Oh for the days of quality cricket with real sportsmen. All on the BBC with commentators the likes of Brian Johnson, John Arlott and the 2 players playing in this match: Benaud and the man himself, Jim Laker.
No screaming, no jumping around, no sledging, no off field betting, no bullshit, no 20 twenty.
Why is there no slip fielder when he is bowling around the wicket? Is it a tactic to make the batsman push onto the off-side and so beating the inside edge?
If I recall my facts correctly, the poms under-prepared this pitch and went in with two spinners. The other spinner got the other one wicket to fall. :P
i would of loved it if he took all 20 but even 19 will never ever be done again it's like a bowler getting all 10 wkts 2 matches in a row he must of been some bowler probaly like walsh ambrose wasim waquar and goughie all rolled into one bowler
@DeanWhipper - Not so much a sticky wicket, which is really a wet wicket with a thin dry 'crust' on the top but more a dust-bowl, a mud strip devoid of grass which crumbles quickly as it wears. The end result is much the same though. Quickish finger-spinners are almost unplayable in those situations much as Derek Underwood was on a dodgy track. The difference between these two though is that Laker could slow up and flight the ball on good tracks while Underwood looked tame on good wickets.
@DeanWhipper -England had been beaten badly by Australia's pace attack in an earlier test and it was felt by some, probably correctly, that this wicket was an answer to that, as there were groundsmen out in the center before the game with wire brushes removing any trace of grass on the strip. I've seen footage of it and they look like they're in some sort of Saharan sandstorm. Having said that though, Laker used the conditions perfectly, and is probably the best classical offie to play the game.
@pique62 -Ain't that the truth! I've seen Trevor Bailey speaking on precisely this point ( ABC TV -'Cricket in the '50s' ) and he reckoned that all Lock had to do was to give the ball a bit of air, but apparently every time Laker got a wicket Lock's trajectory got flatter and flatter and he got more and more peeved, all accentuated by a pretty stiff rivalry between them. As you suggested, Lock should have been equally deadly on that track.
I just love these guys who call this village cricket. Having played on some dodgy wickets against some pretty hot bowling when I was a young'un without protective gear I can assure you it wasn't for the faint hearted. There's just no comparison with these modern covered turf wickets that play with the consistency of an astroturf strip.
Nice story my Dad told me about that tour.Len Maddocks was sharing a room with Keith Miller,who of course was sharing a bed with an English women.Maddocks:"Come on Keith,get ready,the bus is about to leave for the ground".Miller:"Just a moment Len, while I pop another one out!".
the gentleman's game which is cricket has seen many records "six sixes in a over", "four wickets in four balls" but we may not see 19 wickets in a first class match is improbable as modern cricket is far more advanced and pitches dont help either.
It would have been really interesting to see the balls in between the wickets, just to see how Laker set his wickets up. He was getting huge turn but if you don't get your line and length right, turn doesn't matter. Laker had great line and length.
i love the lack of celebrations at the fall of many of those wickets. Today there would be a full cavalier charge complete with energetic over the top fist pumping.
@vikesh81 but u should be passionate when you take a wicket, admittedley some people do go over the top but he wsnt celebrating because it wasnt considered cricket
And he took 10 wickets in an innings for Surrey against Australia on the same tour where the pitch offered him nothing..so this disproves claims that he only bowls well when the pitch helps him..
wtf? Cricinfo describes the wicket as 'a turner so raging that Ray Lindwall bowled only two out of 133 overs in Surrey's first innings'. Look at may 16s "Todays Yesterday" or whatever its called.
That's different to a pitch that doesn't turn. Variety is what would've been the batsman's undoing. Laker would have bowled a ton of off breaks that turned square, then slipped in a few straight ones that the batsmen thought would turn and didn't. Playing for turn that isn't there will get you out, rather than playing for turn when there is some.
guess what, according to wikipedia, his wife got hundreds of phone calls after the match saying "congratulations", and when jim got home his wife asked "did you do something good today?".
having seen monty recently destroy our (nz's) hover-on-the-crease-don't-get-forward-out-plumb-lbw batting i reckon laker would still do pretty well in todays game
Yes indeed ,tbone, the absence of high fives and a bit of decent English restraint is a joy to see. The pride comes in the fantastic bowling figures, no need for the leaping about. (Having said which, I find Monty's enthusiasm when he takes a wicket a wonderful contrast to his solemn, intense look when bowling.)
My last three comments don't appear to make any sense because they are all replies to previous comments, but have all come up at the top of the page for some reason. My apologies.
Did anyone else notice how little post-wicket celebration there was ? If that happened today they would organinse a chariot to carry him off the ground at close of play.
In reply to some earlier posts, there were some perfectly good pitches around in England in the 50s (uncovered) but when it rained pitches could become very awkward. Batting on difficult wickets used to be a necessary skill to learn.
Presumably you watch baseball. As a rough guide, 'wickets' are outs (they can be taken 'caught', 'bowled' (hitting the sticks behind the batter), 'lbw' (hitting the batter's leg in front of the sticks), 'run out' (ground out), 'stumped' (ground out by the 'wicketkeeper' (backstop)), and 10, not 3, are needed per innings. Each side has 2 innings per match, meaning that a side generally needs 20 wickets to win. Hence a single 'bowler' (pitcher) claiming 19 wickets in a match is remarkable.
In those days Australians were used to either pace or leg-spin. Against top quality off-spin they were helpless as they didn't face it regularly in Australia as their pitches were unsuitable for it. In this particular match England scored 459 against a pace and leg-spin attack and when Australia batted the pitch offered help to Laker straight away. He took 46 wickets in the series.
Not to take anything way from this "record", but Laker would get spanked for 200 runs without a single wicket in today's game. He wouldn't even be picked for the squad. Sure the pitches were awful, but the game has no room for ordinary off-spin bowlers against amazingly shit batting.
yeah....some bad defense....... i tell you....cricket during old days was different from what it is now..... those bradman/laker records should not be considered....
@tangokiddo if they were around today they would be just as good and dominate, because they wouldn't play like they did back then, they would play according to modern conditions.
So different to today. I love the way the batsmen swiftly pace-walk off the wicket when they're dismissed (most notably the guy on 28 seconds). When he got the 10th wicket they just clapped and walked off :-s And nowadays, umpires don't go for a shit when the bowler's running to bowl.
He's got talent, Adil Rashid. He seems to be going the same way as Cameron White (focussing too much on his batting), but he's still young, that may change.
@englandwc06 wasn't it back then more of a gentleman's game where the upper class society watched? I don't know much about the history of Cricket so could you fill me in please with a little history?
@ShadowGunner82 What you ask is pritty much right, also the crowds were mainly dominated upper class folk because of the ticket prices back then.. "common folk" would'nt of been able to pay that sort of money on a regular basis. Also English cricket used to have teams seperated by there class, therefore used to have teams comprised of "Upper" Class or (Gentleman), and teams comprised of "Lower" Class, back then that seemed to be normal.
he wasnt celebrating, if it was me i'd go round the stadium and getting mad
mustafabintariq 1 week ago
Comment removed
tucojas 1 month ago
jim the most sucesful bowlr tht i have ever watched. no matter our nxt genration w'll ever see this video or not but i w'll not forget this bowlr
havoc5519 6 months ago
Cant see this ever being beaten :-)
steveJ1957 7 months ago
real men played cricket from its 1 st day on earth to the early 1990s! then came demon sledgers, silly duckers, matchfixers and prima donas.
Blackhoundrise 7 months ago
Oh for the days of quality cricket with real sportsmen. All on the BBC with commentators the likes of Brian Johnson, John Arlott and the 2 players playing in this match: Benaud and the man himself, Jim Laker.
No screaming, no jumping around, no sledging, no off field betting, no bullshit, no 20 twenty.
Just quality cricket.
panchopuskas1 10 months ago 3
Why is there no slip fielder when he is bowling around the wicket? Is it a tactic to make the batsman push onto the off-side and so beating the inside edge?
f0b0m 10 months ago
If I recall my facts correctly, the poms under-prepared this pitch and went in with two spinners. The other spinner got the other one wicket to fall. :P
CoolStoryBrosauce 1 year ago
Thats true gentlman way to play a cricket..
harshaare 1 year ago
Jim Laker is my great, great uncle.
Tr3lo8r 1 year ago
i would of loved it if he took all 20 but even 19 will never ever be done again it's like a bowler getting all 10 wkts 2 matches in a row he must of been some bowler probaly like walsh ambrose wasim waquar and goughie all rolled into one bowler
DAJAZDJ1 1 year ago
@DAJAZDJ1 maybe not i never knew he was a spinner m,aybe a mix of warne murali and tufnell and da turbanator
DAJAZDJ1 1 year ago
I can't believe the voice over didn't mention it was a sticky wicket.
Was virtually unplayable
DeanWhipper 1 year ago
@DeanWhipper - Not so much a sticky wicket, which is really a wet wicket with a thin dry 'crust' on the top but more a dust-bowl, a mud strip devoid of grass which crumbles quickly as it wears. The end result is much the same though. Quickish finger-spinners are almost unplayable in those situations much as Derek Underwood was on a dodgy track. The difference between these two though is that Laker could slow up and flight the ball on good tracks while Underwood looked tame on good wickets.
Biggus63 1 year ago
@DeanWhipper -England had been beaten badly by Australia's pace attack in an earlier test and it was felt by some, probably correctly, that this wicket was an answer to that, as there were groundsmen out in the center before the game with wire brushes removing any trace of grass on the strip. I've seen footage of it and they look like they're in some sort of Saharan sandstorm. Having said that though, Laker used the conditions perfectly, and is probably the best classical offie to play the game.
Biggus63 1 year ago
@Biggus63 amazingly the other offie Tony Lock at the other end got one wicket ?
pique62 1 year ago
@pique62 -Ain't that the truth! I've seen Trevor Bailey speaking on precisely this point ( ABC TV -'Cricket in the '50s' ) and he reckoned that all Lock had to do was to give the ball a bit of air, but apparently every time Laker got a wicket Lock's trajectory got flatter and flatter and he got more and more peeved, all accentuated by a pretty stiff rivalry between them. As you suggested, Lock should have been equally deadly on that track.
Biggus63 1 year ago
@pique62
Tony Lock was not an offie. He was slow left arm.
MrHistorian123 2 months ago
@MrHistorian123 of course...missed that one!
pique62 2 months ago
I just love these guys who call this village cricket. Having played on some dodgy wickets against some pretty hot bowling when I was a young'un without protective gear I can assure you it wasn't for the faint hearted. There's just no comparison with these modern covered turf wickets that play with the consistency of an astroturf strip.
Biggus63 1 year ago
Nice story my Dad told me about that tour.Len Maddocks was sharing a room with Keith Miller,who of course was sharing a bed with an English women.Maddocks:"Come on Keith,get ready,the bus is about to leave for the ground".Miller:"Just a moment Len, while I pop another one out!".
nphanlon1973 1 year ago
the gentleman's game which is cricket has seen many records "six sixes in a over", "four wickets in four balls" but we may not see 19 wickets in a first class match is improbable as modern cricket is far more advanced and pitches dont help either.
siva25422 1 year ago
The dismissals themselves were great as well, they were pretty much exactly what you want to see when bowling off-spin around the wicket..
allhailtuna 2 years ago
And we mustn't forget about Tony Lock who took the 20th wicket...
darijoe 2 years ago
excellent stuff that
cowboyup6732 2 years ago
Its amazing ... He gets all 10 and all he does is turn around, take his cap and a few handhsakes - Man!!!
kkarthikjgd 2 years ago 2
Old Jim was certainly deadpan. No histrionics, just a shrug and a nod.
PihaSandDunes 2 years ago
Made good use of the dust bowl
pjilkaxsx 2 years ago
It would have been really interesting to see the balls in between the wickets, just to see how Laker set his wickets up. He was getting huge turn but if you don't get your line and length right, turn doesn't matter. Laker had great line and length.
inxia38 2 years ago
My dad was there.
Never stopped bloody reminding us of it every test match until 1999
RIP old fella
moosey62 2 years ago 22
@moosey62 Most touching comment I've ever read on youtube, well done
DeanWhipper 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Must have been ball tampering.
andyfi 2 years ago
i love the lack of celebrations at the fall of many of those wickets. Today there would be a full cavalier charge complete with energetic over the top fist pumping.
vikesh81 2 years ago 21
@vikesh81 perhaps a little bit more emotion would have been acceptable,he had just taken 10 against the Aussies
suffern63 1 year ago
@vikesh81 I agree. Todays "sportsmen" are an embarrassment. They want a million quid a year to wear a logo !!! Watch the old timers, class acts.
duncans6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vikesh81 I agree. Todays "sportsmen" are an embarrassment. They want a million quid a year to wear a logo !!! Watch the old timers, class acts.
duncans6 1 year ago
@vikesh81 but u should be passionate when you take a wicket, admittedley some people do go over the top but he wsnt celebrating because it wasnt considered cricket
Alexlance1997 3 months ago
Looks to me Funny Cricket.....
taxalian98 2 years ago
Dont think that will ever be beaten ...
steveJ1957 2 years ago 2
I've got a tenner on Swann performing this feat in the upcoming Ashes. Reckon its a sure thing.
gingerjames86 2 years ago
And he took 10 wickets in an innings for Surrey against Australia on the same tour where the pitch offered him nothing..so this disproves claims that he only bowls well when the pitch helps him..
alexblackcap 3 years ago
wtf? Cricinfo describes the wicket as 'a turner so raging that Ray Lindwall bowled only two out of 133 overs in Surrey's first innings'. Look at may 16s "Todays Yesterday" or whatever its called.
f0b0m 2 years ago
Soz you're right...but in his own words "I took half my wickets with balls that didn't turn at all"
alexblackcap 2 years ago
That's different to a pitch that doesn't turn. Variety is what would've been the batsman's undoing. Laker would have bowled a ton of off breaks that turned square, then slipped in a few straight ones that the batsmen thought would turn and didn't. Playing for turn that isn't there will get you out, rather than playing for turn when there is some.
postmanpat09 2 years ago 2
Total Pressure..Laker did what Warney did..
Interesting Tim May was a great Offy as was Ashley Mallett. Spinners generally dont work in a crap side. when you have runs t play with....
timechannel 3 years ago
guess what, according to wikipedia, his wife got hundreds of phone calls after the match saying "congratulations", and when jim got home his wife asked "did you do something good today?".
blitzboy3001 3 years ago
thank u 2 put this video its very rare one
damhere 3 years ago
Well done englandwc06. This is a rare video.
I congratulate you for contributing this video. I will give u 10 star rating if available.
Those days there were no celebrations na!?
inconspicuous007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THE WICKET WAS DOCK! YOU FUCK IN IDIOTS
lilbennyt 3 years ago
having seen monty recently destroy our (nz's) hover-on-the-crease-don't-get-forward-out-plumb-lbw batting i reckon laker would still do pretty well in todays game
mkeysou812 3 years ago
Yes indeed ,tbone, the absence of high fives and a bit of decent English restraint is a joy to see. The pride comes in the fantastic bowling figures, no need for the leaping about. (Having said which, I find Monty's enthusiasm when he takes a wicket a wonderful contrast to his solemn, intense look when bowling.)
oldpaw 3 years ago
My last three comments don't appear to make any sense because they are all replies to previous comments, but have all come up at the top of the page for some reason. My apologies.
BartBassist 4 years ago
but who took the one other wicket what laker dindt
Gilby9733 4 years ago
The Underwood-style slow left-armer Tony Lock, who also played for Surrey.
BartBassist 4 years ago
That would have been an interesting conversation between Lock and Laker, after the match.
Krekket 3 years ago
Did anyone else notice how little post-wicket celebration there was ? If that happened today they would organinse a chariot to carry him off the ground at close of play.
tbone8111 4 years ago
whytf u are watching then ?
pradeepst 4 years ago
In reply to some earlier posts, there were some perfectly good pitches around in England in the 50s (uncovered) but when it rained pitches could become very awkward. Batting on difficult wickets used to be a necessary skill to learn.
cjt1881 4 years ago
As an american I don't know wtf is going on. wtf are wickets? bo legger? wtf?
gswarriorsnum1 4 years ago
Erm, if u dont know what cricket is why are u watching this video? And its "bowled Laker".
polydor7 4 years ago
Presumably you watch baseball. As a rough guide, 'wickets' are outs (they can be taken 'caught', 'bowled' (hitting the sticks behind the batter), 'lbw' (hitting the batter's leg in front of the sticks), 'run out' (ground out), 'stumped' (ground out by the 'wicketkeeper' (backstop)), and 10, not 3, are needed per innings. Each side has 2 innings per match, meaning that a side generally needs 20 wickets to win. Hence a single 'bowler' (pitcher) claiming 19 wickets in a match is remarkable.
BartBassist 4 years ago
Kumble did it again..all 10 vs pakistan in 1999...
sriontube 4 years ago
yeah but he didnt get 19 wickets in the match but still gettin all 10 is an amazing achievement
englandwc06 4 years ago 10
@englandwc06 cool. do you have fazal mahmood's 10 wickets haul vs England 1952?
imthemess 2 months ago
@sriontube the first one wasn't out
77Fortran 1 month ago
In those days Australians were used to either pace or leg-spin. Against top quality off-spin they were helpless as they didn't face it regularly in Australia as their pitches were unsuitable for it. In this particular match England scored 459 against a pace and leg-spin attack and when Australia batted the pitch offered help to Laker straight away. He took 46 wickets in the series.
cjt1881 4 years ago
I would, however, say that Bradman was a class act, but can not, in absolutely any way, be compared to the greats of the modern era.
Gautamiyer2 4 years ago
yep, every1 thinks that bradman is a great player but i disagree, he only smashed the crappiest bowlers
ohyeahohhh 4 years ago
@ohyeahohhh what the fuck would you know, and if that was the case why did no one else of his come even close to the run scoring he produced?
CFAN123 1 year ago
Not to take anything way from this "record", but Laker would get spanked for 200 runs without a single wicket in today's game. He wouldn't even be picked for the squad. Sure the pitches were awful, but the game has no room for ordinary off-spin bowlers against amazingly shit batting.
Gautamiyer2 4 years ago
good point
ohyeahohhh 4 years ago
thats bullshit laker and bradman are class, think of the shit equipment they had to use and the bollacks tracks they played on???
I really can't understand how you can call this shit or village, probably can't even play the game yourself RETARD!!
lazyboywoodhams 4 years ago
yeah....some bad defense....... i tell you....cricket during old days was different from what it is now..... those bradman/laker records should not be considered....
tangokiddo 4 years ago
@tangokiddo if they were around today they would be just as good and dominate, because they wouldn't play like they did back then, they would play according to modern conditions.
CFAN123 1 year ago
There's some awful defensive techniques shown there. That's village cricket.
Adidabest 4 years ago
Better than Warne
KeefFreak71 4 years ago
So different to today. I love the way the batsmen swiftly pace-walk off the wicket when they're dismissed (most notably the guy on 28 seconds). When he got the 10th wicket they just clapped and walked off :-s And nowadays, umpires don't go for a shit when the bowler's running to bowl.
duney 5 years ago
remember the name adil rashid
freddysixhit 5 years ago
He's got talent, Adil Rashid. He seems to be going the same way as Cameron White (focussing too much on his batting), but he's still young, that may change.
BartBassist 4 years ago
Remember the name cameron white.
Remember the name omari banks
Remember the name malinga bandara
f0b0m 3 years ago
Interesting to see he bowled from round the wicket to right handed batsman.
Gullboy 5 years ago
laker went round the wicket because austrailia wasnt used to off spin bowlers round the wicket so they were all crap.
englandwc06 5 years ago
ha ha ha your a stirrer!!!
captcowan 5 years ago
i love to share great cricket videos but back then they didnt really get excited except the fans it almost looks like the didnt even care.lol.
englandwc06 5 years ago
@englandwc06 wasn't it back then more of a gentleman's game where the upper class society watched? I don't know much about the history of Cricket so could you fill me in please with a little history?
ShadowGunner82 1 year ago
@ShadowGunner82 What you ask is pritty much right, also the crowds were mainly dominated upper class folk because of the ticket prices back then.. "common folk" would'nt of been able to pay that sort of money on a regular basis. Also English cricket used to have teams seperated by there class, therefore used to have teams comprised of "Upper" Class or (Gentleman), and teams comprised of "Lower" Class, back then that seemed to be normal.
englandwc06 1 year ago
always wanted to see this. thanks for sharing
transistorized 5 years ago
Shane who?
DJJimbo196 5 years ago
yes. Shane Warne :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDqn043XhQ8 in case you missed him :P
esselo 5 years ago