Another change with the putative but quite possibly real “Revolution of 1959”, which I did not discuss in the two previous posts, is a dramatic decline in the frequency of large innings and match wicket hauls. I have long known that there have been twenty cases of a bowler taking seventeen or more wickets in a match in England, but until recently not a solitary post-World War II instance. I also knew that there were relatively many (I did not count at the time) cases of sixteen wickets in a match, but not one by a non-touring bowler in England between 1957 and 1999. A few years ago I calculated that only three seasons between 1888 and 1960 (1920, 1946 and 1950) had no case of a bowler taking fifteen or more wickets in a match, whereas between 1961 and 1988 there were a mere five such cases by non-touring bowlers in twenty-nine seasons. There was indeed no fifteen-wicket match return by an England-qualified bowler between 1969 and 1993 inclusive. Also, no season between 1888 and 1969 saw no case of a bowler taking nine or ten wickets in an innings, whereas in the 1970s and 1980s there were only a handful of cases.
To test this evidence for a “Revolution of 1959”, I have tabulated all the cases of nine or more wickets in an innings, and of fifteen or more wickets in a match, by “home” (non-touring, not necessarily England-eligible) bowlers. To be more precise, I have also compiled the instances of bowlers taking ten wickets in an innings, and sixteen and seventeen wickets in a match. The data are compiled via the Association of Cricket Statistics and Historians. High totals are shaded in gold, and record totals for a season are bolded.
|
Season |
9+w/i |
10w/i |
15+w/m |
16+w/m |
17+w/m |
| 1836 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1837 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1838 | |||||
| 1839 | 1 | ||||
| 1840 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1841 | 1 | ||||
| 1842 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1843 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1844 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1845 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1846 | 1 | ||||
| 1847 | |||||
| 1848 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 1849 | |||||
| 1850 | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1851 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1852 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1853 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1854 | |||||
| 1855 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1856 | |||||
| 1857 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1858 | 2 | ||||
| 1859 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1860 | 4 | 1 | |||
| 1861 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1862 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 1863 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 1864 | 3 | ||||
| 1865 | 3 | 2 | |||
| 1866 | |||||
| 1867 | 1 | ||||
| 1868 | 3 | ||||
| 1869 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1870 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1871 | 5 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1872 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1873 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 1874 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1875 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 1876 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1877 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1878 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1879 | 1 | ||||
| 1880 | 1 | ||||
| 1881 | |||||
| 1882 | |||||
| 1883 | |||||
| 1884 | |||||
| 1885 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1886 | 4 | 1 | |||
| 1887 | |||||
| 1888 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1889 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1890 | 4 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1891 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 1892 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 1893 | 2 | 3 | |||
| 1894 | 6 | 1 | 4 | ||
| 1895 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 1 |
| 1896 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1897 | 2 | 3 | |||
| 1898 | 3 | 6 | 1 | ||
| 1899 | 6 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 1900 | 6 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 1901 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 1902 | 6 | 2 | |||
| 1903 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 1904 | 6 | 5 | |||
| 1905 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1906 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 2 | |
| 1907 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 |
| 1908 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1909 | 5 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1910 | 5 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1911 | 6 | 1 | |||
| 1912 | 2 | 4 | 1 | ||
| 1913 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1914 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| 1919 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1920 | 5 | ||||
| 1921 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 1922 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 1923 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 1924 | 5 | 1 | |||
| 1925 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1926 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1927 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| 1928 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 1929 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1930 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| 1931 | 6 | 2 | 4 | ||
| 1932 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 1933 | 4 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 1934 | 5 | 2 | |||
| 1935 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 1936 | 6 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 1937 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 1938 | 3 | 2 | |||
| 1939 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 1946 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 1947 | 5 | 6 | 1 | ||
| 1948 | 5 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 1949 | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 1950 | 1 | ||||
| 1951 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1952 | 4 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 1953 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 1954 | 5 | 3 | 2 | ||
| 1955 | 7 | 3 | |||
| 1956 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 1957 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 1958 | 4 | 3 | |||
| 1959 | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1960 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 1961 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1962 | 1 | ||||
| 1963 | 1 | ||||
| 1964 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1965 | 3 | ||||
| 1966 | 3 | ||||
| 1967 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1968 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1969 | 1 | ||||
| 1970 | |||||
| 1971 | |||||
| 1972 | 1 | ||||
| 1973 | |||||
| 1974 | |||||
| 1975 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 1976 | |||||
| 1977 | |||||
| 1978 | 1 | ||||
| 1979 | 1 | ||||
| 1980 | |||||
| 1981 | 1 | ||||
| 1982 | 1 | ||||
| 1983 | |||||
| 1984 | |||||
| 1985 | 1 | ||||
| 1986 | 2 | ||||
| 1987 | |||||
| 1988 | 1 | ||||
| 1989 | 1 | ||||
| 1990 | 1 | ||||
| 1991 | 1 | ||||
| 1992 | |||||
| 1993 | 2 | ||||
| 1994 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1995 | 4 | 1 | |||
| 1996 | 1 | ||||
| 1997 | 1 | ||||
| 1998 | |||||
| 1999 | |||||
| 2000 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 2001 | |||||
| 2002 | 1 | ||||
| 2003 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 2004 | |||||
| 2005 | |||||
| 2006 | 2 | ||||
| 2007 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2008 | |||||
| 2009 | |||||
| 2010 | 1 | ||||
| 2011 | 1 | ||||
| 2012 | 2 | ||||
| 2013 | 1 | ||||
| 2014 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2015 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2016 | 2 | ||||
| 2017 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 2018 | |||||
| 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2021 | 2 | ||||
| 2022 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2023 | 1 |
The table shown above gives, on the whole, more confirmation of a radical change around the late 1950s than the table of spin bowling predominance and wicket hauls in my preceding post noted at the beginning. Evidence of a dramatic reduction in the number of large wicket hauls in England at that time can be clearly seem from the following graph, which tabulates the table above into eleven-season running totals.
 |
| 11-year moving totals of instance of 9 or ten, ten, fifteen or more, sixteen or more and seventeen or more wickets in a match by a non-touring bowler in England. The figures cover seasons from 1836 to 2023, or eleven-year periods centred between 1840 and 2018. |
- low numbers of high wicket hauls up to 1880 when relatively very little first-class cricket was played
- high numbers of high wicket hauls between about 1880 and 1960
- low numbers of high wicket hauls after 1960 when pitches became more completely covered
The fall in frequencies of high innings and match wicket hauls during the late 1950s shown in the graph above is distinctly steep. There were forty hauls of nine or ten wickets in an innings between 1954 and 1964, but only eighteen in the overlapping period from 1961 to 1971 just seven years later. This fall is convincing evidence for a “Revolution of 1959”.
It should be noted that similar changes appear to have occurred in certain other countries. This is especially true of Australia, where very large wicket hauls have always been much rarer than in England, especially amongst spin bowlers, due to the radically different soils and consequently pitches. Ever since the close of the pluvial era from 1886 to 1894/1895 Australian pitches have proved impossible for English spinners. Before the “Revolution of 1959” these bowlers dominated county cricket — yet not one was a significant force in Australia, where the tighter grass binding reduced their gentle rolling spin to slow straight balls with zero deviation.
No spin bowler has taken ten wickets in an innings in Australia since George Giffen in 1883/1884, and no non-touring bowler has taken fifteen wickets in a match in Australia since Leslie Fleetwood-Smith in 1935/1936. In fact, no non-touring bowler took nine wickets in an innings in Australia between 1979/1980 and 2015/2016. Yet, there were quite a few cases of large match hauls in Australia during the interwar years. This suggests that the “Revolution of 1959” — whilst definitely real — was largely due to England’s efforts to counter Bradman’s great 1948 team, who demolished every prolific wicket-taking county spin bowler, and who emphasised strong, deep pace and seam attacks to minimise the ability of batsmen to hit. With bowlers bowling shorter spells, there was less and less opportunity for them to bowl enough to take large numbers of wickets — but at the same time Australian bowlers became much harder to hit than the spin-dominated interwar attacks were. England responded by phasing out most spin and turning to tight, short-of-a-length seam bowling. This helped England win more but made county cricket vastly less entertaining, turning every county into a losing proposition by the 1960s.
No comments:
Post a Comment