A 2nd edition came out in 1938.
This time EW swanton co-authored it with Altham.
Two more editions in 1947 and 1948.
And a final one in 1962 ( two volumes).
A thread on cricket history books.
This is @rohithaashv's idea which came to me via @ovshake42.
A few on general cricket history and then some more on the history in the major cricket playing countries.
One thread is not enough but will try to cover as much as possible.
A 2nd edition came out in 1938.
This time EW swanton co-authored it with Altham.
Two more editions in 1947 and 1948.
And a final one in 1962 ( two volumes).
Then in 1960, Roy Webber's 'Phoenix History of Cricket' was published.
And five years later, John Arlott's 'Rothman's History of Cricket'.
They had their merits but none really comprehensive.
It concentrated beyond the game in Britain and Bowen was not one to indulge in romantic fan fiction....
Trevor Bailey wrote one ( out in 1979) but, like some of his other books, was a touch drab and hardly gave any new information.
In the same year Robin Marlar's book on cricket came out too and failed to make an impression
Wisden themselves gave their name to one written by Vic Marks.
Both came out in 1988.
And very soon there was DR Allen's book on the same subject.
All quite useful but not extraordinary
He initially selected 50,000 images and then narrowed it down to 2000 which were used in this book.
It perhaps tells more about cricket's history than most of the regular ones.
It is very detailed about how cricket developed in the 19th century and the author quite easily showed his grip on the game's history during those times.
It traces the game's development in the social context, right from the 18th century to the IPL days.
Probably the best book on cricket's history among the ones published so far in the 21st century.
It starts with England and though the subjects are somewhat regional, GB Buckley's and John Goulstone's books on early cricket are very well researched.
These being excellent starting points.
So is the Underdown book.
And so is Simon Wilde's recent book.
It has pleasantly surprised a lot of aficionados of cricket literature.
These are the two standard ones.
Jack Pollard wrote a lot but not all of it was good. Still, a good reference book.
The other book is thorough.
The Summer Game is brilliant.
And so is 'Inside Story' ( co-authored with Frith).
It is a history from the Australian Board's perspective.
Exceptionally well researched.
Moyes' book is an usual one. Covers all details but that's just about it.
Whitington probably wrote this because he thought he must write one.
But he couldn't quite get his act together.
MW Luckin's early volumes cover till 1927.
Then Louis Duffus covered the next 20 years.
And Brian Bassano took it till 1960.
Standard stuff.
P.S. Luckin's books are hard to get.
Fairly safe to say that they often tell a different story.
And, of course, Odendaal and the likes of Duffus were pretty different as men too.
But the book that covers the first few years after readmission was written by Colin Bryden.
And recently Arunabha Sengupta wrote this detailed account.
TW Reese wrote the books covering the early days.
Again, hard to find.
Greg Ryan's book tells how cricket became important in New Zealand, much before other sports like rugby.
An important work.
Men In White is a tome.
The Summer Game is less celebrated but a worthy offering.
There are books by the likes of Dick Brittenden which are not standard cricket history but do serve the purpose.
I am not considering CLR James' book for this purpose.
Anyway everyone knows about that.
The book that stands out was written by Michael Manley.
Very informative.
The other book was promising but couldn't quite deliver.
Too much statistics disturbed the balance.
The first name should be Mihir Bose's book. His 'Maidan View' too is very readable.
Then there are Guha's book which everyone knows.
NS Ramaswami wrote a brief history.
So did Edward Docker.
And in the 1960s, LN Mathur wrote one. Scarce.
And so are Sujit Mukherjee's.
A very fine writer.
Richard Cashman, who for a long time taught Indian history, wrote this book when he was more a student of Indian history than cricket.
Detailed.
Kim Baloch's two volumes are essential reading.
Not many knew more about Pakistan's cricket.
The other book, little-known, was published in 1981.
Edited by Omar Kureishi, it examined in depth the state of the game in Pakistan.
Peter Obrone associated with two of them.
White on Green is my favourite.
It tells stories of some lesser known names in Pakistan's cricket.
Very informative.
More from Culture
One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
This is ridiculous. Students were asked for their views on this example and several others. The study findings and conclusions were about student responses not the substance of each case. Could\u2019ve used hypotheticals. The responses not the cases were the basis of the conclusions.
— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) February 17, 2021
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
The UK govt\u2019s paper on free speech in Unis (with implications for Wales) is getting a lot of attention.
— Richard Wyn Jones (@RWynJones) February 16, 2021
Worth noting then that an important part of the evidence-base on which it rests relates to (demonstrably false) claims about my own institution
1/https://t.co/buoGE7ocG7
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
I woke up this morning to hundreds of notifications from this tweet, which is literally just a quote from a book I am giving away tonight.
The level of vitriol in the replies is a new experience for me on here. I love Twitter, but this is the dark side of it.
Thread...
First, this quote is from a book which examines castes and slavery throughout history. Obviously Wilkerson isn’t claiming slavery was invented by America.
She says, “Slavery IN THIS LAND...” wasn’t happenstance. American chattel slavery was purposefully crafted and carried out.
That’s not a “hot take” or a fringe opinion. It’s a fact with which any reputable historian or scholar agrees.
Second, this is a perfect example of how nefarious folks operate here on Twitter...
J*mes Linds*y, P*ter Bogh*ssian and others like them purposefully misrepresent something (or just outright ignore what it actually says as they do in this case) and then feed it to their large, angry following so they will attack.
The attacks are rarely about ideas or beliefs, because purposefully misrepresenting someone’s argument prevents that from happening. Instead, the attacks are directed at the person.
The level of vitriol in the replies is a new experience for me on here. I love Twitter, but this is the dark side of it.
Thread...
\u201cSlavery in this land was not merely an unfortunate thing that happened to black people. It was an American innovation, and American institution, created by and for the benefit of the elites of the dominant caste.\u201d @Isabelwilkerson
— Zach W. Lambert (@ZachWLambert) February 11, 2021
First, this quote is from a book which examines castes and slavery throughout history. Obviously Wilkerson isn’t claiming slavery was invented by America.
She says, “Slavery IN THIS LAND...” wasn’t happenstance. American chattel slavery was purposefully crafted and carried out.
That’s not a “hot take” or a fringe opinion. It’s a fact with which any reputable historian or scholar agrees.
Second, this is a perfect example of how nefarious folks operate here on Twitter...
J*mes Linds*y, P*ter Bogh*ssian and others like them purposefully misrepresent something (or just outright ignore what it actually says as they do in this case) and then feed it to their large, angry following so they will attack.
The attacks are rarely about ideas or beliefs, because purposefully misrepresenting someone’s argument prevents that from happening. Instead, the attacks are directed at the person.
