How do Larwood fans explain this?

[mishra]

Please do verify and let us know. /off-topic Both you and Akshay may like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

6 day match series against india timesss series against wi

[akshayxyz]

Please do verify and let us know. /off-topic Both you and Akshay may like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

^ ++ read that and related stuff on Tesla and Edison, quite some time back. It is sad to know that most text books ( at least NCERT/CBSE stuff) hail Edison as greatest inventor (he was great anyway), and mention Tesla as some not-as-great has-been.

[Crookbond]

6 day match series against india timesss series against wi

I asked - "How many?" earlier. Also, link please. I am curious on this.

[mishra]

I asked - "How many?" earlier. Also' date=' link please. I am curious on this.[/quote'] Where are you going with this? OP was modified to clarify after u posted how many?My point was towards number of days the test match was supposed to last and what could have prompted to decide on that.

[Lurker]

Anybody denying that is simply doing better than Einstein.. So I am not arguing along those lines. I am trying to figure out other factors. One of them being aristrocracy.

First time EVER I heard anybody invoke aristocracy in a discussion on Bradman!! And thats after having participated in over ten thousand seven hundred thrity discussions of such nature. Sure keep looking for newer angles Mishir-ji.:hatsoff::hatsoff:

I believe it started with How dare Larwood.... and then Larwood is great phast bowler beacause he got Bradman cheaply.... Pat on the back of spin doctors who projected this. Fact remains that Larwoods career was finished just in a instant for bowling round the wicket. Are you denying that too.... What would have been impact of that on other bowlers... IF Thomas Edison and his best brains and GE prooved that AC is evil and Tesla is doing satans work then nothing is impossible in aristrocratic class.

Bandhu your logic is so out of whack that mine that I can already see this going into many threads, and I am in mood to waste any more minutes on the same redudant topic. Let me leave you with a point to ponder (perhaps). There are two cricketing nations involved here - England and Australia. English fans are wholeheartedly willing to accept Bradman as the greatest batsman ever, this when they have their own set of great batsman - Hobbs, Hammond, Compton etc. Australians are widely appreciative of Harold Larwood and many of yesteryear fast bowlers of Australia pick Larwood as an inspiration and hero (Ray Lindwall being the prime example). Point being both these nations have NO problems whatsoever with Bradman or Larwood. You can also strecth this to every other cricketing nation on the globe. Till you reach India, and Indians, and then you see everything from Nicholas Tesla to artistocracy to GE being invoked. I am किम्कर्त्व्यविमूढ़ at your smartness. Tum lage raho bhai mere. :yay:

[Nova]

किम्कर्त्व्यविमूढ़ at your smartness.

:hmmmm: yeh word toh bahot bhaari hai

[Crookbond]

Where are you going with this? OP was modified to clarify after u posted how many?My point was towards number of days the test match was supposed to last and what could have prompted to decide on that.

I just want to understand the veracity of your post. Nothing more. Link - http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1930110&postcount=37 Let me quote you once again -

Infact elephant in the room in all this discussion is one question. While England and Aussies were most competetive and played 4 days test matches at the time but why the hell they played 6 days/unlimited days of cricket against Indians and West Indies.

I have a simple questions to understand why you make this argument - [1] How many England vs Australia Test matches were restricted to 4 days? [2] How many Test matches did Australia play against India / West Indies which were 6 days? You must have some sort of an idea or a citation to these points since you pose this as some sort of disparity shown by Australia/England towards India/West Indies not just in terms of power but also in terms of number of days of a Test match.

[mishra]

First time EVER I heard anybody invoke aristocracy in a discussion on Bradman!! And thats after having participated in over ten thousand seven hundred thrity discussions of such nature. Sure keep looking for newer angles Mishir-ji.:hatsoff::hatsoff:

My angle is simple. Organisation benefitting from a Hero like Bradman will keep on selling the idea.

Bandhu your logic is so out of whack that mine that I can already see this going into many threads, and I am in mood to waste any more minutes on the same redudant topic. Let me leave you with a point to ponder (perhaps). There are two cricketing nations involved here - England and Australia. English fans are wholeheartedly willing to accept Bradman as the greatest batsman ever, this when they have their own set of great batsman - Hobbs, Hammond, Compton etc. Australians are widely appreciative of Harold Larwood and many of yesteryear fast bowlers of Australia pick Larwood as an inspiration and hero (Ray Lindwall being the prime example).

Its more of I scratch your back you scratch mine. No one would have even heard of Larwood had he not decided to go round the wicket against Bradman. His record prior to that "Round the wicket series" was nothing to go gaga about. Reason for that being what you see in the OP video.

Point being both these nations have NO problems whatsoever with Bradman or Larwood. You can also strecth this to every other cricketing nation on the globe. Till you reach India, and Indians, and then you see everything from Nicholas Tesla to artistocracy to GE being invoked.

I am separating bradman greatest vs treatment to Larwood at the time. I am not bringing greatness discussion here. All I am saying is series told Larwood his place in the ladder. Thats all. But probably far reaching thing was you can not be Larwood(Get Bradman average below 100) in Bradmans era.. No one went to ask Larwood if Bradman was best batsman he bowled to. Prabhu why not see the other side of story? Fact is Larwood never forgave MCC elites in its role. Please dont confuse modern boards behaviour and makeup with that of ancient one i am talking about.

I am किम्कर्त्व्यविमूढ़ at your smartness. Tum lage raho bhai mere. :yay:

Cricket and greats you are asking me to worship was totally based on Daily Mail/Sun alike sensational reporters. Not buying that.

[mishra]

[1] How many England vs Australia Test matches were restricted to 4 days? .

All england home game were 4 day. Aussie home games were 4 days and one series was 6 days. But all the games finished with 4 days of actual play.

[2] How many Test matches did Australia play against India / West Indies which were 6 days? You must have some sort of an idea or a citation to these points since you pose this as some sort of disparity shown by Australia/England towards India/West Indies not just in terms of power but also in terms of number of days of a Test match.

While @England they played 4 days series 5/6 days series . When it came to their home games Ausiies played timeless series and six days series against England. That may explain why they resorted to timeless series againt WI and six days series against India. May be MCC ABCIC were testing suitable number of days for test cricket But both WI and Indian (5 match) series didnt last more than 4 days each game

[Crookbond]

:banghead: Can we have some numbers please? "All", "some" are very difficult to quantify and your argument would stand invalidated.

[mishra]

:banghead: Can we have some numbers please? "All", "some" are very difficult to quantify and your argument would stand invalidated.

one 4 day one 5 day one six day two time less one six days against England. One six days against india and one timeless against WI. Each series =5 matches

[tothepoint]

I have allways maintained that Larwood was sacrificed just because he got Bradman out by exploiting Bradmans weakness. People probably used to bowl natural swings..... Just by going round the wicket Larwood confused Bradman. Why??? Because Bradman was Hero.. He was catching imagination of people and generating peoples interest towards the game..... He was supposed to score over 100 average everytime he went to bat. Script was allready written by the time Larwood came to bowl.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: So that is the real story. For selling cricket Britishers sacrificed Larwood and their own great batsmen and made an Aussie their hero. :clap: PS : I think you should post more frequently. :hatsoff: PPS : Ramiz Raja>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bradman :agree:

[mishra]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: So that is the real story. For selling cricket Britishers sacrificed Larwood and their own great batsmen and made an Aussie their hero. :clap: PS : I think you should post more frequently. :hatsoff: PPS : Ramiz Raja>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bradman :agree:

Not same as ... Forced to sacrifice...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[tothepoint]

The real story is that MCC/England buckled under threat from none less than the then Aussie Govt. Now feel free to add more embellishments to prop up Larwood so that you can sell this hilarious story of a Govt getting involved in a matter that if it were to happen today would be a cause for large no.of deaths .... I mean deaths due to uncontrollable laughter in Australia itself.

So shall Sachin be blamed that he did not play too many tests against Pakistan considering he has not done so well against them in the past. Shall Sachin be blamed for the BCCI not implementing DRS? Larwood went against the system. Kinda like Kambli. Bradman had nothing to do with it. And what about the other things written on Larwood n co? About the infamous bodyline series, from his cricinfo's profile :- "In the Adelaide Test, Australian exasperation reached white heat as the captain, Bill Woodfull, was struck stunningly over the heart by a lifting ball from Larwood- whose captain cynically switched to the Bodyline field as soon as Woodfull was able to continue - and Bert Oldfield suffered a fracture when edging another Larwood delivery onto his temple. Mounted police mustered behind the pavilion as the masses of spectators hooted and jeered and threatened to storm the field." Can a 70mph bowler do such things? Were the cricket balls made of an altogether different material back then? :hmmm:

[tothepoint]

Not same as ... Forced to sacrifice...

What about Hobbs, Grace, Hammond etc. Why dont they proclaim them as the greatest ever? So much sacrifice trying to satisfy the Aussies. :angelic:

[Tapioca]

[Removed. Out of context]

[Tapioca]

The real story is that MCC/England buckled under threat from none less than the then Aussie Govt. Now feel free to add more embellishments to prop up Larwood so that you can sell this hilarious story of a Govt getting involved in a matter that if it were to happen today would be a cause for large no.of deaths .... I mean deaths due to uncontrollable laughter in Australia itself.

Can't find any specific references saying Australian government was involved in Larwood being sacrificed, but the MCC and the Australian board definitely worked out a compromise where MCC promised that their team would behave well. A series of telegraph messages were exchanged by the boards in 1933. In September, Australian board pointed out that 'the continued practice of leg theory' ... 'would not be in the best interests of the game' to which MCC replied, 'Your team can certainly take the field with the knowledge and with full assurance that cricket will be played here in the same spirit as in the past and with the single desire to promote the best interests of the game'. Larwood hardly played in 1933 because of his leg injury but hardly helped his case with a series of vicious interviews, articles and a book which hardly made fans of Aussies. One of them appears here - http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/68017458

[Tapioca]

He was fit but much slower in 1934. MCC approached him in May through Sir Julian Cahn (patron of Nottinghamshire) and asked him to sign an apology. Larwood refused. A few weeks later a ghosted article in his name made it worse by declaring in his newspaper column that "I refuse to play anymore tests. Politicians trying to hound me out of test cricket. I was fit for the last test. They feared that I would burst the empire ... Australians squealed ... Batsmen who can't face my bowling' Even before the 1936/7 tour of Australia, selector Percy Perrin approached Larwood about an apology and received the same reply. Voce, who was more tactful, was talked into touring by captain Gubby Allen.

[Tapioca]

Lurker is right about him being respected by Australians. The curious thing was that in England, the establishment mostly stayed away from him until he left the country in 1950. Even there, as a journalist, he tried to approach the touring England teams in 1950/1 and 1954/55 he was cold shouldered. On the other hand Australians loved and respected him.