NEWS
OTHER SPORTS
DIARY
PEOPLE
MATCH REPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Has the standard of cricket improved?

My answer to the above question is this: 'Unless we believe that cricket has improved we do not believe in progress.'

Every generation adds its quota of knowledge. This applies to any given subject and is more pronounced in science than in any other field.

I have studied the evolution of cricket and have endeavoured to trace its development up to the present day.

At first the implements used were primitive. Bats were shaped something like a hockey stick because bowling was all-underarm. Only two stumps were provided. Wickets were just reasonably level patches out turf. They scarcely needed to be any better.

Our forefathers wore high hats, collars and ties. Wicket-keeping gloves were more like dress gloves. Pads were unknown.

It has been written that 'Hayward Budd, one of the best amateur cricketers in the early part of the 19^th century, stood up to the fastest bowling of his day without any further defence than an extra pair of stockings rolled down so as to prevent his ankles being hit.'

They weren't nylons either.

My only commentary on that is: The fastest bowling of his day couldn't have been fast, and today it is not their ankles the batsmen worry about protecting.

There was a gradual improvement in grounds and wickets. Batsmen began to master the bowlers.

In the period from say 1830 to 1850, it appears that the leading bowlers depended mostly on their accuracy combined with a slight turn from leg -- apparently an evolution from the under-arm period.

Up to this stage the hand could not be raised higher than the shoulder.

Finally, the law was changed to allow over-arm bowling.

This was probably the most significant advance ever made in cricket. It undoubtedly brought about further improvements in equipment, a need for truer wickets, and naturally the curved bat had to be changed to its present form.

I submit that bowling must have improved. Individual talent must blossom at certain intervals and one can only generalise.

People are always to be found who will decry the theory of advancement. As regards bowling, W.J. Hammersley, a cricket authority of his day, writing in the Sydney Mail in 1884, said,: "Is the bowling of the present day superior to that of thirty years ago? My opinion is that it is not. There are a few good bowlers now, but as a rule the bowling of the present day I consider much inferior to that of the past."

According to the late Lord Harris, it was Spoofforth who first taught the bowling of medium-fast off breaks. It would have been well-nigh impossible to bowl fast off breaks keeping the hand below the level of the shoulder.

With this bowling change there must also have come an alternation in the tactics. Field placing and batting styles could not have remained the same.

No doubt the faster bowling set up an agitation which eventually brought sight-screens as well as pads which probably protected the legs.

Scoring was at first by notches on sticks -- not scoring books.

The first match in which printed cards were used showing the state of the game was the Sussex v.M.C.C. fixture at Lord's on June 26^th, 1848.

Now we have in Australia the magnificent boards which give all the detailed information a spectator could desire. The operators even flash a coloured light against the name of the fieldsman handling the ball.

England has not yet decided on the change from score cards and old-fashioned score-boards, but the march of time will, in due course, force this improvement.

In bowling there was the natural field of swing or swerve to be explored. The theory of science of swing has been thoroughly understood for very many years, I doubt whether anything further can be discovered here although from time to time bowlers with some special aptitude will arise.

Similarly, I should think off-break bowling has reached its zenith, and I am quite prepared to concede that off-spinners of fifty years ago might have been just as good as any of the moderns.

The same would apply to medium pacers using variations in pace and such modifications.

Straight-out leg-break bowling of the over-arm variety must have been a decided improvement on the under-arm. Furthermore, it permitted the development of the 'bosey' or 'googly'. For the benefit of the uninitiated, a 'bosey' consists of bowling on off-break with a leg-break action, by the simple expedient of turning the wrist over until the ball is actually delivered out of the back of the hand.

The bosey was a big scientific advancement in bowling, and when first introduced brought a temporary bowling superiority. Batsmen soon advanced their technique to cope with the new terror.

In support of my contention that modern bowling of the legbreak-bosey variety is an improvement upon the old-time technique, is the opinion of Capt. C B Fry.

He played in the 'Golden Age' and then became one of our outstanding critics.

Fry commended the skill of earlier fast bowlers but then added: "Quite a few well-thought-of batsmen of my day would have been perpetually dead birds of the modern leg-break bowling."

I should think further improved methods by bowlers can only come from freak developments.

Bill O'Reilly outshone all his rivals by combining the essentials of accuracy, variations of flight, etc., with the googly and a leg-spinner delivered in a manner peculiarity his own.

The Australian Cecil Pepper, now in the Lancashire League, made the ball turn from the off by some unique method of delivery which even now remains a mystery to me.

There is a bowler in Victoria who has developed a special grip because of an unusually large hand, and it enables him to do extraordinary things.

We shall doubtless hear of other freak bowlers who by their thoughtfulness and ambition will evolve something fresh. They will need to do this whilst still retaining the important attributes of length, direction, stamina, vitality, perseverance and application.

Bowlers today seem inclined to regard practice as a form of exercise instead of an opportunity to work diligently along pre-determined lines for improvement. The great bowlers all had to practice along and hard. Future ones will have to do likewise.

In batting I am led to the conclusion that the principles which were considered orthodox when W G played, still remain the basis on which general play should be encouraged.

Apparently W G was an orthodox player of the old school whose success was due to indefinable factors such as eyesight, co-ordination of muscles, etc.

Ranji brought to the game a touch of genius which from all accounts was based on incredibly keen eyesight. It enabled him to leg-glance balls off the stumps, something no ordinary mortal had previously attempted.

Then Trumper carved for himself a special place in the game, not by result so much (there are many whose figures are an improvement on Trumper's) but by style and daring.

Similarly, who can say my own performances have contributed anything new to the art of batting? Other players could drive, cut, hook and play every, shot in the game. Such intangible assets as concentration, judgement and application cannot very well be measured.

I incline to the view that the most significant change in bating since W G Grace has been from forward play to the modern preponderance of back play.

The latter is less elegant but undoubtedly gives the batsman greater control and a wider range of shots.

The above paragraph must be qualified by adding "on slow wickets", and here the trend has unquestionably encouraged back play.

Perhaps it was this which moved Sam Jones, doyen of Test players, to say recently that he disliked modern batsmanship, even deploring the methods of Hobbs and Hammond compared with Grace and Trumper. Fancy anyone casting aspersions on Hobbs' batting. It was well-nigh the perfect style.

W G was a disciple of forward play and the "firm right foot", so too was Clarrie Grimmett -- the only similarity in their batting I should say.

Grace advised against moving the back foot across in front of the stumps. Practically all modern coaches do the reverse -- as they must, if batsmen are to learn correct back-defensive methods.

Back play brings in its train more on-side play but less driving, and frankly I think cricket would be all the better for a revival of the classical Archie MacLaren style of forward play -- left shoulder down the wicket.

I fear we shall not see it unless (a) wickets become faster and (b) the LBW law is altered so that a batsman can derive no advantage by playing back to a ball pitched outside the off-stump.

A great student of cricket in ACM Croome predicted over thirty years ago that: "The next stage in the evolution of batting will be the perfecting of back play."

How true has this forecast proved!

In regard to wickets, the evidence is not completely reliable. The use of heavier rollers, top dressing and other things brought about decided improvement.

At first the pitch was selected by the captain winning the toss. He would pick an area likely to suit his bowlers. Later on more time was devoted to the preparation of a special wicket for each match.

One reads a lot about shooters and bumpers in the old days. Yet I recently discovered a commentary of 1884 which referred to McAlpine, Curator of the Melbourne Cricket ground, as the champion ground maker. It went on: "His wickets are perfection and his heart and soul are in his work, although his soul is at times sorely vexed at the tremendous wear and tear his beloved wickets have to sustain." No suggestion of shooters on those wickets.

A Sydney writer, sixty-five years ago, wrote a discourse on the standard of cricket in which he claimed more runs were being made because of better wickets. Here is what he wrote: "They get more runs now - how do you account for it? My reply is in the first place grounds are better than they used to be, and the billiard table wickets and the absence of shooters enable a bastsman to hit more than of yore."

The method of preparation plays an enormous part in the type of pitch produced, though other factors also enter the picture.

Australian wickets are, on the average, faster than English. Yet it is not axiomatic. One of the fastest I ever saw was at Cambridge in 1930, and I could quote other examples.

The Manchester and Oval Test pitches of 1938 were only doped imitations of the kind on which cricket should be played. The same stretches of turf in 1948 produced fair and equal opportunities for batsmen and bowlers.

Without any doubt whatever, the Sydney Cricket ground wicket of 1926-1928 was much faster than of recent years.

I remember a long discussion in about 1936 with "Sep" Carter, in which he firmly declared: "Wickets prior to 1914 were very fast and in my opinion as good or even better than those of today."

At Lord's the authorities firmly refuse to allow marl top-dressing which has made a batsman's paradise out of the Nottingham pitch. This is certainly one reason why Lord's usually provides a pitch in which a reasonable balance is struck between batsman and bowler. There have been exceptions as in 1930, when the wicket was a real beauty from a batsman's point of view, but in general Lord's sets an equitable standard.

Curators must be careful to see that batsmen can play strokes with reasonable confidence and that the ball does not fly dangerously. There should be sufficient pace not to blunt the edge of fast bowling and at the same time not to deprive the slow baolwer of all spin. It can be done, and the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant the constant vigilance of administrators.

As for wicket-keeping, we may dispense with the subject quickly. Why, in 1843 a Cambridge undergraduate match was played in which 183 sundries were recorded. Such a happening today would be laughable.

Long stop was at one time an important member of the fielding side. We would now regard it as absurd to employ one.

In all sports there has been an improvement in technique and in tactics. This can't always easily be proved.

Faster times in racing are generally attributed to better tracks.

I invariably fall back upon swimming, in which sports records have been smashed beyond recognition. The water has not changed over the years.

The champion of one era would have been the champion of any other, but he would have been called upon to vary his methods.

This is my view. I think it is the only logical conclusion.

Excerpted from Farewell to Cricket by Don Bradman, 1978, courtesy Rupa Paperbacks.