Achievers with improper batting stance/bowling act

the DOn himself apparently had an improper stance, and look how well he did in test cricket

Edited by slogger72N/O - 04 January 2007 at 5:52pm

What about Marcus Trescothick, hardly moves his feet at all.

So is Inzi, who doesn't really move his feet much these days. He's basically an eye player with a superb timing. However, one can quote the example of Sehwag, who lacks in feet movement and is suffering a lot due to this technical flaw. He really needs to improve in this area or he's out of the scene.

For most effective yet unorthodox batting stance I cite probably the greatest Batsman to grace the game (yes I know we are all meant to hail the Don, but in my opinion he was second best) Gilbert Jessop.

Some form of relation I imagine shan.

OK let us take the test cricket reference first.  At the turn of the 20th century test cricket was a developing notion - during the major part of Jessop's career there were only three test playing countries and tours were few and far between.  Jessop suffered from chronic motion sickness which prevented him from touring more than once with England. 

His Test match appearances covered the years 1899 to 1912, but the selectors found him a problem; some were ready to regard him as an automatic choice, others regarded him as too much of a gamble.  When considering achievement test cricket is not the defining characteristic.

The average county rate of scoring is about 25 runs an hour per batsman .  The truly great batsmen score at much faster rates - Grace and Hutton scored at 36 runs an hour, CB Fry and FS Jackson at 40, Hobbs, Hendren, Clem Hill and Hammond at 43, JT Tyldesley, Compton, Bradman and MacLaren at 47, McCabe and Ranji at 50, Duleepsinhji, George Cox, Macartney at 52, RE Foster, Trumper and Woolley at 55. The evidence of all Jessop's 179 scores of over 50 (some one in five of all his innings) shows that he scored these innings at a rate of 79 runs an hour. His 53 scores of over 100 were scored at nearly 83 runs an hour. 

He remains the most destructive batsman to grace the game - and this thread relates to top achievers who use unorthodox technique.  His stance at the wicket was utterly misleading; with feet apart, he crouched low, going even lower as the ball was delivered; he held his hands apart on a very heavy bat with a long handle. If you didn't know, you might think he was a grim stonewaller bent on survival. But the moment the ball was delivered he leapt at it like a spring unwinding, and carved it in all directions.

It is well worth remembering that during Jessop's career boundaries were very different beasts.  If the law governing sixes had been amended before 1910 his aggregate would have been considerably increased. Up to that time you had to hit the ball right out of the ground to score a six, and many of Jessop's big hits brought him only four runs. He scored 53 centuries (five of them over 200) and at the time of the end of his career only 13 other batsmen had made a greater number. No less than four times Jessop scored two hundreds in the same match; CB Fry with five times was the only one to surpass this. His average score for innings over a hundred was no less than 140, which compares well with Grace 146, Richards 144, Boycott 140 and Hobbs 134.

Twelve times he reached his hundred within an hour - a feat achieved only about 40 times in the history of the game. His fastest hundred was his 101 in 40 minutes against Yorkshire at Harrogate in 1897 - an innings divided by a lunch interval in the middle of it. In 1907 at Hastings when playing for the Gentlemen of the South against the Players he reached 100 in 42 minutes, and went on to score 191 out of 234 in exactly 90 minutes - an innings which is numerically faster than Alletson's better-known 189 in 90 minutes against Sussex in 1911.

Jessop still holds the record for the fastest double-century ever made, for in his score of 286 he reached 200 in two hours; he also holds second place with 200 in 130 minutes when he scored 234 against Somerset in 1905. In 1901 when scoring 233 in 150 minutes against Yorkshire at Lord's he reached 200 in 135 minutes. In many of his innings he would have scored more had the present law about sixes been in use: in his 191 at Hastings, for instance, he hit five sixes out of the ground, and also hit 11 balls over the ropes. This would have made his score 213 instead of 191.

Ohh - and there is the small matter of 873 1st class wickets at an average of 22 apiece to consider - with 41 five-fors and 4 10 wicket hauls, and just under 500 1st class catches and an average 30 run outs per seasion.

These things are always subjective and Bradman stands out as an extraordinary cricketer, but for me Jessop has the edge. 

He averaged 32 in first class matches, he was just a slogger that sometimes pulled it off, to say he is greater than Bradman is absurd, madness. This is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard in my life. I hope you arent forgetting that Bradman was a fast scorer as well? And about his bowling, bowlers in those days had far better averages than today because the wickets were so terrible. This guy would not make it in to the top 100 players of all time. I am lost for words at this. He averaged 21 in test matches for goodness sake. the best batsman ever? Dear lord, I'm trying to respect your opinion but it is so difficult because it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. better than Bradman, Why dont you say Afridi? He scored at a similar rate and averages something near to that but you dont see anyone saying he's the greatest player do you?

I agree but saying he is better than Bradman really set me off. Not to mention Bradman was and is still the breatest player to play with an unorthodox stance, he appatently had a very open stance.

I'm not saying I wouldnt have killed to see him play but saying he's better than Bradman is far fetched in my opinion. Theres just such a huge difference between them. Jessop rarely made an innings but when he did, I have to admit WOW. Especially that 191, thats remarkable but I still dont rate him as highly as say Javed Miandad or Jack hobbs never mind the Don himself.

Originally posted by 70_degree_spin I agree but saying he is better than Bradman really set me off.

Why - can't you engage in debate or discussion without getting angry?

Originally posted by 70_degree_spin Mate, he averaged 32, he played hundreds of matches and do you think in his obituary they are going to say "This man was rubbish." They are always kind to them in obituaries, even with that west indian cricketer who was hanged after murdering his wife. Saying he is better than bradman is insulting to the Don and I'm not going to accept that you think this slogger is better than the greatest sportsman that ever lived, he ranks with greats like Mohammed Ali, Jim Clark, George Best, Jack nicklaus, Pele and Jonah Lomu. This guy Jessop doesnt. I am at a loss for words I really am.

OK let's sort a few things out - most importantly any understanding that I might be your 'mate' ....... clearly I am not.

Saying he is better than Bradman is presenting an opinion, a considered opinion.  Reacting in your way and slinging insults is childish, but expected.

I also opine that your list of 'greatest sportsmen' needs a little work.

It is a matter of fact that comparison is difficult as there are so many variables, particularly in a complex game such as cricket - but I reserve my right to have an opinion, and will enter willingly into any sensible discussion - but will not entertain a nipper throwing a tantrum and tossing his dummy out of his pram.

If you really are at a loss for words - stop typing them

x

I didn't say you insulted me - did I?

Darts is as much a sport as golf, I rest on that particular issue (save to say Woods is very much the better golfer).

George Best is clearly not a great sportsman, in his short lived career he achieved very little - he is as much a Harmison of the football world as he is a great, all the potential and the talent but with little to show for it.  In terms of footballing greatness there are many greater than Best.

A question then - is average the only determining factor in 'greatness' ..... if, as a tail ender, I contrive to score slowly but sell my wicket dearly, meaning I average, say, 125 over a 40 or 50 test career, does it make me a great batsman with a highest knock of 45?

So not getting out is more important than the rate of scoring?

Brian Charles Lara!!!