Some old bowlers...

[Starfighter]

It's not Knox. If someone has a picture of Knox actually bowling it'd be nice though.

 

[the big bambino]

Is Bill Edrich amongst them? Thinking no. 5

 

[Starfighter]

Yes.

 

[the big bambino]

Ok I always thought Schofield Haigh was an off break bowler but cricinfo calls him fast medium so he's my guess for no. 4.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes. I've always seen him just called medium myself.

 

[Gnske]

(I thought you had me on ignore )

Yes. Now what this poster who I don't remember alleged was that it wold have been easier batting then than now because no-one ever had to face a bowler with a slinging action 'like Johnson'. As you can see that is actually completely opposite the truth, slinging actions were actually a lot more common then than now. Now this actually makes a lot of sense if you think about how bowling evolved. Guys like George Freeman and Frank Tarrant were perceived to be as fast anyone from, say the 1890's such as Tom Richardson, yet bowled with their arms only a little above the shoulder. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about how fast people *actually* bowled then, but just think about the mechanics for a moment. If you merely bring your arm up from your side like most modern bowlers you can only have a very restricted swing that would make it very difficult to bowl fast. If you go behind your back, like Lasith Malinga, you solve this problem. Slinging is the natural way for a roundarmer to bowl fast, and this was carried into overarm bowling an extent, before gradually fading away (I don't know why, though I could speculate). WG Grace in his 1891 book speaks about the idea of not presenting a 'full front' to the batsmen but rather maintaining a side position, because 'the arm and hand are hidden till the last moment'. This can only describe a more slinging action, as side on non-slinging actions like Lillee and Holding don't conceal the ball. The principle seems to have applied to everyone and it's not hard to find spinners who bowl in much the same way, only much slower of course. Nobody really bothered to point out any particular bowler as having a 'slinging' action even though there are some there with their shoulders extended remarkably far beyond that of a modern bowler, yet these days it is considered an unusual and noteworthy trait.

Don't ever respond to me or my posts. I'm dead to you for all I care now.

 

[Starfighter]

Don't ever respond to me or my posts. I'm dead to you for all I care now.

This isn't the way round that most people would put it.

 

[trundler]

Yes. I've always seen him just called medium myself.

Looks like he's dropping a bomb ass mixtape

 

[a massive zebra]

Ok I always thought Schofield Haigh was an off break bowler but cricinfo calls him fast medium so he's my guess for no. 4.

Yes. I've always seen him just called medium myself.

You are both correct. In those days the differences between medium pace and spin bowlers were not as heavily entrenched as in more modern times, and many bowlers span or cut the ball while varying their pace from very slow to fast medium. Here is a pen portrait of Schofield Haigh, taken from H.S. Altham's A History of Cricket:

The last of the triumvirate, Schofield Haigh, never attained quite the distinction of the other two; but, nevertheless, he played a very large part in his counties triumphs, for in ten seasons he headed the county bowling averages in all matches. On fast, true wickets he was not, perhaps, particularly formidable, but when the pitch gave him real help he could be as deadly as any right-hander in history. To astonishing power of finger-spin he learnt to add great control and variety of flight; his fast ball was really fast, his slow "yorkers" equally deceptive. He was an enterprising, exhilarating batsman, good enough to score his 1,000 runs in at least one season, and a fine catch anywhere. But apart from all technical skill, he was a man with a heart of gold: to know him was to respect and to love him. As "Old Ebor" has splendidly said, he was for eighteen years "the sunshine of the Yorkshire eleven."

Reading contemporary literature, Schofield Haigh appears to have been considered as a lesser bowler than the two other great Yorkshire bowlers of his generation, Wilfred Rhodes and George Hirst, because he was considered very conditions dependent. The theory goes: In wet summers he was especially deadly and often came very near the top of the national bowling averages, but in hot dry summers he was relatively ineffective and not to be feared.

The weather index is a mathematical formula using meteorological indices to calculate the quality of an English summer, on a scale from 0 to 1000; the higher the better. Here below are listed the weather index for each year of the first decade of the 20th century along with Haigh's county championship record for Yorkshire:

1900 145 @ 14.16; 620
1901 49 @ 22.08; 707, 6th sunniest summer of the century
1902 123 @ 11.99; 454, 3rd coldest summer of the century, 2nd fewest dry days in any summer of the century
1903 77 @ 18.58; 445, 7th coldest summer of the century, wettest summer of the century
1904 93 @ 20.05; 614
1905 97 @ 14.73; 594
1906 138 @ 13.53; 665
1907 78 @ 11.51; 465, 2nd coldest summer of the century, 4th fewest dry days in any summer of the century
1908 71 @ 12.11; 602
1909 111 @ 12.69; 528

Based on the above I would say the criticism is valid in the early years but he became increasingly consistent as the years went on.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm a tad surprised no-one has gotten no. 3 yet. He was quite famous for sending down a generous ration of bouncers. Also, the last two are from the same reel if that helps.

1: Spofforth 2: Cotter 3: ? 4:Haigh 5: Edrich
6: Voce 7: Crawford 8: Davidson 9: Whitty 10: ? 11:?
12: Kotze 13: Brearley 14: ? 15: Lindwall 16: ? 17: ?
18: ? 19: Copson 20: Johnston 21: ? 22: ?

I'll be staggered if someone gets no. 16

 

[Starfighter]

If you're looking for a really weird action from pre-WWII I'd suggest Warwickshire's Edward Hewetson. Like a cross between Jeff Thomson's arm action and JJ Bumrah's non-use of his front arm. Coaching might have made him a better bowler - he seems to be spraying it quite a bit (and he only took 163 wickets in 66 matches) - but it's those individual things that make the game special, not the more efficient but boring bowling robots that the Sheffield Shield and County Championship seem to be filled with. And he seems to be getting it down at a decent clip, at least for the era.

 

[Pratters]

Looks like he's dropping a bomb ass mixtape

A lot of these close up shots were doing to take photos and not real action shots, so a lot of times, they look odd.

 

[Starfighter]

A lot of these close up shots were doing to take photos and not real action shots, so a lot of times, they look odd.

Pretty sure those are real action shots though, though some seem to have perhaps been done at less than normal pace.

 

[the big bambino]

A lot of these close up shots were doing to take photos and not real action shots, so a lot of times, they look odd.

Cotter and Whitty looked staged and probably the last two as well.

 

[fredfertang]

Is number three Jack Gregory?

George Beldam was a pioneer of action photography, so his photos aren't posed - they've all come from a famous book he collaborated on with CB Fry - Great Bowlers and Fielders - Their Methods at a Glance, which was published in 1907

 

[Starfighter]

Cotter and Whitty looked staged and probably the last two as well.

I don't think so, Cotter's is from here, a photo series that includes him in some non-stageable positions, and Whitty's position is also difficult to stage , and the last two definitely aren't cause I took them from films that showed the particular two bowlers in slow motion.

Staged photos usually have bowlers in some weird, non-dynamic, unnatural pose. Here's some of Cotter, Kortright and King

 

[Pratters]

@FredFertang: Yeah, was thinking that. Need to get that book soon..

 

[Starfighter]

Is number three Jack Gregory?

Yes

George Beldam was a pioneer of action photography, so his photos aren't posed - they've all come from a famous book he collaborated on with CB Fry - Great Bowlers and Fielders - Their Methods at a Glance, which was published in 1907

Thanks Martin. I know there was a series done that a lot of photos come from, but I can never remember the names with it. It's a shame that the photos aren't more widely available - apparently there's 464 plates so that would include quite a few I haven't seen. Perhaps one day I'll be able to get down to one of the state libraries or the national library and take a look.

 

[a massive zebra]

Is number three Jack Gregory?

George Beldam was a pioneer of action photography, so his photos aren't posed - they've all come from a famous book he collaborated on with CB Fry - Great Bowlers and Fielders - Their Methods at a Glance, which was published in 1907

Do you have this, Martin? I've got it's sister publication Great Batsmen: Their Methods at a Glance, which is probably the most visually impressive cricket book I have seen. Unfortunately both these publications are very rare and too expensive for most people. If anyone is looking for something much cheaper and more accessible, this book has hundreds of brilliant photos from the same era.

 

[fredfertang]

Do you have this, Martin? I've got it's sister publication Great Batsmen: Their Methods at a Glance, which is probably the most visually impressive cricket book I have seen. Unfortunately both these publications are very rare and too expensive for most people. If anyone is looking for something much cheaper and more accessible, this book has hundreds of brilliant photos from the same era.

Yes I do, they are lovely books

I don't think it is so much the rarity as the level of demand that keeps prices high, but if anything both books seem to be getting cheaper and if you're not too bothered about the condition I would think you could pick them up for less than £50 each these days - one of them, I'm not sure which but think it's bowlers and fielders, has always been a bit more expensive, although imo that's for the same reason a 1934 Wisden is more expensive ie that's what the dealers want us to believe!