On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 1:02:43 PM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 7:16:16 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 8:22:54 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 3:43:59 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 4:49:27 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 2:13:50 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 5:07:25 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> > > > > > > In message <9f32c806-6e71-435f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > > > > > > >England dropped 6 caches in the Edgbaston Test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/21/england-can-still-win-the
> > > > > > > >-ashes-and-help-save-test-cricke/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >This high drop rate reinforces the point I have made before namely that
> > > > > > > >the out fielding may improved but the catching of England Test sides
> > > > > > > >- and especially close to the wicket - is noticeably worse than it
> > > > > > > >was before modern bats arrived
> > > > > > > >RH
> > > > > > > That seems something of a non-sequitur. How could modern bats make close
> > > > > > > to the wicket catching worse (assuming for the sake of argument that
> > > > > > > that is true)?
> > SIGH. There is less time spent fielding close to the wicket. RH
> I don't think there's been notably less slips fielders than previously
> With the decrease in spin in the attack I'd agree that there are less close catchers in front of the wicket
> > > > > > Modern bats result in more catches in the deep and bowlers feed this change ...RH
> > > > > a) got any actual stats to back that up?
> > > > NO, but just watching the modern big hitting says so. Players have adapted to such big hitting in all forms of the game. Sixes used to be a rarity in the red ball game,. Now they are plentiful. RH
> > > So your argument is "it must be so"
> > > Not convincing to me, and I suspect not convincing to many people
> > >
> > > It might actually mean that people are less likely to be caught in the deep because they're more likely to still get a mishit for 6
> > > It might also mean that edges are more likely to carry to slips and other close fieldsmen.
> > > > > b) How exactly do you think bowlers are feeding the change for more catches in the deep?
> > > > > are they bowling differently? different field settings?
> > > > > What are they doing?
> > > and again, what are teh bowlers doing to "feed the change"?
> > T20 slogging has driven up big hiring in red ball cricket ...RH
> how is that bowlers feeding the change?

The nature of T20 cricket and the hitting power of modern bates pushes batsmen to slog
RH

On 23/06/2023 09:57, John Hall wrote:
> In message <u72m8p$3esd0$1@dont-email.me>, alvey
> <Paddy.O.Furniture@Coast.org> writes
>> I've been forced to change newsreader since 40tude Dialog finally sank.
>
> What was it that forced you to change? I'm still using a newsreader that
> hasn't been supported since about 2006.
>
>> Unfortunately, its replacement, (Pan) doesn't know the trick that
>> 40tude had in that you could choose to *not* load any posts directly
>> derived from a nominated idiot. Pity.
>>
>>
>> alvey
>> Btw, Pan is seriously unstable on my PC. Alas, I can't find even a
>> half- decent alternative.
>
> You don't tell us which OS you are using. If it's Windows, then there's
> always FGorte (Free) Agent, though I don't know whether it's still
> supported. A lot of people use Thunderbird. Of course that's also a mail
> client, but presumably you don't have to use the mail part of it if you
> don't want to.

Indeed. I use Thunderbird for newsgroups only.

--
David North

On 24/06/2023 02:50, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I agree with the idiot that close-to-the-wicket catching is worse than
> in the 50s and 60s.

We don't have a suitable metric for that. For modern catching,
you could, I suppose, look ball-by-ball; but there is still the "Tony
Lock" problem [see below]. For the '50s and '60s mostly what we have
are newspaper reports of numbers of catches taken/dropped,and we really
have no idea how reasonable or comprehensive those reports are.

It used to be claimed that Tony Lock "dropped" a lot of catches
[he took a lot as well, of course], but it was not his "fault" as he got
fingers to a ball that other fielders would not have got near. There
was, and is, no sensible way around that. It's always a judgement call
whether or not it was catchable "in principle".

Just one additional fact for the mix. In those days, it used to
be claimed that SA, in particular, punched well above their weight by
virtue of their outstanding fielding. Of course, that is outfielding as
well as close catching. But it suggests that our fielding was not rated
as comparable. Oz, too, were usually praised for their fielding. IOW,
I think there would then have been a general acceptance that SA and Oz
took fielding significantly more seriously than we did [always with the
occasional exception such as Surrey under Surridge]. By comparison,
these days no-one gets near even a county side, let alone the Test side,
without being an at least competent fielder; players who drift towards
the lower end of competence get warned to pull their socks up.

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

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 7:57:26 AM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 24/06/2023 02:50, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > I agree with the idiot that close-to-the-wicket catching is worse than
> > in the 50s and 60s.
> We don't have a suitable metric for that. For modern catching,
> you could, I suppose, look ball-by-ball; but there is still the "Tony
> Lock" problem [see below]. For the '50s and '60s mostly what we have
> are newspaper reports of numbers of catches taken/dropped,and we really
> have no idea how reasonable or comprehensive those reports are.
>
> It used to be claimed that Tony Lock "dropped" a lot of catches
> [he took a lot as well, of course], but it was not his "fault" as he got
> fingers to a ball that other fielders would not have got near. There
> was, and is, no sensible way around that. It's always a judgement call
> whether or not it was catchable "in principle".
>
> Just one additional fact for the mix. In those days, it used to
> be claimed that SA, in particular, punched well above their weight by
> virtue of their outstanding fielding. Of course, that is outfielding as
> well as close catching. But it suggests that our fielding was not rated
> as comparable. Oz, too, were usually praised for their fielding. IOW,
> I think there would then have been a general acceptance that SA and Oz
> took fielding significantly more seriously than we did [always with the
> occasional exception such as Surrey under Surridge]. By comparison,
> these days no-one gets near even a county side, let alone the Test side,
> without being an at least competent fielder; players who drift towards
> the lower end of competence get warned to pull their socks up.
>
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Kontski

Nice music collection!

On 24/06/2023 14:42, drye...@gmail.com wrote:
[I signed:]
>> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
>> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
>> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Kontski
> Nice music collection!

Thanks. Always nice to get feedback. [And always interested
in suggestions for new things to play, esp if I already have them in
my collection, and esp if they're not /too/ well known -- no-one wants
to listen to me playing mainstream Chopin/Beethoven/Mozart/....]

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

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:51:38 PM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 24/06/2023 14:42, drye...@gmail.com wrote:
> [I signed:]
> >> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> >> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> >> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Kontski
> > Nice music collection!
> Thanks. Always nice to get feedback. [And always interested
> in suggestions for new things to play, esp if I already have them in
> my collection, and esp if they're not /too/ well known -- no-one wants
> to listen to me playing mainstream Chopin/Beethoven/Mozart/....]
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Kontski

Lie Vivaldi’s concertos for stringed instruments!

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 2:51:38 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> Thanks. Always nice to get feedback. [And always interested
> in suggestions for new things to play, esp if I already have them in
> my collection, and esp if they're not /too/ well known -- no-one wants
> to listen to me playing mainstream Chopin/Beethoven/Mozart/....]

Forgive my naivety... what instruments? Are you playing them? Solo?

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 7:51:55 PM UTC-4, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 2:51:38 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> > Thanks. Always nice to get feedback. [And always interested
> > in suggestions for new things to play, esp if I already have them in
> > my collection, and esp if they're not /too/ well known -- no-one wants
> > to listen to me playing mainstream Chopin/Beethoven/Mozart/....]
> Forgive my naivety... what instruments? Are you playing them? Solo?

https://images.app.goo.gl/DNQjw5FMVkDrtHhcA

On 25/06/2023 00:51, jack fredricks wrote:
[I wrote:]>> Thanks. Always nice to get feedback. [And always interested
>> in suggestions for new things to play, esp if I already have them in
>> my collection, and esp if they're not /too/ well known -- no-one wants
>> to listen to me playing mainstream Chopin/Beethoven/Mozart/....]
> Forgive my naivety... what instruments? Are you playing them? Solo?

Keyboard; yes; yes. But, as you perhaps already know, modern
keyboards can sound /roughly/ like other instruments, can input/output
several formats [MP3, MIDI, ...], and can [therefore] "layer" one track
on top of another, so I can accumulate a full orchestra if needed. BUT
(a) this is a lot of work, and (b) note the "roughly". String sounds,
in particular are typically dreadful. So Vivaldi's concertos come out
sounding like a not-very-good orchestra of 12yos; which some might
claim to be the authentic sound of the orchestra at the orphanage that
Vivaldi wrote them for.

So I prefer mostly genuine keyboard music. There is a lot of
editing that goes on to get something that sounds close to what the
composer intended. If I could really play "Islamey" flawlessly at
full speed, I'd be a concert pianist making real money, not retired
and posting idle thoughts here.

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

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 12:57:24 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 24/06/2023 02:50, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I agree with the idiot that close-to-the-wicket catching is worse than
>> in the 50s and 60s.
>
> We don't have a suitable metric for that. For modern catching,
>you could, I suppose, look ball-by-ball; but there is still the "Tony
>Lock" problem [see below]. For the '50s and '60s mostly what we have
>are newspaper reports of numbers of catches taken/dropped,and we really
>have no idea how reasonable or comprehensive those reports are.

And I agree that we have absolutely no way of verifying that properly.

> It used to be claimed that Tony Lock "dropped" a lot of catches
>[he took a lot as well, of course], but it was not his "fault" as he got
>fingers to a ball that other fielders would not have got near. There
>was, and is, no sensible way around that. It's always a judgement call
>whether or not it was catchable "in principle".

Indeed. Any error in MLB is shown on the scoreboard, and presumably
bad news, especially for the fall-guy. It's one way for some people to
get their name in the papers. but not one you want to cian really use
to promote oneself. Naturally, e additional fact for the mix.

>In those days, it used to
>be claimed that SA, in particular, punched well above their weight by
>virtue of their outstanding fielding. Of course, that is outfielding as
>well as close catching.

I'm not convinced good close catching gets hailed as part of
outstanding fielding: if I think "Wow they've been fielding well",
it's much more likely to be because they been fanastic at running
about, shrinking fours to singles, throwing accurately from the
boundary etc. I'd be more likely to be saying how brilliant the team's
/catching/ was.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 11:43:01 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > We don't have a suitable metric for that. For modern catching,
> >you could, I suppose, look ball-by-ball; but there is still the "Tony
> >Lock" problem [see below]. For the '50s and '60s mostly what we have
> >are newspaper reports of numbers of catches taken/dropped,and we really
> >have no idea how reasonable or comprehensive those reports are.
> And I agree that we have absolutely no way of verifying that properly.

Sure, but we do have quite decent stats on the amount of spin being bowled.

We'd have less reliable data on fielding positions, though (for the 50s and 60s). So we'd have to make some assumptions there.

I'd happily assume both eras had the same amount of close in fielders (even though I do suspect the 50s had more), per over of spin, and conclude the era with more spin had more practice as close catchers - and were therefore better.

Whilst I don't have those stats, I have posted a link to stats showing how little spin in bowled in County Cricket. 20% of overs vs Test's 40% of overs.

Keep in mind 50s out-fielding was significantly WORSE than today's. I've seen the videos RH, don't bother with your rubbish.
That's because today's training and catching techniques are much better. Surely that would also apply to close-in fielding.

If the 50s catchers were better, it wasn't by much.

On 25/06/2023 14:42, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I'm not convinced good close catching gets hailed as part of
> outstanding fielding: if I think "Wow they've been fielding well",
> it's much more likely to be because they been fanastic at running
> about, shrinking fours to singles, throwing accurately from the
> boundary etc. I'd be more likely to be saying how brilliant the team's
> /catching/ was.

All true enough. But somewhat on the other hand, if there are
a lot of dropped catches, you'd be unlikely to say "Wow, they've been
fielding well" even if the running about, etc., was exemplary. Perhaps
also worth noting that whereas there may well be a couple of examples
of deep fielding per over, there are unlikely to be more than half-a-
dozen close catches per innings. If you exclude routine snicks to the
WK and the trivial catches popped up to short leg and similar, there
are likely to be only one or two "smart" close catches per innings.
Even specialist slips take only ~1 catch [smart or easy] per match.
So it's very hard to get a real handle on how good/bad the catching
has been unless it's egregiously bad.

See also a nearby reply to JZF.

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

On 25/06/2023 14:59, jack fredricks wrote:
> [...] We do have quite decent stats on the amount of spin being bowled.
[...]> I'd happily assume both eras had the same amount of close in fielders
> (even though I do suspect the 50s had more), per over of spin, and
> conclude the era with more spin had more practice as close catchers -
> and were therefore better.

Lot of assumptions behind that "therefore". Players today take
fielding practice a lot more seriously, on the whole, and are typically
fitter/younger.

[...]
> Keep in mind 50s out-fielding was significantly WORSE than today's.
> I've seen the videos RH, don't bother with your rubbish. That's
> because today's training and catching techniques are much better.
> Surely that would also apply to close-in fielding.
> If the 50s catchers were better, it wasn't by much.

I found this very interesting article by Charles Davis from 2016:

https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1056115/tracking-the-misses

Sadly, he has nothing for the '50s and '60s, but such historical data as
he has shows fewer chances missed, at least for Tests, in the modern era.
[Getting decent stats for f-c cricket seems almost impossible.]

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

On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 18:31:44 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 25/06/2023 14:42, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I'm not convinced good close catching gets hailed as part of
>> outstanding fielding: if I think "Wow they've been fielding well",
>> it's much more likely to be because they been fanastic at running
>> about, shrinking fours to singles, throwing accurately from the
>> boundary etc. I'd be more likely to be saying how brilliant the team's
>> /catching/ was.
>
> All true enough. But somewhat on the other hand, if there are
>a lot of dropped catches, you'd be unlikely to say "Wow, they've been
>fielding well" even if the running about, etc., was exemplary. Perhaps
>also worth noting that whereas there may well be a couple of examples
>of deep fielding per over, there are unlikely to be more than half-a-
>dozen close catches per innings.

ObIdiotic: "Yet again Dr B-M shows he hasn't been to an f-c match at
best since 1969 although I won't tell you how I know."

ObCricket: Yes, it's likely that someone who runs about well will not
gain the appreciation they might have if the rest of the team is
apparently doing what they can to lose. It's not fair, but them's the
breaks.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 6:31:52 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 25/06/2023 14:59, jack fredricks wrote:
> > [...] We do have quite decent stats on the amount of spin being bowled.
> [...]> I'd happily assume both eras had the same amount of close in fielders
> > (even though I do suspect the 50s had more), per over of spin, and
> > conclude the era with more spin had more practice as close catchers -
> > and were therefore better.
> Lot of assumptions behind that "therefore". Players today take
> fielding practice a lot more seriously, on the whole, and are typically
> fitter/younger.
>
> [...]
> > Keep in mind 50s out-fielding was significantly WORSE than today's.
> > I've seen the videos RH, don't bother with your rubbish. That's
> > because today's training and catching techniques are much better.
> > Surely that would also apply to close-in fielding.
> > If the 50s catchers were better, it wasn't by much.
> I found this very interesting article by Charles Davis from 2016:
>
> https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1056115/tracking-the-misses
>
> Sadly, he has nothing for the '50s and '60s, but such historical data as
> he has shows fewer chances missed, at least for Tests, in the modern era.
> [Getting decent stats for f-c cricket seems almost impossible.]
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Liszt

Dr B-M in a panic.

The point about close to the wicket catching being weaker today is simply explained: players in the past really specialised in close catching . Now they do not . This expertise allowed John Langridge of Sussex to take 69 catches , from memory, in 1955 at the age of 46. There is also the case of Mickey Stewart of Surrey who too 77 catches from memory in a season in the 195, a figure one short of Wally Hammond;s record of 78.