Brodribb published his book in 1960, but mentions very few giant hits after 1910. It is curious that these claims tend to become more extreme the further one goes back in time. (Brodribb does not make the claims, he just reports them). Brodribb reports many hits, by Thornton and others, that supposedly carried 140 yards or more. On a hard, dry turf, such a shot would have rolled a very long way.īrodribb is more accepting of the claims on behalf of CI Thornton, also a pre-Test player, whose longest hit (again in practice) was said to be 168 yards (154 metres) in 1876. I recall Gary Gilmour in a Sheffield Shield match in the 1970s hitting a low-angle shot so powerful that it literally knocked a picket out of the fence at the SCG (it happened right in front of me). On the right surface, it might well be possible to hit a ball that rolls 175 yards. The promotional purpose of the claim makes it dubious. The shot, which was made in practice, was to publicise a new (but by our standards still primitive) type of bat. However, even as long ago as 1960, cricket historian Gerald Brodribb, in his book Hit for Six, was sceptical about this one, and believed that it was a measure of total length of travel, not the length hit to pitch. The claims from the 19th century are led by a supposed hit of 175 yards (160 metres) by a fellow named Fellows in 1856. There are two periods where hits beyond 120 metres have been reported regularly: back in the 19th century, and more recently, in the past couple of decades. There is nothing really new about this I believe that, historically, exaggeration has always been the norm. Search the web for "long sixes" and you find massive exaggeration. The vast majority of historical sixes have no available measurement, and nor do many modern hits. Unfortunately, the level of interest greatly exceeds the amount of reliable information. The question of who has hit the biggest sixes is one of great popular interest.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |