Picture Quiz / Gallery: "Batsmanship"

PeterCS wrote:The One and BM: I quite agree it looks quite idiosyncratic seen through modern eyes (esp Pic 11, of which more later - I have to get some dinner). Hence what I said in the first post of the thread!

And the book was criticised by some as "too theoretical" at the time, and indeed idiosyncratic.

But, even grudgingly sometimes, it was more often widely acclaimed as a sound practical manual to shot selection, good distribution of weight, optimum footwork, wristwork and use of the hands/fingers in the various strokes. John Arlott in his time (1980s!) said it was still the soundest general introduction to the general principles and mechanics of batting, even if fashions had changed, the nature of the game and with those changes, particular stances and shot executions.

We might disagree, of course!

The book was first published exactly 100 years ago.

I'd also probably add that it must've been difficult to hold a decent position and get the camera to capture it in those days. I seriously hadn't heard of a couple of those shots though and I can't really get over how they'd have come about. Really interesting though, Peter, cheers for doing it. Much to my chagrin, I couldn't contribute as much as I'd have liked in either.

You contributed plenty ....

As to what you have just said, Dan, I think you're right .....

both in that the uncovered pitches and wet/sticky wickets must have put good batsmanship at a premium (it also explains why at least a couple of the pictures I've put up demonstrate "emergency shots", to an unpredictable delivery - or more exactly, an unpredicted arrival!),

and that holding such a (sometimes very stilted) pose was no doubt a function of an era where the range of available camera technology was generally not so wide.


Nevertheless, there must have been something notable, perhaps a sort of hallmark, about the bizarre stroke in Picture 11 in particular. There are lots of pictures of it (see below), which suggests it was recognised as "very CB".

I suppose the idea of kicking/flinging the left leg out of the way is to allow exact alignment with the path of the ball, and full weight behind and down on it. Which makes sense, if you can stand the suggestion of epilepsy or something.

Possibly some of the many pictures that appear to show the "back foot defensive" are in fact that "draw" shot (a sort of deliberate Chinese/French cut, it seems), that Wally mentioned in his first post above.





And the altogether strange demonstration to a bemused audience in the nets. Perhaps CB (by now clearly an elder statesman of cricket) is literally playing to the gallery in this one?


The following one seems to be that back foot defensive in Test match action (from a 1907 distance). Facing fast bowler JJ Kotze at Lord's, in South Africa's first Test match abroad:

Yeah, that last picture is madness - very fascinating. It seems like he's always trying to get his front leg out of the way - maybe an LB candidate! That leg movement seems to be as natural to him as Alec Stewart's high knee on the pull shot.

As for Fry's batsmanship generally (as opposed to his book, "Batsmanship") .... to close up this thread, here are a couple more pictures.

As mentioned, Fry was noted as a buccaneering batsman of adventurous flair, who favoured either the leg side (against the snobbish preference of the day for elegant, "gentlemanly" offside play), or the straight drive - and the lofted drive in particular. He became shackled and frustrated by any defensive, predominantly legside field and matching bowling (which was tried successfully agaisnt him on occasions at Test level), as well as becoming even more highly-strung and anxious than normal in some fraught situations, including as captain.

(Unlike Hick or Ramprakash - or Shah!, however, he came up trumps when most needed on several occasions for England.)


I won't bother putting up the best known picture of him demonstrating a lofted straight drive.

But here is another, essentially in the same attacking "groove". Showing his instincts!:

Preparing to take strike - hand-coloured, I fear:



And I just LOVE the big jacket .......

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, that last picture is madness - very fascinating. It seems like he's always trying to get his front leg out of the way - maybe an LB candidate! That leg movement seems to be as natural to him as Alec Stewart's high knee on the pull shot.

I wish I did my homework thoroughly, to know exactly what the LB laws were pre-WW1. (This is where you need Wally or Marty.)

I presume though that if Fry had been born a century later, he would have adjusted his play - and his manual - accordingly, and considerably!


TO answer your implied question more directly ...

In some ways getting your leg over (or rather, one leg out of the way) would surely MINIMISE the risk of LBW! ~ ~ ~ And you could always repeat the pose and dog-wee on the umpire who gave you out .......

And to be fair to Fry, I don't think he cocked his leg all the time - just for that particular blocking shot (or perhaps also for that cocky leg glide though the legs, the "draw"?)

Anyway, nuff said for this celebration of the Mad Oddity of Fry ... who would have left Leela, Bender and even Prof Farnsworth gaping in disbelief.

Nah man, I meant maybe he was an LB candidate and that's why he adopted that strange stance. I can see from one of those pictures that he likes to give it some welly, so it could partially be the old 'clearing the leg cliche.

Or maybe he was just very well endowed.

He should've taped it to his back leg then! I thought he was supposed to be some sort of polymath? Well, he should've known the 'science of a big dongleberry'.

Ewwwwww. Dingleberries on yer dongle? Narrrsteeeee.

PeterCS wrote:Ewwwwww. Dingleberries on yer dongle? Narrrsteeeee.

Mine? Am I CB Fry? He may have lacked the cowardice to stick his dongle in some insalubrious holes, but I, sir, am clarsey.

In that case, you have outPeeled Bobby Peel for ungentlemanly conduct.

I'm so ungentlemanly that I'm a Tom Richardson beamer personified.

I'm the Brett Lee 'oops, sorry' waiting just around the corner.

At least have the decency to hold your hand up when you're smirking.

Well I wouldn't go all 'Steve Kirby' and snarl about it - the magnanimityinme just wouldn't allow it.

Prepare to be consoled by Freddie Flintoff at the next opportunity then ....

Aye, he seems the type. Heard he was being a bit of a wankstain when cycling from Greece to London with Lawrence Dallaglio as well.

And apparently he also said 'Ere, Lawrence, there's no 'I' in cycling... oh'.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

PeterCS wrote:The One and BM: I quite agree it looks quite idiosyncratic seen through modern eyes (esp Pic 11, of which more later - I have to get some dinner). Hence what I said in the first post of the thread!

And the book was criticised by some as "too theoretical" at the time, and indeed idiosyncratic.

But, even grudgingly sometimes, it was more often widely acclaimed as a sound practical manual to shot selection, good distribution of weight, optimum footwork, wristwork and use of the hands/fingers in the various strokes. John Arlott in his time (1980s!) said it was still the soundest general introduction to the general principles and mechanics of batting, even if fashions had changed, the nature of the game and with those changes, particular stances and shot executions.

We might disagree, of course!

The book was first published exactly 100 years ago.

i think it just belongs to its time. cricket back then was of course still a work in progress, with many of the fundamentals we take for granted in modern day cricket still being discovered and perfected. the point about uncovered is certainly a fair one for the defensive strokes and certainly explains a lot of the 'awkwardness', but i find the attacking strokes more intriguing especially the hook and the pull (would love to see any square drives, straight drives, off drives, etc. the only off-side shot was the cut)

the correct stance as shown would also be a rarity today. its more chanderpaul than sangakarra