Bradley

Lancs
Arthur Mold
Walter Brearley

Leics

Arthur Woodcock
Tom Jayes

Mddx

Nothants
George Thompson
Bumper Wells

Notts
Tom Wass

Somerset
Sammy Woods

Surrey
Bill Lockwood
Tom Richardson
Nevill KNox
Bill Hitch
P R May

Sussex
Cyril Bland

Warks
Arthur Field
Harry Howell

Worcs
Robert Burrows
George Wilson
William Burns

Yorkshire
George Hirst
John Thomas Brown

That is not all of this category of player but it is most of such players, ie fast bowlers between
1895 and 19014. .

I have also not covered the Oz and SA fast bowlers. RH

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 05:59:26 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:20?PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
>> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
>> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
>> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
>>
>Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county championship pre WWI?

I believe there were more than in the 1920s/30s. By now, the village
idiot has presumably burbled about how I lack knowledge of history
because people like Bowes, Gover, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all were
genuinely fast as per usual. My researches, largely based on an
interest in learning new facts rather than giving me little reminders
of players whose actual qualities I have no idea of although I made
some up for them 25 years ago, suggest that those who wrote for the
newspapers day by day did not agree with the village idiot, but then
he knows a lot more about it since he wasn't there. (And no, I can't
produce the newspapers I consulted in the British Library to reach my
conclusions.)
And obviously at this distance it is impossible to have any real idea
of how quick bowlers were 120 years ago.

But what those inter-war reporters did in match reports on the odd
occasion in the 20s was moan that Gilligan, Skelding and Larwood were
the only bowlers who bowled as fast as the ones before the war. (By
the time Farnes was around, the moaning had moved on to pitches.) I
realise that since they actually watched cricket before and after WW1,
their evidence is completely useless and we should rely instead on the
fantasies created by an ignorant nostalgist, but for some reason I
prefer the version of history documented by other people.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:03:10 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 05:59:26 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:20?PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
> >> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
> >> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
> >> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
> >>
> >Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county championship pre WWI?
> I believe there were more than in the 1920s/30s. By now, the village
> idiot has presumably burbled about how I lack knowledge of history
> because people like Bowes, Gover, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all were
> genuinely fast as per usual. My researches, largely based on an
> interest in learning new facts rather than giving me little reminders
> of players whose actual qualities I have no idea of although I made
> some up for them 25 years ago, suggest that those who wrote for the
> newspapers day by day did not agree with the village idiot, but then
> he knows a lot more about it since he wasn't there. (And no, I can't
> produce the newspapers I consulted in the British Library to reach my
> conclusions.)
>
> And obviously at this distance it is impossible to have any real idea
> of how quick bowlers were 120 years ago.
>
> But what those inter-war reporters did in match reports on the odd
> occasion in the 20s was moan that Gilligan, Skelding and Larwood were
> the only bowlers who bowled as fast as the ones before the war. (By
> the time Farnes was around, the moaning had moved on to pitches.) I
> realise that since they actually watched cricket before and after WW1,
> their evidence is completely useless and we should rely instead on the
> fantasies created by an ignorant nostalgist, but for some reason I
> prefer the version of history documented by other people.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Hilarious self regarding waffle by master Unwholesome

RH

In message <d372a9a7-69f9-4cb0-8f0d-5f9e50623961n@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes
>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:200 >>
>> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
>> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
>> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
>> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
>>
>Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county
>championship pre WWI?

I've been wondering about that today too. If we confine ourselves to say
the ten years pre-WW1 then I can't think of that many. There were
Neville Knox, Arnold Warren and Bill Hitch. I think Richardson, Sammy
Woods and Kortright were over the hill as bowlers by then, and after
1905 Brearley only played intermittently because of business commitments
and a row with the Lancashire committee. I don't think Frank Foster or
George Hirst were truly fast and Barnes certainly wasn't.
--
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 Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:17:43 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <d372a9a7-69f9-4cb0...@googlegroups.com>,
> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:200 >>
> >> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
> >> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
> >> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
> >> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
> >>
> >Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county
> >championship pre WWI?
> I've been wondering about that today too. If we confine ourselves to say
> the ten years pre-WW1 then I can't think of that many. There were
> Neville Knox, Arnold Warren and Bill Hitch. I think Richardson, Sammy
> Woods and Kortright were over the hill as bowlers by then, and after

Not in 1895 they weren't RH

> 1905 Brearley only played intermittently because of business commitments

Brearley tended to have great seasons mixed with playing little. RH

> and a row with the Lancashire committee. I don't think Frank Foster or
> George Hirst were truly fast and Barnes certainly wasn't.

Hirst was fast in the first half of his career then slowed as age and a change in technique, occurred ie swing the ball (a novelty in the 1890s -) , slowed him RH

I don't think I had Frank Foster classified as fast t and I certainly did not say Barnes was fast: RH

In message <2575c96c-e3e0-434c-b64d-1219c2c0128dn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:17:430 >> In message <d372a9a7-69f9-4cb0...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:200 >>
>> >> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling. I
>> >> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
>> >> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
>> >> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior.
>> >>
>> >Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county
>> >championship pre WWI?
>> I've been wondering about that today too. If we confine ourselves to say
>> the ten years pre-WW1 then I can't think of that many. There were
>> Neville Knox, Arnold Warren and Bill Hitch. I think Richardson, Sammy
>> Woods and Kortright were over the hill as bowlers by then, and after
>
>Not in 1895 they weren't RH

I said "the ten years before WW1 because if you go back any earlier than
that it will be before Woolley's time.
>
>
>> 1905 Brearley only played intermittently because of business commitments
>
>Brearley tended to have great seasons mixed with playing little. RH
>
>> and a row with the Lancashire committee. I don't think Frank Foster or
>> George Hirst were truly fast and Barnes certainly wasn't.
>
>Hirst was fast in the first half of his career then slowed as age and
>a change in technique, occurred ie swing the ball (a novelty in the
>1890s -) , slowed him RH

So in the period I considered he was no longer truly fast.

>
>I don't think I had Frank Foster classified as fast t and I
>certainly did not say Barnes was fast: RH

I didn't say that you had; that was intended to pre-empt any future
claim you might make along those lines.

I saw your list in your other post, and though I think many of the names
in it were not really fast or were before the period I was considering,
it did remind me of a few bowler's I'd overlooked, particullarly
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 23/02/2023 21:15, jack fredricks wrote:
[...]
> I generally agree, but one thing we do overlook a bit is playing
> careers overlap quite a bit.

FSVO "we"! Actually, it's the lengths and overlaps of careers
that enable reasonably detailed and meaningful statistical analyses to
be made; that's different from anyone having actually done any such
analysis in a satisfactory way. As previously noted, retrospective
chess ratings have been done professionally; but despite the many
advantages for this purpose that chess has over cricket, there are
still reasons to be very cautious about the results, especially over
an extended period.

In the case of cricket pre- and post-WW1: as a guess, there
would probably be at least 100 f-c cricketers in England, and further
contingents from Oz and SA, who played a significant number of games
in both periods, which should be enough for decent statistics -- as
long as you want a broad-brush picture rather than a spurious "proof"
of some hobby-horse. I'll expand on this in a reply to MH [which
won't happen tonight].

> Just an example - Bradman's last Test was in 1948, and Richie
> Benaud's first was in 1952. *Someone* would've played with both of
> them. That player's subjective comments on the quality of both would
> have quite a bit more credence IMO.

Sure, though how you compare a veteran batsman and captain
with a novice LBG and lower-order batsman is another matter. But
it's very rare for anyone to produce a serious critique of another
player. No-one likes to write that Bloggs wasn't really very good
despite playing for Loamshire for a dozen years, even though we know
that most players are no better than average. [You do get dressing
room gossip, eg about how coaching regimes are hopeless, but that's
another matter.]

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

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:07:21 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 23/02/2023 21:15, jack fredricks wrote:
> [...]
> > I generally agree, but one thing we do overlook a bit is playing
> > careers overlap quite a bit.
> FSVO "we"! Actually, it's the lengths and overlaps of careers
> that enable reasonably detailed and meaningful statistical analyses to
> be made; that's different from anyone having actually done any such
> analysis in a satisfactory way. As previously noted, retrospective
> chess ratings have been done professionally; but despite the many
> advantages for this purpose that chess has over cricket, there are
> still reasons to be very cautious about the results, especially over
> an extended period.

No disagreement there at all.

Although interestingly, I think the single best argument that "Bradman was the best batsman ever" isn't based on his average compared to all other historical averages, but rather how much better Bradman was to his peers ie those he played with/against. There's no need to look at eras, rule changes, equipment changes, style changes, health/fitness changes. No one has been such an outlier compared to their peers than Bradman was.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:17:45 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <2575c96c-e3e0-434c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:17:430 >> In message <d372a9a7-69f9-4cb0...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> writes
> >> >On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:21:200 >>
> >> >> I'm not suggesting that Hammond was inadequate against fast bowling.. I
> >> >> am suggesting that since the pre-war players very rarely saw him play
> >> >> it, given that he had so few opportunities, they would quite likely
> >> >> have said that the general quality of bowling he faced was inferior..
> >> >>
> >> >Were there that many actual fast bowlers floating around the county
> >> >championship pre WWI?
> >> I've been wondering about that today too. If we confine ourselves to say
> >> the ten years pre-WW1 then I can't think of that many. There were
> >> Neville Knox, Arnold Warren and Bill Hitch. I think Richardson, Sammy
> >> Woods

Sammy woods was 27 in 1895 and only 32 in 1900 , It is a mistake to imagine fast bowlers could not be fast after the age of 30. RH

and Kortright were over the hill as bowlers by then, and after
> >
> >Not in 1895 they weren't RH
> I said "the ten years before WW1 because if you go back any earlier than
> that it will be before Woolley's time.

Woolley was 13 in 1900 Koryright was 29 . Wolley was old enough to see Kortright in his prime. RH
> >
> >
> >> 1905 Brearley only played intermittently because of business commitments
> >
> >Brearley tended to have great seasons mixed with playing little. RH
> >

Here are Beardsley's Test bowling record.

FORMAT Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 1
FC 134 - 29536 16305 844 9/47 - 19.31 3.31 34.9 - 93 27

> >> and a row with the Lancashire committee. I don't think Frank Foster or
> >> George Hirst were truly fast and Barnes certainly wasn't.
> >
> >Hirst was fast in the first half of his career then slowed as age and
> >a change in technique, occurred ie swing the ball (a novelty in the
> >1890s -) , slowed him RH
> So in the period I considered he was no longer truly fast.

Nope. He was only 29 in 1900 and had not developed his swing bowling . Woolley was 13 in 1900

> >
> >I don't think I had Frank Foster classified as fast t and I
> >certainly did not say Barnes was fast: RH
> I didn't say that you had; that was intended to pre-empt any future
> claim you might make along those lines.

A pointless exercise. as I had given you no grounds for believing I would do such a thing., RH H
>
> I saw your list in your other post, and though I think many of the names
> in it were not really fast or were before the period I was considering,
> it did remind me of a few bowler's I'd overlooked, particullarly
> Fielder.

They were all bowlers considered fast by their peers,. RH
> --
> 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 <ttbn05$264i0$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Walker
<anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes
<snip>
> In the case of cricket pre- and post-WW1: as a guess, there
>would probably be at least 100 f-c cricketers in England, and further
>contingents from Oz and SA, who played a significant number of games
>in both periods, which should be enough for decent statistics -- as
>long as you want a broad-brush picture rather than a spurious "proof"
>of some hobby-horse. I'll expand on this in a reply to MH [which
>won't happen tonight].
<snip>

I suppose one problem would lie in estimating how much players would
have improved or deteriorated after the War through being over four
years older and having had four summers with little or no serious
cricket. (I believe one or two of the northern leagues continued for at
least part of the War, in which those who participated would have played
pretty competitive cricket.) I suspect that most players would have
deteriorated, though some who were just starting their careers before
the War might have greatly improved.
--
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 <8412c4a7-2e46-42c5-8548-3eea04a1e0bcn@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>Although interestingly, I think the single best argument that "Bradman
>was the best batsman ever" isn't based on his average compared to all
>other historical averages, but rather how much better Bradman was to
>his peers ie those he played with/against.

Absolutely.

> There's no need to look at eras, rule changes, equipment changes,
>style changes, health/fitness changes. No one has been such an outlier
>compared to their peers than Bradman was.

Well Grace was such an outlier in f-c cricket for the early part of his
career, but unfortunately by his first Test in 1880 he was just coming
to the end of his greatest period, his advancing age and weight starting
to catch up with him. So in Test cricket Bradman stands alone by a wide
margin.
--
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 Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:27:05 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <8412c4a7-2e46-42c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >Although interestingly, I think the single best argument that "Bradman
> >was the best batsman ever" isn't based on his average compared to all
> >other historical averages, but rather how much better Bradman was to
> >his peers ie those he played with/against.
> Absolutely.
> > There's no need to look at eras, rule changes, equipment changes,
> >style changes, health/fitness changes. No one has been such an outlier
> >compared to their peers than Bradman was.
> Well Grace was such an outlier in f-c cricket for the early part of his
> career, but unfortunately by his first Test in 1880 he was just coming
> to the end of his greatest period, his advancing age and weight starting
> to catch up with him. So in Test cricket Bradman stands alone by a wide
> margin.
> --
> 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"

Grace's greatest period was teetering on the edge in 1880 but it is worth noting that when he played his last Test in 1899 aged 51 his Test batting record was arguably better than anyone else up to that date , viz:

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100s 50s
22 36 2 1098 170 32.29 2 5

despite the facts that

All his Tests after 1886 were played he was past 40

All but 3 of his Tests were played in England in 3 day Test on uncovered pitches

The general standard of pitches was poor until the mid to late 1890s

RH

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:52:18 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> Grace's greatest period was teetering on the edge in 1880 but it is worth noting that when he played his last Test in 1899 aged 51 his Test batting record was arguably better than anyone else up to that date , viz:

Who do you think were his batting peers throughout the main phases of his career? I'd like to take a gander.

On 25/02/2023 10:19, John Hall wrote:
> In message <8412c4a7-2e46-42c5-8548-3eea04a1e0bcn@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>> Although interestingly, I think the single best argument that
>> "Bradman was the best batsman ever" isn't based on his average
>> compared to all other historical averages, but rather how much
>> better Bradman was to his peers ie those he played with/against.
> Absolutely.

Absolutely.

>> There's no need to look at eras, rule changes, equipment changes,
>> style changes, health/fitness changes. No one has been such an
>> outlier compared to their peers than Bradman was.
> Well Grace was such an outlier in f-c cricket for the early part of
> his career, but unfortunately by his first Test in 1880 he was just
> coming to the end of his greatest period, his advancing age and
> weight starting to catch up with him.

He still had virtually 20 years of Test cricket in him; and,
until the very end, deservedly so. But yes, the effect is that WG is
not given the statistical credit in Test records that he deserves from
his overall importance to cricket.

> So in Test cricket Bradman
> stands alone by a wide margin.

Perhaps worth noting that for most of Grace's career, Tests
weren't the be-all and end-all that they have been since ~1900. There
were other important matches, esp Gents vs Players, and to a lesser
extent North vs South. Tours to and from Australia were simply part
of the general cricket environment, not very different from tours to
and from the USA and Canada, Argentina and elsewhere, and largely seen
simply as commercial enterprises, a development of other touring XIs,
esp the All-England XI and its clones.

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

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:28:05 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> But yes, the effect is that WG is
> not given the statistical credit in Test records that he deserves from
> his overall importance to cricket.

Perhaps not statistical credit, but I can assure that as I grew up here in Australia Grace was revered, and considered second only to Bradman. With, of course, partisan daylight between them.