Is this the oldest footage of cricketers around?

More to the point is there any more pre-1910 cricket footage existing?

Arthur Mold bowling to A.N 'Monkey' Hornby in 1901



The British Film Institute has some great old vids on youtube.

Another here from 1902 - check out the chucker at 2:55!!!

damn! they wouldnt make my school's girl's team

Couple of profiles to go with the footage -

Monkey Hornby, batting in the first clip was born 1847 so was 54 when that was taken.
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/14267.html

He played in 3 tests, including the 1882 test where the Ashes were born
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/62404.html

Arthur Mold was born in 1863, which would have made him 38 in that clip - he also played 3 test matches for England
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/17059.html

Ah, good times. When men were men.

Wow, look at those moustaches!

Demelza wrote:Wow, look at those moustaches!

They look as though they are compulsory

Mold's action was barely roundarm - like Malinga but without the hair!

Interesting footage, if not so much for the cricket as the background stuff, such as the spectators' clothes, the passing steam trains on the first video and the chimneys belching forth smoke on the second.

mynah wrote:Interesting footage, if not so much for the cricket as the background stuff, such as the spectators' clothes, the passing steam trains on the first video and the chimneys belching forth smoke on the second.

If you watch the Ashes footage in 81 - Botham hooks Lillee down to long leg and you can still see trains following the same lines as play is going on.

Think the stands are a bit bigger so would obscure any trains these days. Not a manc so couldn't say if they still run past there or not.

Having watched more non-cricket video of the same era I have to say i'm of the distinct impression that people waddled in the early 1900's rather than walked!

It was interesting footage thanks JKL.

Who was that late 1800's bowler that some lister rated in the top 50 or some number on c4 a few years back?

George Lohmann it was. I argued against his inclusion and was howled down often heatedly.

Pity I didn't have JKL's footage at the time.

Para Batsman wrote:George Lohmann it was. I argued against his inclusion and was howled down often heatedly.

Pity I didn't have JKL's footage at the time.

So, footage of a couple of 40 year old county players means Lohmann wasn't a great? Like watching footage of the Bangers collapsing and deciding that Gilchrist wasn't any good. Oh dear . . .

No.
It means he wasn't in the top 50. No handicaps for era's.

Para Batsman wrote:No.
It means he wasn't in the top 50. No handicaps for era's.

Again, how you decide someone was crap by watching footage of someone else? That'd be like calling all forummers on FB absolute farquits after reading one of your posts . . . .

Resorting to insults means you are losing your argument ask any shrink.

The fact is those shots were very relevant for a logical comparison and Lohmann was a county cricketer also and nearly 20 years earlier. That's it for now Jack I know your moods.

The footage is fascinating but very frustrating from a cricket sense. Why does so much old footage cover the waddling audience and so little show any cricket.

There is certainly not enough here to judge the standard of play, or Mold's action come to that. Mold was obviously bowling with no real effort. He was pushing 40 here and played no FC cricket after 1901, his peak had finished more than 5 years earlier. Even had this footage shown him in his prime you would hardly expect him to be bowling at full pace in a non-training net at someone who hadn't played a FC match for 2 years.

The Lancashire league footage is too distant to really see what was happening.

A bit sobering to think that many of those aged under their late twenties in these pictures would have seen the trenches of WW1.

On pure statistics, George Lohmann has a right to up there with the greatest Test bowlers of all time. Rated by contemporaries as the most difficult opponent, he bowled at little more than medium pace but was able to make the ball seam both ways, and his constant experimentation led to variations in angle, flight and pace. Add into the equation his metronomic accuracy, and he was often unplayable. He was no mean batsman either, fleet of foot and with a good eye, and a brilliant slip fielder. A fair, blue-eyed, handsome man, he was 21 when he first played for England in 1886 and had already made his mark with Surrey. He took one wicket in his first two Tests in 1886, but at The Oval he took 7 for 36 and 5 for 68 as England won by an innings. Thereafter he was a fixture in the side. He took his 50th Test wicket in only his 10th Test, and his hundred in his 16th. On the matting wickets of South Africa he was devastating - in 1896-96 he took 35 wickets in three Tests at 5.80. But in 1892 he contracted tuberculosis, and although spending every winter thereafter in South Africa helped his health, he was a far from well man. He extended his English career until 1896, but he was no longer able to shoulder the burden of bowling which had been his hallmark in earlier years. He emigrated to South Africa at the end of the season, playing two final seasons for Western Province, and he returned to England in 1901 as manager of the South African side. He died later that year aged only 36

Its only fair to cite the source when you lift a whole essay out of cricinfo.

The Authors name came next. I thought I had it sorry. Here we go.



He died later that year aged only 36.
Martin Williamson

Para Batsman wrote:The Authors name came next. I thought I had it sorry. Here we go.



He died later that year aged only 36.
Martin Williamson

No worries Para Batsman.

I'd say Lohmann is definitely worth a spot in the top 50 seamers of all time, along with his contemporaries Spofforth, Turner, Richardson and Lockwood. Mold probably not quite.

It was the top 50 bowlers of all time which of course includes all types right up till three years ago when the list was posted. I remember the writer leaving out Pollock Larwood Qadir Davidson Gibbs etc. There were dozens more mentioned by posters.
A couple stuck up for Lohmann though but they were IMO allowing era handicaps.
The point should be who would say Hayden rather face Lohmann or Ambrose for example.

It is, of course, impossible to tell. When comparing sports stars the only way to do it that has any meaning is to take into account special factors for the era they performed in.

In the case of Lohmann v Ambrose the comparison would be difficult even if they were magically placed in the same team as they were completely different types of bowler - McGrath might be a closer comparison. Hayden has not had to play test cricket against a bowler with McGrath's accuracy and an ability to cut the ball sharply in either direction. Great though Ambrose was, Hayden might find Lohmann harder.

Well put.

Para Batsman wrote:Resorting to insults means you are losing your argument ask any shrink.

The fact is those shots were very relevant for a logical comparison and Lohmann was a county cricketer also and nearly 20 years earlier. That's it for now Jack I know your moods.

Where did I insult you, Para? You're reading too much into my comparison, methinks. I still don't see the comparison between a couple of 40 somethings have a hit and giggle in the nets and Lohamnn's extraordinary test record . . .