Pondering the latest England squad announcement, it struck me that I could think of very few pace bowlers (i.e. anyone but spinners) who played for counties in the southern half of England. So, crunched a few numbers, and - since Caddick's debut (the most recent southern pace bowler of any stature I immediately thought of) - there have been 436 appearances for England by pace bowlers, of which only 86 were made by players from the nine southernmost counties (20%). Take out the players who played fewer than eight Tests (i.e. less than one summer season) and the situation is even more unbalanced: 62 (S Jones, Tudor, Headley, Mullaly) of 398 (16%). (The number of bowlers who made only one or two appearances is also rather indicative of the state of English cricket for much of this period, although that's another topic.)
So, is this just chance, or is there something more profound at work. Traditionally, English fast bowlers came from the pits of Notts and Yorkshire, but that direct influence hasn't been present for some time; has it left a legacy of promoting the development of pace bowlers (and bear in mind I looked at 'non-spinners' rather than genuine "F"-men)? Is it pitches - the recent Oval isn't likely to produce many quick bowlers, certainly, but is this true across the South? Perhaps it's a class issue: is cricket in the north a more egalitarian (or even, "working-class") game than it is in the south, with everything that has traditionally meant for English cricket in terms of the background of bowlers & batsmen...
One thing was clear, however: reinstituting North vs South matches could be very interesting indeed.
So, is this just chance, or is there something more profound at work. Traditionally, English fast bowlers came from the pits of Notts and Yorkshire, but that direct influence hasn't been present for some time; has it left a legacy of promoting the development of pace bowlers (and bear in mind I looked at 'non-spinners' rather than genuine "F"-men)? Is it pitches - the recent Oval isn't likely to produce many quick bowlers, certainly, but is this true across the South? Perhaps it's a class issue: is cricket in the north a more egalitarian (or even, "working-class") game than it is in the south, with everything that has traditionally meant for English cricket in terms of the background of bowlers & batsmen...
One thing was clear, however: reinstituting North vs South matches could be very interesting indeed.
Comment