William Lillywhite

[Trichromatic]

:omg:

[Sidhoni]

:hail: How can that be possible??

[Magneto]

:omg:

:WTF: A bowling Bradman?

[The Outsider]

During his time, it was not necessary to record the number of runs conceded in a scorecard - so the vast majority of those innings would not have runs conceded recorded and cricinfo have probably just divided the number of recorded runs conceded by the number of wickets. Cricinfo should ideally have that footnote, but I doubt they know it themselves. It was not until the 1870s that it became a norm for the number of runs conceded to be recorded in the score book.

[Magneto]

But his strike rate seems to be 9.6. Can that be an error too? They surely recorded number of overs bowled, didn't they? Also, the 2000-odd runs he's conceded, how come that has a record? Did they record 'runs conceded' in a random and arbitrary manner?

[gaurav92]

Unbelievable stuff :omg:

[The Outsider]

But his strike rate seems to be 9.6. Can that be an error too? They surely recorded number of overs bowled, didn't they?

No. Bowling analysis were not recorded at all - just the batting scorecard and mode/bowler of dismissal.

Also, the 2000-odd runs he's conceded, how come that has a record? Did they record 'runs conceded' in a random and arbitrary manner?

Some scorecards had the information recorded, but the vast majority did not. For example, it says he played 237 First Class matches, so there might be full scorecards for around 50 of those from which they've taken the number of runs conceded and overs bowled and calculated the strike rate and average.

[Lord]

his bowling style was also not recorded?

[Viki_J]

:hatsoff: amazing stufff really !!

[Tapioca]

No. Bowling analysis were not recorded at all - just the batting scorecard and mode/bowler of dismissal. Some scorecards had the information recorded, but the vast majority did not. For example, it says he played 237 First Class matches, so there might be full scorecards for around 50 of those from which they've taken the number of runs conceded and overs bowled and calculated the strike rate and average.

[akshayxyz]

even then, 6.5 wickets per match is top class.

[CoverDrive]

most probably they were bowling underarm (over head bowling has late in 1800's on some very dodgy pitches )

[The Outsider]

most probably they were bowling underarm (over head bowling has late in 1800's on some very dodgy pitches )

Interesting that you brought that up - actually Lillywhite was one of the first bowlers to have started bowling round arm regularly. In some matches, the umpires would stop him from bowling and ask him to bowl underarm instead. You are right about the pitches - they were basically strips cut on grass.

[nikred]

Interesting that you brought that up - actually Lillywhite was one of the first bowlers to have started bowling round arm regularly. In some matches' date=' the umpires would stop him from bowling and ask him to bowl underarm instead. You are right about the pitches - they were basically strips cut on grass.[/quote'] So he is a bowling Johnty Rhodes. :--D

[Magneto]

Interesting that you brought that up - actually Lillywhite was one of the first bowlers to have started bowling round arm regularly. In some matches' date=' the umpires would stop him from bowling and ask him to bowl underarm instead. You are right about the pitches - they were basically strips cut on grass.[/quote'] What are you, a cricket historian?:hatsoff:

[carnish]

Interesting that you brought that up - actually Lillywhite was one of the first bowlers to have started bowling round arm regularly. In some matches' date=' the umpires would stop him from bowling and ask him to bowl underarm instead. You are right about the pitches - they were basically strips cut on grass.[/quote'] Outsider bhai... since when have you been watching cricket... cause lily here played in like early 19th century and i guess there wont be too many records of that time yet you knew that he was one of the first bowlers to bowl round arm :hatsoff:

[Lord]

Outsider bhai... since when have you been watching cricket... cause lily here played in like early 19th century and i guess there wont be too many records of that time yet you knew that he was one of the first bowlers to bowl round arm :hatsoff:

certainly not since Lilywhite's time:cantstop:,must hv read a book or something

[Magneto]

May have watched him also ... what if he is one of those people who's been living for centuries ... maybe he's watched Hobbs at Lords, Don at Melbourne, Sobers at Barbados and finally Sachin at Chennai. Maybe he's seen it all. Online, you never know who's who.

[Lord]

May have watched him also ... what if he is one of those people who's been living for centuries ... maybe he's watched Hobbs at Lords' date=' Don at Melbourne, Sobers at Barbados and finally Sachin at Chennai. Maybe he's seen it all. Online, you never know who's who.[/quote']

[The Outsider]

Outsider bhai... since when have you been watching cricket... cause lily here played in like early 19th century and i guess there wont be too many records of that time yet you knew that he was one of the first bowlers to bowl round arm :hatsoff:

May have watched him also ... what if he is one of those people who's been living for centuries ... maybe he's watched Hobbs at Lords, Don at Melbourne, Sobers at Barbados and finally Sachin at Chennai. Maybe he's seen it all. Online, you never know who's who.

People have been writing for centuries and those interested or with too much time at hand(guilty of both at some points in my life) tend to read those things. I can't remember the book I read it in, but was able to find a small feature on cricinfo regarding it:

By 1826, Sussex, the unofficial champions, built their success on two round-arm bowlers - James Broadbridge and William Lillywhite - and confusion grew among players and public about what was allowed. Often it was left to individual umpires, and objections from batsmen facing round-arm bowlers was common.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/248600.html