Who do you think has been Englands greatest cricketer
Daniel Harris
who people think has been Englands greatest cricketer. Batsman,
Bowler what ever?
And why?
I hope someone can help me
Cheers Daniel
h r i p a t h i k a m a t h @hotmail.com Shripathi Kamath
"Daniel Harris" <mad_da...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:89713186.04011...@posting.google.com...
> I am doing some college work on Cricket and I need some appinions on
> who people think has been Englands greatest cricketer. Batsman,
> Bowler what ever?
> And why?
>
IMHO, it would be Hobbs the batsman, Barnes the bowler, and Botham the
all-rounder.
Why? is harder question to answer.
--
Shripathi Kamath
Shishir S. Pathak
news:89713186.04011...@posting.google.com...
> who people think has been Englands greatest cricketer. Batsman,
> Bowler what ever?
Batsman: Hobbs
Bowler: Barnes
Whatever: Flintoff
Cheers,
Shishir
<snip>
Mike Holmans
Harris) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>I am doing some college work on Cricket and I need some appinions on
>who people think has been Englands greatest cricketer.
Either WG Grace or GH Hirst.
But if it has to be based on what they did playing *for England*,
Wally Hammond.
Cheers,
Mike
Jan Buxton
Daniel Harris <mad_da...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I am doing some college work on Cricket and I need some appinions on
> who people think has been Englands greatest cricketer. Batsman,
> Bowler what ever?
The part of me that backs unfashionable achievers would say Sutcliffe or
Barrington, but the safer choice is probably one of Grace, Hammond,
Hobbs or SF
Barnes. So I'll go for Sutcliffe then... :-)
> And why?
Best average of an English batsman scoring 2500+ Test runs, better FC
average than Hobbs as well FWIW.
--
Jan
John Hall
Daniel Harris <mad_da...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>I am doing some college work on Cricket and I need some appinions on
>who people think has been Englands greatest cricketer. Batsman,
>Bowler what ever?
WG Grace.
>And why?
Because without the interest that he generated, cricket might never have
developed into such a major sport. It is said that, after WE Gladstone,
he was the second best known man in England.
--
John Hall Weep not for little Leonie
Abducted by a French Marquis!
Though loss of honour was a wrench
Just think how it's improved her French. Harry Graham (1874-1936)
DiiVolunt
Greatest Cricketer: WG Grace.....made cricket immensley
popular....first super star...54000 first class runs and 2000 odd
wickets...
Greatest Batsman: J Hobbs.... 199 centuries...regal elegance in stroke
play and fantastic efforts on unbattable wickets...
Greatest Bowler: Barnes, Willis, Larwood, Richardson...take your pick
Barnes got 189 wickets in 27 matches..fearsome.. but 83 in 7 were vs.
against bangladeshis, and in 3 ashes he bowled, england won just
one...
Willis...300 plus wickets...all over the globe...most wickets? except
by Botham...why not botham is simple answer: 1st test vs Kiwis 1984...
Larwood....great in bodyline series....the sheer impact of statement
"larwood is bowling today" among the masses...
Richardson....hard working pacer...did not do so badly in tests either
:-)
Won 3 ashes on trot...
Greatest All rounder: Botham or Wilfred Rhodes...
regards
Pranshu B SAxena
Spaceman Spiff
DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
>
> Greatest Bowler: Barnes, Willis, Larwood, Richardson...take your pick
>
> by Botham...why not botham is simple answer: 1st test vs Kiwis 1984...
>
and willis' performance in test 1 vs nz in 1984 was as bad as botham's.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
Well it sounds so sweet I had to take me a chance,
I rose out of me seat Lord, I had to dance,
Started moving my feet, well a clapping my hands.
Jan Buxton
Wisden say 197.
>regal elegance in stroke
> play and fantastic efforts on unbattable wickets...
>
> Greatest Bowler: Barnes, Willis, Larwood, Richardson...take your pick
Trueman was better than Willis surely? Also Laker has to be worthy of
mention (Wardle as well?). And then there's the tricky to evaluate ye
olde days types of Lohmann, Blythe and Peel.
--
Jan
John Hall
Jan Buxton <jan...@OVEeidosnet.co.uk> writes:
>In news:bbe332a3.04011...@posting.google.com,
>DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Greatest Batsman: J Hobbs.... 199 centuries...
>
>Wisden say 197.
That was the traditional figure, and Wisden have stuck with it. I
believe that diligent statisticians some years ago unearthed a couple
more with good claims to first-class status. My sympathies lie with
Wisden. I don't think that players' long-accepted career records should
be adjusted.
>
>>regal elegance in stroke
>> play and fantastic efforts on unbattable wickets...
>>
>> Greatest Bowler: Barnes, Willis, Larwood, Richardson...take your pick
>
>Trueman was better than Willis surely? Also Laker has to be worthy of
>mention (Wardle as well?). And then there's the tricky to evaluate ye
>olde days types of Lohmann, Blythe and Peel.
But as they are all inferior to Barnes (IMO), maybe it doesn't matter
too much.
Mad Hamish
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bu1kdj$3bk$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Jan Buxton <jan...@OVEeidosnet.co.uk> writes:
>>In news:bbe332a3.04011...@posting.google.com,
>>DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Greatest Batsman: J Hobbs.... 199 centuries...
>>
>>Wisden say 197.
>
>That was the traditional figure, and Wisden have stuck with it. I
>believe that diligent statisticians some years ago unearthed a couple
>more with good claims to first-class status. My sympathies lie with
>Wisden. I don't think that players' long-accepted career records should
>be adjusted.
I agree, except for the clear evidence that Jardine lied about
stopping a 4 from Bradman's bat in 32-33...
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Bob Dubery
from being dominant as a player, he was really the first sportsman to
catch the mass conciousness with his exploits on the field. He was at
least the 3rd best known face in Victorian England after the Queen and
the Prime Minister, and possibly he came in at number 2.
Grace was the first sporting superstar, and I would think that only
Compton and Botham have got near to his renown and mass appeal since.
Bob Dubery
> Raising himself from all fours,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> >
> > Greatest Bowler: Barnes, Willis, Larwood, Richardson...take your pick
> >
> > Willis...300 plus wickets...all over the globe...most wickets? except
> > by Botham...why not botham is simple answer: 1st test vs Kiwis 1984...
> >
> why not fred trueman?
Not Fred. He would be ashamed to draw his pay if he bowled the kind of
rubbish that is presented in Test matches in this day and age. He
could have bowled out Boycott's granny with an apple core.
Oh... and he had a big arse.
Vezper
In terms of greatness, IMHO, one is not enough, so here's the complete XI
Jack Hobbs: England's greatest opener
Herbert Sutcliffe: England's greatest opener, partner.
Ted Dexter: As the most stylish and a strokemaker, sorry Mr. Hutton
Wally Hammond: As the greatest batsman that England has seen.
MC Cowdery: Greatest slip fielder, a gentleman and a scholar, I doubt
very much if we ever see a nicer cricketer than MCC.
Basil D'Olivera: As the best non-English born and a very good allrounder.
Ian Botham: England's greatest all-rounder, don't need much IQ to
figure this one
Alan Knott: For the wicketkeeper spot
Harold Larwood: Not as second choice
Fred Trueman: Partner him with Harold and watch the fireworks
Derek Underwood: Simply ask "how many buckets of water do you need Derek
12th man
David Gower: If a left-hander is required he might replace Dexter
all the best,
peter the vezper
Allan Lazrado
What about Len Hutton? I've heard people describing him as the best
opening batsman of his time. How was his technique?
I've got his batting stats from Cricinfo. They seem awesome.
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50
79 6971 364 56.67 19 33
DiiVolunt
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> >
> > Greatest Bowler: Barnes, Willis, Larwood, Richardson...take your pick
> >
> > Willis...300 plus wickets...all over the globe...most wickets? except
> > by Botham...why not botham is simple answer: 1st test vs Kiwis 1984...
> >
> why not fred trueman?
> and willis' performance in test 1 vs nz in 1984 was as bad as botham's.
Freddie Trueman had great fortune to have assistance of good
Brain<sic> statham at other end...strange pair but very
effective....Statham 's 252 wickets compare well with Trueman 's 307
but their pairing makes for a great pack not an individual...also
Trueman was member of three ashes winning sides without being the
stand out bowler, Tyson and Laker have the spoils....in camelot when
you claim to be the greatest you better have ashes in your pouch...
Many times freddie bowled with likes of tyson who were premier pacers
ahead of Trueman....that brings to mind that in thread on forgotten
greats Brian Statham should be listed....Frediie may be demon to
Indians east or west, he was fair sized goblin to aussies...
That test was defining moment for Ian Botham...on a wet dream wicket
for medium pacers, he bowled rank hops and bouncers to hadlee to get
him...he let his personal burgeoning rivalry with Hadlee get in the
way of team 's needs...that ruins his chances and by the way, Mr.
Spaceman you said that Hadlee and Willis have similar figures: Bob
Willis 51/4 in 22 overs and Ian Botham 88/1 in 17 overs...which angle
do they appear same to you man!...
A great bowler is a type of sportsman who would be in pain, zoned out
with exhaustion and his captain asks for one more effort and the great
one tries (may not even succeed)...That was type of bowlers would be
Richardson, Willis,
Barnes or LArwood...though Barnes would bitch about it....Bothma had
to be cajoled...a good captain is needed for that school boy
enthusiasm to become great...
remember Madras test vs Pakistan and kapil close to exhaustion when
gavaskar mopped his brow and lead him to wicket for one more tilt at
the oaks...great photo that one...
regards
Pranshu B SAxena
DiiVolunt
> In news:bbe332a3.04011...@posting.google.com,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Greatest Batsman: J Hobbs.... 199 centuries...
>
> Wisden say 197.
count was 199...i think he personally thought it was close to
200..."people will tell me when i reach it"..tried gamely but could
not do it...
and over years statisticians found 2 more to add to 197...
we are looking for a boundary for Don! and that leg bye in Boycott's
99* was off the bat!!!
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>In terms of greatness, IMHO, one is not enough, so here's the complete XI
>
>Jack Hobbs: England's greatest opener
>Herbert Sutcliffe: England's greatest opener, partner.
>Ted Dexter: As the most stylish and a strokemaker, sorry Mr. Hutton
>Wally Hammond: As the greatest batsman that England has seen.
>MC Cowdery: Greatest slip fielder, a gentleman and a scholar, I doubt
> very much if we ever see a nicer cricketer than MCC.
>Basil D'Olivera: As the best non-English born and a very good allrounder.
>Ian Botham: England's greatest all-rounder, don't need much IQ to
> figure this one
>Alan Knott: For the wicketkeeper spot
>Harold Larwood: Not as second choice
>Fred Trueman: Partner him with Harold and watch the fireworks
>Derek Underwood: Simply ask "how many buckets of water do you need Derek
>
>12th man
>David Gower: If a left-hander is required he might replace Dexter
Nice bait.
Sutcliffe doesn't make it, because Hutton is superior. Dexter doesn't
make it because of May. Compton instead of Cowdrey. Evans instead of
Knott. Wilfred Rhodes instead of Underwood. SF Barnes instead of
either Larwood or Trueman, I don't mind which. And you can junk the
fairly moderate d'Oliveira and have a proper bowler instead, and it
might as well be Laker as anyone else.
So, you managed to get three out of eleven, and still missed out the
greatest of them all, who I assume is unavailable because no-one is
now prepared to meet his outrageous demands of two million quid per
match as "expenses".
Cheers,
Mike
John Hall
Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>On 14 Jan 2004 09:08:30 -0800, vez...@sunguru.com (Vezper) tapped the
>keyboard and brought forth:
>>In terms of greatness, IMHO, one is not enough, so here's the complete XI
>>
>>Jack Hobbs: England's greatest opener
>>Herbert Sutcliffe: England's greatest opener, partner.
>>Ted Dexter: As the most stylish and a strokemaker, sorry Mr. Hutton
>>Wally Hammond: As the greatest batsman that England has seen.
>>MC Cowdery: Greatest slip fielder, a gentleman and a
>>scholar, I doubt
>> very much if we ever see a nicer cricketer than MCC.
>>Basil D'Olivera: As the best non-English born and a very good
>>allrounder.
>>Ian Botham: England's greatest all-rounder, don't need much IQ to
>> figure this one
>>Alan Knott: For the wicketkeeper spot
>>Harold Larwood: Not as second choice
>>Fred Trueman: Partner him with Harold and watch the fireworks
>>Derek Underwood: Simply ask "how many buckets of water do you need Derek
>>
>>12th man
>>David Gower: If a left-hander is required he might replace Dexter
>
>Nice bait.
>
>Sutcliffe doesn't make it, because Hutton is superior.
You're probably marginally right, but it's a close call and I wouldn't
object too much over the choice of Sutcliffe.
> Dexter doesn't
>make it because of May.
Agreed.
> Compton instead of Cowdrey.
Agreed, for all Cowdrey's merit as a slip fielder (especially as there
will still be Hammond in the slips).
> Evans instead of
>Knott.
Another close call. Personally I'd stick with Knott.
> Wilfred Rhodes instead of Underwood.
Again, I think this is very close, once one allows for differences in
conditions between the first years of the 20th century (which is
presumably when you would be picking Rhodes) and the 1970s.
> SF Barnes instead of
>either Larwood or Trueman, I don't mind which. And you can junk the
>fairly moderate d'Oliveira and have a proper bowler instead, and it
>might as well be Laker as anyone else.
Both of these agreed. D'Oliveira strikes me as a rather eccentric
choice. If the OP wants a non-English born player in the XI (as his
remark about d'Oliveira suggests), then I'd suggest Ranji in place of
one of the middle order batsmen.
>
>So, you managed to get three out of eleven,
I think that's rather harsh. I'd rate it as more in the 5-7 region.
> and still missed out the
>greatest of them all, who I assume is unavailable because no-one is
>now prepared to meet his outrageous demands of two million quid per
>match as "expenses".
:)
--
John Hall "Never play cards with a man called Doc.
Never eat at a place called Mom's.
Never sleep with a woman whose troubles
are worse than your own." Nelson Algren
Spaceman Spiff
DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<K6YMb.17003$dp1....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
>>>
>> and willis' performance in test 1 vs nz in 1984 was as bad as
>> botham's.
>
> Freddie Trueman had great fortune to have assistance of good
> Brain<sic> statham at other end...strange pair but very
> effective....Statham 's 252 wickets compare well with Trueman 's 307
> but their pairing makes for a great pack not an individual...also
> Trueman was member of three ashes winning sides without being the
> stand out bowler, Tyson and Laker have the spoils....in camelot when
> you claim to be the greatest you better have ashes in your pouch...
> Many times freddie bowled with likes of tyson who were premier pacers
> ahead of Trueman....that brings to mind that in thread on forgotten
> greats Brian Statham should be listed....Frediie may be demon to
> Indians east or west, he was fair sized goblin to aussies...
>
mention his 27 vs south africa at 22.xx) suggests that he was more than just a
"fair sized goblin".
statham was a great bowler, but he was not in trueman's class.
also- trueman played on only two ashes winning sides. he dd not play in the
54-55 series.
in the 53 ashes series won by england, trueman was still a new guy and played
only one test. he did better than statham in this series.
the 56 series was laker's series. on the spin-friendly wickets trueman played
only 2 tests, but still managed 9 wickets at a healthy average.
in all but one of the ashes series that statham & trueman played together,
trueman performed better than statham.
overall:
trueman averaged 4.58 wickets/test. statham averaged 3.6 wickets/test.
trueman's bowing average was 21.57. statham's was 24.84
trueman's strike rate was 49.4. statham's was 63.7
vs australia:
trueman averaged 4.16 wickets/test. statham averaged 3.14 wickets/test.
trueman's bowing average was 25.30. statham's was 30.98
trueman's strike rate was 55.2. statham's was 78.3
do you still think they are comparable?
are marshall and kapildev comparable?
do you think you might be wrong?
as for tyson:
he played only 17 tests, so no meaningful comparison can be made with trueman.
in fact after 17 tests, trueman's record was very similar to tyson's.
however, trueman and tyson played only two ashes series together.
again the sample size is small, but trueman did better by far than tyson.
tyson's career was too short for him to be a candidate for greatest ever english
fast bowler.
> That test was defining moment for Ian Botham...on a wet dream wicket
> for medium pacers, he bowled rank hops and bouncers to hadlee to get
> him...he let his personal burgeoning rivalry with Hadlee get in the
> way of team 's needs...that ruins his chances and by the way, Mr.
> Spaceman you said that Hadlee and Willis have similar figures: Bob
> Willis 51/4 in 22 overs and Ian Botham 88/1 in 17 overs...which angle
> do they appear same to you man!...
>
go back and look at the scorecard for the first test vs nz in 1984, and tell me
who performed better in the match.
http://tinyurl.com/2seuu
http://statserver.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1980S/1983-84/ENG_IN_NZ/ENG_NZ_T1_20-24JAN1984.html
wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.
i'm still waiting for the first time you admit it, though.
DiiVolunt
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> >
> > Greatest Bowler: Barnes, Willis, Larwood, Richardson...take your pick
> >
> > Willis...300 plus wickets...all over the globe...most wickets? except
> > by Botham...why not botham is simple answer: 1st test vs Kiwis 1984...
> >
> why not fred trueman?
> and willis' performance in test 1 vs nz in 1984 was as bad as botham's.
that is my mistake...i was going by memory...i thought english lost
the first test and then soon willis went home and gower was
captain...but that is pakistan tour where they lost 1st one...maybe
wrong about that too...the kiwi tour they lost the second one
pathetically......but actually what is true for 1st is also true for
2nd regarding Botham's greatness...the press build up for his rivalry
with hadlee saw him concentrate more on his rivalry than
team...showmanship batting...worked in 1st test though 140 odd in 150
balls and showman bowling got hadlee out with a long hop...but he was
concentrating on himself rather than team that stood out....
to comprehend the botham situation of day...it is more like shohaib
akhtar against england in world cup this/last year....bowling at 100
miles an hour playing to crowds and coming back and scoring a fast 40
or 50...pakistan still lost pathetically...even if they won...shohaib
showed who he considered #1 priority....that why i dont consider
Botham great...he could have been though...
to understand anti-theses look at Dravid or Willis..
regards
PRanshu B Saxena
Jan Buxton
OK, question from a statsrat, why are Compton and, in particular, May,
the 'right' choices?
(Name M I NO Runs HS 100s Ave)
Barrington 82 131 15 6806 256 20 58.67
Compton 78 131 15 5807 278 17 50.06
Dexter 62 102 8 4502 205 9 47.89
Hendren 51 83 9 3525 205* 7 47.63
May 66 106 9 4537 285* 13 46.77
I think Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Grace, Hammond, Barrington, Compton would be a
pretty tasty top 6.
--
Jan
Mike Holmans
<jan...@OVEeidosnet.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>In news:q59b00lbmp22l843d...@4ax.com,
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sutcliffe doesn't make it, because Hutton is superior. Dexter doesn't
>> make it because of May. Compton instead of Cowdrey.
>
>OK, question from a statsrat, why are Compton and, in particular, May,
>the 'right' choices?
Because everyone - and I mean everyone - I've ever read or talked to
who played with or against these people would make those choices. Wave
all the stats you like, but I'll go with the judgement of the people
who bowled at them and batted with them, thank you.
Cheers,
Mike
Fran
Here I agree with you. Hammond would surely have to be right up there,
although Hobbs is regarded as the better batsman, notwithstanding his
lower average -- he did face the new ball most of the time. Bearing
this in mind, and the uncovered pitches, maybe Sutcliffe should also
get honourable mention.
Maybe John Snow could feature as a bowler, bearing in mind that his
batting average made him a useful number 9, though Tyson's average was
better (he took far fewer wickets, but took them a little more often
per match.)
It's difficult.
FRAN
Andrew Dunford
"DiiVolunt" <diiv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbe332a3.04011...@posting.google.com...
Oh, you mean the second Test. I was wondering what was so awful about
Botham's five wicket bag and century at Wellington.
Yes, Botham did bowl horribly at Christchurch and was savaged by Hadlee. To
what extent that was the result of personal rivalry rather than declining
powers as a bowler is open to debate.
<snip>
Andrew
Michael Creevey
Not Statsguru?
BTW we have discussed this, and I think it is agreed that Barrington is an
underrated player. I don't think one would lose by substituting Barrington
for May. But there are runs and 'dharma' runs; May is acknowledged as a
player who scored against the best attacks. PWC is better than averages, but
not foolproof. I agree with Mike that evidence of the eyes and evidence of
history is far better than mere numbers, although not to totally discount
those, with the caveat that personal judgements can be distorted somewhat by
various things.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
> In news:q59b00lbmp22l843d...@4ax.com,
snip
> >
> > Sutcliffe doesn't make it, because Hutton is superior. Dexter doesn't
> > make it because of May. Compton instead of Cowdrey.
>
> OK, question from a statsrat, why are Compton and, in particular, May,
> the 'right' choices?
> (Name M I NO Runs HS 100s Ave)
> Barrington 82 131 15 6806 256 20 58.67
> Compton 78 131 15 5807 278 17 50.06
> Dexter 62 102 8 4502 205 9 47.89
> Hendren 51 83 9 3525 205* 7 47.63
> May 66 106 9 4537 285* 13 46.77
>
> I think Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Grace, Hammond, Barrington, Compton would be a
> pretty tasty top 6.
Since they are all dead, I'd say they are a bit old for you, but they say
Compton was rather dashing.
How's that for a sexist remark :-)
BTW Dexter was an awesome player, no doubt, but I feel that it is certain
that May played against superior attacks. Especially against Australia. May
scored runs against Miller, Lindwall and Davidson, whereas Dexter towards
the end was facing bowlers like Tom Veivers.
>
> --
> Jan
>
My team, fwiw, is Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Compton, Grace (I suppose),
Barrington, Rhodes, Knott, Barnes (SF), Trueman, Larwood (Laker)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Yuk Tang
news:bu50j2$dte2s$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de:
> news:bu4gs8$dkr$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> would be a pretty tasty top 6.
>
> Since they are all dead, I'd say they are a bit old for you, but
> they say Compton was rather dashing.
>
> How's that for a sexist remark :-)
Jan is pronounced Yan.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com
Michael Creevey
"Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9471423FC3443...@130.133.1.4...
Ah, I thought Jan was the only female in the group right now, but it appears
that Jan is the only Scandinavian. This is of course without the regular
appearance of Di van Dulken and John-Ivar Skullerud.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
John Hall
Fran <franb...@mail.com> writes:
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2hc800
>> On 13 Jan 2004 07:14:59 -0800, mad_da...@yahoo.co.uk (Daniel
>> Harris) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>> >I am doing some college work on Cricket and I need some appinions on
>> >who people think has been Englands greatest cricketer.
>>
>> Either WG Grace or GH Hirst.
>>
>> But if it has to be based on what they did playing *for England*,
>> Wally Hammond.
>
>although Hobbs is regarded as the better batsman, notwithstanding his
>lower average -- he did face the new ball most of the time. Bearing
>this in mind, and the uncovered pitches, maybe Sutcliffe should also
>get honourable mention.
I would certainly rate Hobbs ahead of Hammond. Test pitches in England,
in particular, were a lot better for batting in the 1930s than they had
been before WW1 or even in the 1920s. (At any rate, that's my strong
impression, though I haven't done any analysis to back it up.) It was
probably the improvement in pitches that made 3-day Tests no longer
sensible, at least against the stronger nations, and led to their
replacement by 4-day matches. Also in Hammond's time, several countries
were just starting out in Test cricket, so that there were some
comparatively cheap runs to be had against them. (For example, Hammond's
triple hundred against NZ.)
>
>Maybe John Snow could feature as a bowler, bearing in mind that his
>batting average made him a useful number 9, though Tyson's average was
>better (he took far fewer wickets, but took them a little more often
>per match.)
Yes, I think that Snow is underrated. His figures are impressive.
>
>It's difficult.
If it was easy, there'd be no fun in attempting it.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones
John Hall
Jan Buxton <jan...@OVEeidosnet.co.uk> writes:
>OK, question from a statsrat, why are Compton and, in particular, May,
>the 'right' choices?
>(Name M I NO Runs HS 100s Ave)
>Barrington 82 131 15 6806 256 20 58.67
>Compton 78 131 15 5807 278 17 50.06
>Dexter 62 102 8 4502 205 9 47.89
>Hendren 51 83 9 3525 205* 7 47.63
>May 66 106 9 4537 285* 13 46.77
Compton was a genius, who could do things that other batsmen couldn't.
His finest hour was probably against Australia in 1948 when against
Lindwall, Miller and Johnston, allowed a new ball every 55 overs (IIRC),
he made two centuries in the series. In the latter part of his career he
was handicapped by a chronic knee injury. Otherwise his figures might be
even more impressive. Also, like Hutton (and Bradman!), he lost six of
what should have been his most productive years to WW2.
The case for May isn't quite so clear cut, but all his contemporaries
agreed that he was a great batsman, and clearly the best English bat of
his time. My impression is that Test pitches were rather worse again in
the 1950s, and certainly he faced some strong attacks. His Test figures
might have been better but for ill-health towards the end of his career.
At county level, given the state of pitches in the 1950s, his average
was quite astonishing.
>
>I think Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Grace, Hammond, Barrington, Compton would be a
>pretty tasty top 6.
It would.
John Hall
Michael Creevey <eusebius...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>BTW we have discussed this, and I think it is agreed that Barrington is an
>underrated player. I don't think one would lose by substituting Barrington
>for May. But there are runs and 'dharma' runs; May is acknowledged as a
>player who scored against the best attacks.
If you were trying to save a Test, you would want Barrington, but if you
were trying to win it then you might prefer May. It may also be a factor
that, after Davidson and Benaud retired in 1962-3, the only really
top-class attack that Barrington had to face was West Indies (and
against them his record was comparatively modest).
Mike Holmans
> Compton was a genius, who could do things that other batsmen couldn't.
My friend the late Peter Judge said the two best batsmen he bowled at
during his career (1933-47) were Bradman and Compton.
The difference was that you could bowl your best possible spell at
Bradman and you wouldn't have the slightest chance of getting him out
but he'd treat the bowling with some respect, whereas Compton could tear
you to bits no matter what you bowled, but you always felt that he would
give you a chance. Bowling at Denis was more frightening, bowling at the
Don just a terrible reminder of your mortality in the presence of a
higher being.
Cheers,
Mike
cwe...@mail.beld.com
Sounds like the difference between Tendulkar and Lara.
--
Chris Weston
Disclaimer -
Fans or dectractors of these players please note that I'm not making any
comparisons of the ability of Lara, SRT, Compton and Bradman, I'm just
commenting on their styles. So calm down.
Michael Creevey
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AFIdBSEW...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> In article <bu5080$e26cq$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Michael Creevey <eusebius...@mailandnews.com> writes:
> >BTW we have discussed this, and I think it is agreed that Barrington is
an
> >underrated player. I don't think one would lose by substituting
Barrington
> >for May. But there are runs and 'dharma' runs; May is acknowledged as a
> >player who scored against the best attacks.
>
> If you were trying to save a Test, you would want Barrington, but if you
> were trying to win it then you might prefer May.
We know that Barrington was generally incredibly slow, but afaic tell May
was often reasonably slow by modern standards (but then most players in the
history of the game would look pedestrian compared with Gilchrist).
Obviously May had all the shots, and played them gloriously at times. One of
the most elegant players ever. However Barrington had all the shots as well,
and was especially proficient at hitting sixes. Just that he didn't use them
all that often.
It may also be a factor
> that, after Davidson and Benaud retired in 1962-3, the only really
> top-class attack that Barrington had to face was West Indies (and
> against them his record was comparatively modest).
> --
> John Hall
Interesting. Actually Graveney's record v WI is quite outstanding, yet he
NEVER appears in any of these lists. I bought a book by Graveney, called
'Top Ten' or somesuch when I was a nipper, and Tom himself rarely selects
himself for any of the lists. I suppose that is to be expected, but he
probably is a little underrated. Mind you he was a bit of a failure v
Australia, a little bit of the Amiss syndrome, however Australia's pace
bowlers in the 60s were a lot less ferocious than those of the mod 70s.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Mike Holmans
> Interesting. Actually Graveney's record v WI is quite outstanding, yet he
> NEVER appears in any of these lists. I bought a book by Graveney, called
> 'Top Ten' or somesuch when I was a nipper, and Tom himself rarely selects
> himself for any of the lists. I suppose that is to be expected, but he
> probably is a little underrated. Mind you he was a bit of a failure v
> Australia, a little bit of the Amiss syndrome,
It was felt that when the going got tough, Graveney got out of the way.
Both Hutton and May had that opinion, although not as virulently as the
real power in the 50s, Gubby Allen. While a few of the incidents cited
against him can and almost certainly should be explained differently,
there are too many others which back it up for the charge not to stick
at all.
However, it doesn't apply to his late flowering after being recalled at
age 35, memories of which tend to help people forget how deeply fallible
he was in the Fifties.
> however Australia's pace
> bowlers in the 60s were a lot less ferocious than those of the mod 70s.
Just shows how far behind culturally Australia were. We in England gave
up on mods by about 1966, in preparation for Flower Power and the hippy
70s.
Cheers,
Mike
Michael Creevey
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Actually Graveney's record v WI is quite outstanding, yet
he
> > NEVER appears in any of these lists. I bought a book by Graveney, called
> > 'Top Ten' or somesuch when I was a nipper, and Tom himself rarely
selects
> > himself for any of the lists. I suppose that is to be expected, but he
> > probably is a little underrated. Mind you he was a bit of a failure v
> > Australia, a little bit of the Amiss syndrome,
>
> It was felt that when the going got tough, Graveney got out of the way.
> Both Hutton and May had that opinion, although not as virulently as the
> real power in the 50s, Gubby Allen. While a few of the incidents cited
> against him can and almost certainly should be explained differently,
> there are too many others which back it up for the charge not to stick
> at all.
>
> However, it doesn't apply to his late flowering after being recalled at
> age 35, memories of which tend to help people forget how deeply fallible
> he was in the Fifties.
Yes, I remember the substance of some of these discussions. Yet, I think its
unfair that he seems totally ignored. He was, apparently, an imperious
player at his best.
>
> > however Australia's pace
> > bowlers in the 60s were a lot less ferocious than those of the mod 70s.
>
> Just shows how far behind culturally Australia were. We in England gave
> up on mods by about 1966, in preparation for Flower Power and the hippy
> 70s.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
:-) You know, I could have easily typed 'mud-70s', since u is as close to i
as o is, if you know what I mean. Mud 70s seems to typify the hippy 70s,
which I experienced at first hand, but fortunately not for very long, since
my mother soon tired of all that stuff, you know, all the getting back to
nature, excessive body hair, and serial nudity. You know, I don't even know
what mods are, but you prove that England was a cultural backwater, since
hippyism was flourishing here by the late 60s.
Mind you, I don't really believe that Flower Power was a cultural advance on
anything, especially as most of the current crop of warmongers probably were
all advocates of 'peace man' at one stage, and that 'peace' was the only
apparently useful thing to come out of all of it.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Tom Boltwood
Vezper
> On 14 Jan 2004 09:08:30 -0800, vez...@sunguru.com (Vezper) tapped the
> keyboard and brought forth:
> Nice bait.
thank you
> Sutcliffe doesn't make it, because Hutton is superior.
The chemistry of Hobbs & Sutcliffe is unmatched not even by Wilfred
Rhodes as replacement of Stu, maybe Hutton was more popular but I
doubt very much if Hobbs would have preferred him over Sutcliffe.
Hutton had an attitude problem, you know, stuck up.
> Dexter doesn't make it because of May.
That's true, Dexter is a wrong choice but I was aiming for a unplugged
X1, you know, the unsung hero like Wyatt, Dexter was a household name
during his era.
May will not make it because of Woolley, Barrington and Gower, as
matter of fact, May maybe in a photofinsh for the fourth place with
Les Ames and Alec Stewart and I don't need a wk/batsman, more on that
later.
> Compton instead of Cowdrey.
Compton can't make it because of Hammond at # 4,Compton is not a # 5,
not only that I need a captain and Cowdery fits the bill perfectly,
granted, he was not the best of skipper but what are my choices, Mike
Brearley for one but I need someone who can score runs, Jardine would
be my choice but I'm afraid I will offend a lot of Aussie, I must be
diplomatic, and picking Hussian would be like scrapping from the
bottom of barrel,yek. Percy Chapman would be the ideal choice and
being LH would be an added bonus.
> Evans instead of Knott.
Like I said earlier, I need a wk but not a batsman/wk, so out goes
Ames and Stewart, however, what I do need is a good wk who can keep
well and if needed save a Test now and then, delay a defeat to honor
ones pride or simply put icing on the cake and that what Knott was all
about., Knott stays.
>Wilfred Rhodes instead of Underwood.
You must be crazy if you think Rhodes would be a better bowler than
Underwood. Keep your marbles Mike instead of letting them scatter all
over this ng, it would have better for you to name Hedley Verity as
replacement for two reason, first, to keep your Yorkshire pride and
ego high(Rhodes for Verity) and secondly, to help you digest that
Yorkshire pudding that seems to stuck up your a*s for quite sometime,
just kidding Mike.
> SF Barnes instead of either Larwood or Trueman, I don't mind which. And you
> can junk the fairly moderate d'Oliveira and have a proper bowler instead, and > it might as well be Laker as anyone else.
Ok agreed, I'll bring in Alec Bedser or Frank Woolley but couple of
thing you should know about so called moderate d'Oliveira. As you may
know he was 35 years old when he made his Test debut for England, I
really don't think anyone in this ‘ng' can name a player from any
country or any era who matches that criterion or the same success that
D'Oliveira has had, anyone, anyone, anyone………….
D'Oliveira also known as Dolly was England best player for five/six
years (1966-1972). Many at times he stood alone as one of England
pride batsman,. He also bowled at medium pace with a nice side-on
action from a few paces moving the ball both ways in the air and off
the pitch, John Arlott @the BBC often referred D'Oliveira as the best
partnerships breaker he had seen. One istance I do recall at Leeds in
1971, dolly playing a pivitol role bye scoring two 70s and when
Pakistan was going for a certain victory duly removing confident Sadiq
Mohammad for 91 and Inty for 4, well played sir.
Many don't know this but Dolly had a huge impact on Imran Khan
although Imran has never acknowledged this but then that's another
story.
>
> So, you managed to get three out of eleven, and still missed out the
> greatest of them all, who I assume is unavailable because no-one is
> now prepared to meet his outrageous demands of two million quid per
> match as "expenses".
Who are we talking about?
Cheers,
Peter
DiiVolunt
> > That test was defining moment for Ian Botham...on a wet dream wicket
> > for medium pacers, he bowled rank hops and bouncers to hadlee to get
> > him...he let his personal burgeoning rivalry with Hadlee get in the
> > way of team 's needs...that ruins his chances and by the way, Mr.
> > Spaceman you said that Hadlee and Willis have similar figures: Bob
> > Willis 51/4 in 22 overs and Ian Botham 88/1 in 17 overs...which angle
> > do they appear same to you man!...
>
> Oh, you mean the second Test. I was wondering what was so awful about
> Botham's five wicket bag and century at Wellington.
>
> Yes, Botham did bowl horribly at Christchurch and was savaged by Hadlee. To
> what extent that was the result of personal rivalry rather than declining
> powers as a bowler is open to debate.
>
> <snip>
>
> Andrew
You should have followed the test and listened to commentary and then
read the various articles in press to understand how much it had
became hadlee vs botham...maybe english press wanted scapegoat for the
horrible defeat...but kiwi press also panned botham for his
bowling....Willis was "disappointed" with Botham...
Hadlee does not mention this in detail in his autobiography but i am
going by memory and i dont remember what he wrote, in the book he
described South Africa vacation with Rice before this series??...
It also had a major impact on his psyche...and Botham was hardly the
player after this test in test cricket... he did come up with an
original innovation in ODIs though...he played as opening slogger in
1985 and slow bowler later on successfully at times...
This was like 2/3rd of his career spot....He played 38 tests including
this test and took just 100 wickets at 2.5 / test...he was taking
almost 5/test before...he was averaging near 40 before this test and
mid twenties after this...
He had like 15 centuries before this test and none after (maybe one in
1987 or was that in ODIs)
Botham of course was member of record 5 ashes winning sides this
century...
No one except Gower has more than 3...(maybe rhodes 1904, 1905?,
1911?, 1926)
Even great Jack Hobbs smiled just thrice in his long career...
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> Raising himself from all fours,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> > "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<K6YMb.17003$dp1....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> >>>
> >> why not fred trueman?
> >> and willis' performance in test 1 vs nz in 1984 was as bad as
> >> botham's.
> >
> > Freddie Trueman had great fortune to have assistance of good
> > Brain<sic> statham at other end...strange pair but very
> > effective....Statham 's 252 wickets compare well with Trueman 's 307
> > but their pairing makes for a great pack not an individual...also
> > Trueman was member of three ashes winning sides without being the
> > stand out bowler, Tyson and Laker have the spoils....in camelot when
> > you claim to be the greatest you better have ashes in your pouch...
> > Many times freddie bowled with likes of tyson who were premier pacers
> > ahead of Trueman....that brings to mind that in thread on forgotten
> > greats Brian Statham should be listed....Frediie may be demon to
> > Indians east or west, he was fair sized goblin to aussies...
> >
> 79 wickets at 25.xx vs australia and 86 wickets at 23.xx vs west indies (not to
> mention his 27 vs south africa at 22.xx) suggests that he was more than just a
> "fair sized goblin".
revelation in 55, and Laker in 56 and aussies conquered all after
that... In context of aussie england tests...The term Demon bowler was
coined for initially Spofforth and then in each series press would
nominate a fast pacer as the "Demon" bowler... till richardson came
and he was a "Titan" as he was not very fast but the best bowler and
then spinners et all started playing a role in ashes... larwood and
tyson comes as examples of word demon burning the telegraph wires
between oz and blighty....
> statham was a great bowler, but he was not in trueman's class.
i never said he was... he was a great support to Trueman...he was
probably a better brain who made up his bowling inadequcies if any by
being the thinking bowler... they bowled well togther...they were a
great hunting pair maybe not like gregory-mcdonald or miller-lindwall
but adequate for tasks... unfortunately they played for weaker side
even at home where they lost to aussies in 61, 64, windies in 63, SA
in 65 (that was end of statham too if i remember correctly...)...
Statham used to test the umpires a lot...he liked three plus fielders
behind the batsman on leg side if he can get away and once an leg
umpire even called him noball for that...
Thus Statham-Trueman may qualify for the greatest pair (botham-willis
will beat them there) but alone neither can challenge the greats like
richardson or willis....
> also- trueman played on only two ashes winning sides. he dd not play in the
> 54-55 series.
ok...still as i said he had no major input in any ashes wins which are
prerequisites for english stardom...
> irrelevant stuff deleted
> do you still think they are comparable?
i never nominated statham for greatest bowler...he might be among
forgotten greats...but that is different thread...
as i never compared trueman or statham...you tell me where i did...
the question the gentleman asked and we were discussing in thread
before you interjected was who is greatest english bowler?
And we were discussing why trueman might not be...
there was never any question or need of comparing trueman with statham
or tyson or laker and neither i did...
their relevance comes in pointing out how they helped trueman and why
trueman was not the premier bowler of his side till 1958 (bedser,
tyson,laker were at different times)...When trueman does became the
premier bowler...England lost at home in 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965 and
you really cannot call a bowler great from a losing side...and this
despite adequate support from Statham...
Richardson had peel but no comparable medium pace support as trueman
had...willis of course had snow, levers, botham, hendricks et all who
were good support to him...
in spaceman spiff's vocabulary, supporting means comparable so let me
clarify
i am not comparing Willis with Botham, Levers, Snow, hendricks,
jackman, Allott, et all..
> are marshall and kapildev comparable?
> do you think you might be wrong?
You are just being an ass and that's all i have to say...
and neither did i nominate Tyson as greatest bowler...you either dont
read properly or you dont understand... or you are just trying to pick
a fight to dirty a very nice thread... and of course you are showing
your ignorance...
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> mad_da...@yahoo.co.uk (Daniel Harris) wrote in message news:<89713186.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> > I am doing some college work on Cricket and I need some appinions on
> > Bowler what ever?
> > And why?
> >
> > I hope someone can help me
> >
> > Cheers Daniel
>
> In terms of greatness, IMHO, one is not enough, so here's the complete XI
>
> Jack Hobbs: England's greatest opener
> Herbert Sutcliffe: England's greatest opener, partner.
Hutton or Sutcliffe is a close call...hate to break up the "Old Firm"
but Hutton definatley if only for his 1951 works...
i dont put in boycott because of that one "test" vs kiwis in 1978...i
dont know which one maybe second when willis asked botham to run him
out to give england a chance to win...
> Ted Dexter: As the most stylish and a strokemaker, sorry Mr. Hutton
Compton, May, i might even ink in Barrington...or Edriches!
> Wally Hammond: As the greatest batsman that England has seen.
undoubtedly...
> MC Cowdery: Greatest slip fielder, a gentleman and a scholar, I doubt
I have soft spot for MCC ...otherwise one of barrington, may and
compton, paynter, Washbrook or Leyland..
> very much if we ever see a nicer cricketer than MCC.
> Basil D'Olivera: As the best non-English born and a very good allrounder.
his record does not compare....put in and this is going to be
conterversial a skipper...and the one you know Mr. Jardine "hailing"
from Bombay...
or Brearley...but people point out his record vs windies!
> Ian Botham: England's greatest all-rounder, don't need much IQ to
> figure this one
> Alan Knott: For the wicketkeeper spot
Nopes! LEG Ames...IMHO
> Harold Larwood: Not as second choice
> Fred Trueman: Partner him with Harold and watch the fireworks
Tom Richardson...or Sid Barnes
> Derek Underwood: Simply ask "how many buckets of water do you need Derek
spinner on all sorts of wickets...Rhodes... with Larwood, Richardson
and Botham bowling, Rhodes and Hammond need just tye up the
batsmen...compton could bolw well too
> 12th man
> David Gower: If a left-hander is required he might replace Dexter
> all the best,
> peter the vezper
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> Michael Creevey <eusebius...@mailandnews.com> writes:
> >BTW we have discussed this, and I think it is agreed that Barrington is an
> >underrated player. I don't think one would lose by substituting Barrington
> >for May. But there are runs and 'dharma' runs; May is acknowledged as a
> >player who scored against the best attacks.
>
> If you were trying to save a Test, you would want Barrington, but if you
> were trying to win it then you might prefer May. It may also be a factor
> that, after Davidson and Benaud retired in 1962-3, the only really
> top-class attack that Barrington had to face was West Indies (and
> against them his record was comparatively modest).
Barrington for his humour alone...maybe make him the manager!
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
Andrew Dunford
news:<h0nNb.17247$ws.20...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > > That test was defining moment for Ian Botham...on a wet dream wicket
> > > for medium pacers, he bowled rank hops and bouncers to hadlee to get
> > > him...he let his personal burgeoning rivalry with Hadlee get in the
> > > way of team 's needs...that ruins his chances and by the way, Mr.
> > > Spaceman you said that Hadlee and Willis have similar figures: Bob
> > > Willis 51/4 in 22 overs and Ian Botham 88/1 in 17 overs...which angle
> > > do they appear same to you man!...
> >
> > Oh, you mean the second Test. I was wondering what was so awful about
> > Botham's five wicket bag and century at Wellington.
> >
> > Yes, Botham did bowl horribly at Christchurch and was savaged by Hadlee.
To
> > what extent that was the result of personal rivalry rather than
declining
> > powers as a bowler is open to debate.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Andrew
>
> You should have followed the test and listened to commentary and then
> read the various articles in press to understand how much it had
> became hadlee vs botham...
Yes, I should have. Unfortunately I suffered the considerable disadvantage
of spending the entire match in the Number 5 Stand at Lancaster Park, and
thus was unable to follow the cricket at all.
<snip>
Andrew
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Thus Statham-Trueman may qualify for the greatest pair (botham-willis
>will beat them there) but alone neither can challenge the greats like
>richardson or willis....
You've made this sort of comment more than once. Willis is almost
certainly somewhat under-rated and deserves to be generally ranked
higher amongst England quicks than most people do, but "one of the
greats"?
I mean, I'd rate Snow marginally higher, and I don't think I'd quite
be prepared to list him as a "great" bowler either.
Since you're obviously no fool, why do you have this exceptionally
high regard for Boring Bob?
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<q59b00lbmp22l843d...@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Jan 2004 09:08:30 -0800, vez...@sunguru.com (Vezper) tapped the
>> keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> Nice bait.
>thank you
I started trying to answer this post, but since you are intent on
excluding numbers 2, 4 and 5 on the list of England's best ever
batsmen, which also includes two of England's best-ever captains, it's
frankly farcical.
Cheers,
Mike
Philip Felton
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
> Raising himself from all fours,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> > "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<K6YMb.17003$dp1....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> >>>
> >> why not fred trueman?
> >> and willis' performance in test 1 vs nz in 1984 was as bad as
> >> botham's.
> >
> > Freddie Trueman had great fortune to have assistance of good
> > Brain<sic> statham at other end...strange pair but very
> > effective....Statham 's 252 wickets compare well with Trueman 's 307
> > but their pairing makes for a great pack not an individual...also
> > Trueman was member of three ashes winning sides without being the
> > stand out bowler, Tyson and Laker have the spoils....in camelot when
> > you claim to be the greatest you better have ashes in your pouch...
> > Many times freddie bowled with likes of tyson who were premier pacers
> > ahead of Trueman....that brings to mind that in thread on forgotten
> > greats Brian Statham should be listed....Frediie may be demon to
> > Indians east or west, he was fair sized goblin to aussies...
> >
> 79 wickets at 25.xx vs australia and 86 wickets at 23.xx vs west indies (not to
> mention his 27 vs south africa at 22.xx) suggests that he was more than just a
> "fair sized goblin".
> statham was a great bowler, but he was not in trueman's class.
> also- trueman played on only two ashes winning sides. he dd not play in the
> 54-55 series.
> in the 53 ashes series won by england, trueman was still a new guy and played
> only one test. he did better than statham in this series.
> the 56 series was laker's series. on the spin-friendly wickets trueman played
> only 2 tests, but still managed 9 wickets at a healthy average.
> in all but one of the ashes series that statham & trueman played together,
> trueman performed better than statham.
>
> overall:
> trueman averaged 4.58 wickets/test. statham averaged 3.6 wickets/test.
> trueman's bowing average was 21.57. statham's was 24.84
> trueman's strike rate was 49.4. statham's was 63.7
>
> vs australia:
> trueman averaged 4.16 wickets/test. statham averaged 3.14 wickets/test.
> trueman's bowing average was 25.30. statham's was 30.98
> trueman's strike rate was 55.2. statham's was 78.3
>
> do you still think they are comparable?
> are marshall and kapildev comparable?
> do you think you might be wrong?
Some of us watched them play! Frequently Statham would be bowling beautifully at one end with the batsmen
not good enough to get an edge and the frustration of the batsman would mount and they'd get out to Fred at
the other end. Fred has said himself that he owed a part of his success to Brian at the other end.
Phil.
kenhiggs8
snip
>
> Interesting. Actually Graveney's record v WI is quite outstanding, yet he
> NEVER appears in any of these lists. I bought a book by Graveney, called
> 'Top Ten' or somesuch when I was a nipper, and Tom himself rarely selects
> himself for any of the lists. I suppose that is to be expected, but he
> probably is a little underrated. Mind you he was a bit of a failure v
> Australia, a little bit of the Amiss syndrome, however Australia's pace
> bowlers in the 60s were a lot less ferocious than those of the mod 70s.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Creevey
I wouldn't say 'never', Michael.
In the thread last week about those poorly remembered by history, Tom
Graveney was my choice.
Well, 2nd choice.
After Ken Higgs
The Hug
David Wheeler
news:6af2bb1.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Creevey" <eusebius...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:<bu5v01$e2k8r$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
he
> > NEVER appears in any of these lists. I bought a book by Graveney, called
> > 'Top Ten' or somesuch when I was a nipper, and Tom himself rarely
selects
> > himself for any of the lists. I suppose that is to be expected, but he
> > probably is a little underrated. Mind you he was a bit of a failure v
> > Australia, a little bit of the Amiss syndrome, however Australia's pace
> > bowlers in the 60s were a lot less ferocious than those of the mod 70s.
> >
> In the thread last week about those poorly remembered by history, Tom
> Graveney was my choice.
> Well, 2nd choice.
> After Ken Higgs
I've never seen 'Gilbert Jessop' spelt that way before...
David
kenhiggs8
snip
>
> Some of us watched them play! Frequently Statham would be bowling beautifully at one end with the batsmen
> not good enough to get an edge and the frustration of the batsman would mount and they'd get out to Fred at
> the other end. Fred has said himself that he owed a part of his success to Brian at the other end.
>
> Phil.
That's as maybe, but to class Fred Trueman as a 'fair sized goblin'
(which, I'm assuming, means a bit of a pie chucker) needs to be taken
with a fair chunk of salt.
DK Lillee was in a somewhat similar position.
I've seen with my own eyes Thommo have a batsman at sixes and sevens,
but not actually taking the scalp. Lillee, at the other end, not
bowling quite so well, often got the wicket of the frustrated batsman.
He admits as much himself.
But I don't think I'd describe Lillee as any size of a goblin*.
The Hug
* Except in the sub continent, where he was clearly huge.
DiiVolunt
Hi,
Maybe because of all the greats i mentioned, i did see him
bowl!....that would stand out in a person's opinion you would
agree....i would like to follow some writers who would talk about guys
beyond their time and add someone they have more info on than in books
and reports...have talked with him... one of my best moments of
watching cricket is fantastic six by yashpal off willis in world cup
semifinal...expression on willis face was great.... He had like
6-2-5-1 something like that and bang over the boundary...next five
were perfect balls and equally well defended by Yashpal...
as for bowling spells by willis, i remember seeing 8/43 of course but
in a cassette... live, he took 5 wickets in 30 overs out of 60 bowled
vs windies in lords? 80....that was impressive...seems he was bowling
whole day and england would have won (maybe Botham would be great
captain!!) if he bowled from both ends...i was very young so he has
remained a favourite since then...and also he took 300 plus wickets...
1982...Willis had good preformances though i also remember one of best
balls i saw was actually botham bowl...clean bowling gavaskar at
lords...great ball...very fast....
unfortunatley...few stirring english preformances i did see does not
include Bothams... i have seen the batting... i was on ground for
malcom's and cork's magnum opii...corky has been a favourite also so
has been caddick...
ellison had good spell once...it could be just county i dont remember
it was 6 wickets for 23 or 85 memory?....i remember it being great
spell IMHO...
Snow was just before my time and his poetry is horrible :-)..."the
tired body bowls"....what....ok... though his bowling is not.... 202
wickets in 49 tests (or am i mentioning thompson's stats:-).. also he
did push SMG:-) in 1971...
I think willis is underrated and if we put a list of greats up...he
would be there to make up the numbers...it is just a honor to be
nominated types...in my opinion he should be there
I did not include Bedser for personal reasons....You might or might
not agree Bedser was probably greatest since world war II but he saw
11 defeats before he tasted victory against the old enemy...so no
ashes triumphs...but then Bedser had no support....also, my
granduncles were great fans of bedser...most of early books i wrote
were by bedser 's contemporaries...they all praise him above all... he
is a great figure in my imagination...more than great almost
mythical... i cried when i learned he was in 11 defeats before that
win....so Bedser being too much of favourite is someone i will not be
able to defend ....how does one prove god 's divinity....
i have seen films of trueman and maybe quality is bad...trick of
recording... he seems slow...i dont know...also trueman 's films i saw
were more of actually those of windies batting in 63 and other BBC
archival footage they show from time to time.....i have seen films of
trumper and don which are even older and there of course the camera
was not very good but probably batting is easier to show than
bowling...
regards
PRanshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
Thats great... but did you not feel the great all rounder rivalry in
the air...Indio-english series in 1981 and 82 became Kapil-Botham
contests.... so did Kiwi-english contests in 83 the Hadlee-Botham
contests...but being right there on ground...what is your opinion... I
was thousands of miles away...
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
Ken Higgs
David Wheeler wrote:
Neither have I.
But I've never seen the name David Wheeler spelt as Stuart Law either.
HTH
The Hug
R. Bharat Rao
> Yes, I should have. Unfortunately I suffered the considerable
disadvantage
> of spending the entire match in the Number 5 Stand at Lancaster Park, and
> thus was unable to follow the cricket at all.
You go Andrew -- you of all people should know that watching matches counts
for *nothing*...
Bharat
Ken Higgs
DiiVolunt wrote:
A media beat up to some extent. Especially effective on those thousands of miles away.
The Hug
Spaceman Spiff
>>
>> vs australia:
>> trueman averaged 4.16 wickets/test. statham averaged 3.14
>> wickets/test. trueman's bowing average was 25.30. statham's was 30.98
>> trueman's strike rate was 55.2. statham's was 78.3
>>
>> do you still think they are comparable?
>> are marshall and kapildev comparable?
>> do you think you might be wrong?
>
> Some of us watched them play! Frequently Statham would be bowling
> beautifully at one end with the batsmen not good enough to get an
> edge and the frustration of the batsman would mount and they'd get
> out to Fred at the other end. Fred has said himself that he owed a
> part of his success to Brian at the other end.
>
bowlers hunt in pairs.
i just question that trueman was a "fair sized goblin". whatever the hell that
means.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
Well it sounds so sweet I had to take me a chance,
I rose out of me seat Lord, I had to dance,
Started moving my feet, well a clapping my hands.
Spaceman Spiff
DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
>>>
>> indies (not to mention his 27 vs south africa at 22.xx) suggests
>> that he was more than just a "fair sized goblin".
>
> Maybe, they were more afraid of bedser in 1953, Tyson was the
> revelation in 55, and Laker in 56 and aussies conquered all after
> that...
>
both the 61 and 64 series were close losses for england.
61 could have been an ashes series win for england, but for the inexplicable
collapse vs benaud.
trueman took 20 in 4 tests there, including 11 at leeds.
> The term Demon bowler was
> coined for initially Spofforth and then in each series press would
> nominate a fast pacer as the "Demon" bowler... till richardson came
> and he was a "Titan" as he was not very fast but the best bowler and
> then spinners et all started playing a role in ashes... larwood and
> tyson comes as examples of word demon burning the telegraph wires
> between oz and blighty....
>
this is common knowledge. try not stating the obvious.
>> statham was a great bowler, but he was not in trueman's class.
>> irrelevant stuff deleted
>> do you still think they are comparable?
>
> as i never compared trueman or statham...you tell me where i did...
umm... when you said that
>> [snip] Statham 's 252 wickets compare well with Trueman 's 307 [snip]
do kapildev's 434 wickets compare well with hadlee's 431?
> When trueman does became the
> premier bowler...England lost at home in 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965 and
> you really cannot call a bowler great from a losing side...and this
> despite adequate support from Statham...
>
but the person you tout as the greatest, bob willis, was fortunate to play
against one of the weakest aussie teams in 77.
trueman had no such luck.
in 81 willis was the supporting bowler to botham, who had by far the better
series.
if willis hadn't picked up that 8-43, he would have had a very poor series
indeed.
in fact, he helped the aussie cause by gifting them 138 free runs off no-balls.
> in spaceman spiff's vocabulary, supporting means comparable so let me
> clarify
when you say "compare with" it means comparable. ok?
if you want to say supporting, say supporting.
i see that you still haven't registered for that remedial english class.
> i am not comparing Willis with Botham, Levers, Snow, hendricks,
> jackman, Allott, et all..
>
did you forget when you compared willis with botham with reference to the test
in new zealand?
>> are marshall and kapildev comparable?
>> do you think you might be wrong?
>
> You are just being an ass and that's all i have to say...
> and neither did i nominate Tyson as greatest bowler...you either dont
> read properly or you dont understand...
if you write what you mean, i will understand.
if you make incorrect statements, you will be challenged on them.
like it or leave it.
> or you are just trying to pick
> a fight to dirty a very nice thread...
see above. make incorrect statements and you will be challenged.
i will not dispute any fair or correct statement.
> and of course you are showing
> your ignorance...
>
tell me one thing i said that is wrong.
and then we will count the things that you said which are wrong.
then we'll know who's ignorant.
h r i p a t h i k a m a t h @hotmail.com Shripathi Kamath
<snip>
> i just question that trueman was a "fair sized goblin". whatever the hell
that
> means.
>
Freddie Flintoff: big-ass goblin
Freddie Kruger: evil goblin (who'll kick Jason's ass)
Freddie Perry: plain old goblin (kicked major ass)
Kelly Osbourne: sported a Freddie once
Freddie Trueman: fair sized goblin (reputedly had a big ass)
HTH,
--
Shripathi Kamath
Bob Dubery
> Some of us watched them play! Frequently Statham would be bowling beautifully at one end with the batsmen
> not good enough to get an edge and the frustration of the batsman would mount and they'd get out to Fred at
> the other end. Fred has said himself that he owed a part of his success to Brian at the other end.
>
Often bowlers owe a debt to the guy at the other end - and usually
they'll be honest enough to admit it.
I recall watching the great Transvaal side of the 80s. The demon in
the attack was Sylvester Clarke, but he could and often had to do more
than just blast the opposition out. Often the batsmen were taking no
chances against Sly. He'd be creating pressure at one end, and, as
Phil says, the guy at the other end would get the wickets because the
batsmen were frustrated by Clarke and also because the guy at the
other end WASN'T Clarke and thus the physical threat wasn't there. The
likes of Page, Radford, Rice and Hanley knew that they owed wickets to
Clarke and said so.
Or it might happen that Clarke was resting down at 3rd man and, say,
Rice and Page would be on. Pagey starts looking sharp at one end, his
line and length are good and the batsman has nothing to hit, now Rice
gets a couple.
It happens like that with good attacks, and all the beneficiaries, if
they're good team men, know it and recognise it.
Spaceman Spiff
> news:<h0nNb.17247$ws.20...@news02.tsnz.net>...
>>
>> Hadlee. To what extent that was the result of personal rivalry
>> rather than declining powers as a bowler is open to debate.
>>
>
> player after this test in test cricket... he did come up with an
> original innovation in ODIs though...he played as opening slogger in
> 1985 and slow bowler later on successfully at times...
>
quote here):
"a fat old drunk who lived on past glories".
his bowling had begun to decline long before this series.
the 1981 ashes series was his last good series as a bowler. after that he was
sporadic at best- regardless of competition.
he had a decent series in the 85 ashes as a bowler, but other than he had very
poor results.
so, i don't think it was the competition with hadlee as much as the general
decline in his bowling.
> Botham of course was member of record 5 ashes winning sides this
> century...
and he was a major contributor with the ball in 3 of them.
DiiVolunt
> Raising himself from all fours,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> > "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
> > news:<h0nNb.17247$ws.20...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> >>
> >> Yes, Botham did bowl horribly at Christchurch and was savaged by
> >> Hadlee. To what extent that was the result of personal rivalry
> >> rather than declining powers as a bowler is open to debate.
> >>
> >
> > It also had a major impact on his psyche...and Botham was hardly the
> > player after this test in test cricket... he did come up with an
> > original innovation in ODIs though...he played as opening slogger in
> > 1985 and slow bowler later on successfully at times...
> >
> botham at this point was what mike holmans likes to call botham 3.0 phase (and i
> quote here):
> "a fat old drunk who lived on past glories".
> his bowling had begun to decline long before this series.
Then you agree why i think he cannot be England 's greatest bowler...i
disgaree though he got on average 4.5 wkts/test till the test under
discussion ....and that is good for any bowler... he liked playing
under brearley, under fletcher he faced the dead indian tracks but i
remember he bowled well vs India in 1982 and i did not see Pakistan
series... i am not sure but i think he got as many wickets in 81 as he
did in 82..similar number which was also similar level at home in 84
and 85....ofcourse 81, he purchased at 20 while 84 it was almost 35 if
not 40 vs windies...
Also brearly, a psychologist identified botham as a kindred spirit who
needed an elder brother to guide him and botham gave his best under
him...gower and gatting may not be perfect for that type of role vis
avis Botham...
> the 1981 ashes series was his last good series as a bowler. after that he was
> sporadic at best- regardless of competition.
> he had a decent series in the 85 ashes as a bowler, but other than he had very
> poor results.
> so, i don't think it was the competition with hadlee as much as the general
> decline in his bowling.
Lot of cricket is played in mind...Not specific competition with
Hadlee but impact of personal defeat of that day would have weighed on
his mind....That happens to best of players....there used to be a guy
by the name of GR Vishwanath...happy go lucky guy likes his beer and
great batsman....one day his best friend is injured and India needs
him...he responded above and beyond call of duty...
scored 52, 139 and 97*....that 97* coming in 190 all out against best
the windies can throw at him...
people say that was the end of the great batsman...the empty shell
that was left had a lot of life yet...10 plus more test centuries and
4000 plus runs....
but he was a Good batsman...not great any more...the pressures of that
madras afternoon had an affect on his temprament...
in next inning instintively started chasing the ball outside off
stump... playing strokes when none were needed or possible...a edge of
cavalireness entered the roundhead 's batting... i have accounts from
several sources...those journalists who cannot appreciate the sheer
tension of batting with such expectations...they castigated his next
two innings as frivolous and some as downright irresponsible...others
understood the impact of that inning on his psyche...by the way he
scored 46 and 95 much faster but they were strokes of memory redeemed
from chequebook of past.... he was not the same batsman anymore...
Botham had a cavalier altitude to his batting and bowling....that day
he did bowl very cavalierly and saw the horrible result...one of his
assetts was dominating the opposition with his reputation and
exuberance...here a cavalier was laid low and bit of round-head
entered his soul....
that is my opinion...some people would rather watch Vishwanath and
Botham at their best that maybe willis or Gavaskar but.... they will
cringe to see them at their worst...likes of Gavaskar and Willis at
worst are still watchable...
a correction: Gower and Willis both have won 4 ashes..actually willis
was in side which kept ashes too in 72-73 making it 5...his fielding
making some difference in 1971 triumph...
i had forgotten he was rush replacement for ward in 1971 when he was
not even capped by his county... a la Parthiv!
A further point: John Snow responsible for bring Ashes back after 12
years and 12 days in 1971 was picked for aussie tour after being 50th
in First class averages of the season...
regards
PRanshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
Lol! Sir...
Mr. spaceman spiff who uses the nom de plume from a comic strip of a 6
year old and goblins of any size are supposed to be terrifying enough
for 6 year olds...
Robert Frost once wrote and or he copied "good neighbours make good
fences"...Caroline Westerhoff wrote on that and said it represents
boundary between personal space and hospitability...she did not get
the author 's irony... and neither did Mr. Spaceman spiff...
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
Spaceman Spiff
>
> Robert Frost once wrote and or he copied "good neighbours make good
> fences"...Caroline Westerhoff wrote on that and said it represents
> boundary between personal space and hospitability...she did not get
> the author 's irony... and neither did Mr. Spaceman spiff...
>
changes the meaning altogether, because good neighbours don't need fences.
westerhoff wrote about the boundaries of *hospitality*.
also, look up the meaning of "irony".
Ramakrishnan G
<snip fascinating stuff>
Would Hirst or Fry fit into the scheme of things?
> > and still missed out the
> >greatest of them all, who I assume is unavailable because no-one is
> >now prepared to meet his outrageous demands of two million quid per
> >match as "expenses".
>
> :)
And what exactly are we talking about here?
> --
> John Hall "Never play cards with a man called Doc.
> Never eat at a place called Mom's.
> Never sleep with a woman whose troubles
> are worse than your own." Nelson Algren
John Hall
Ramakrishnan G <grams1...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OdqeniWc...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
>
>
><snip fascinating stuff>
>
>Would Hirst or Fry fit into the scheme of things?
At county level they were amongst the greatest, but their Test records
are comparatively modest. You might look on them as Victorian/Edwardian
equivalents of Graeme Hick.
>
>> > and still missed out the
>> >greatest of them all, who I assume is unavailable because no-one is
>> >now prepared to meet his outrageous demands of two million quid per
>> >match as "expenses".
>>
>> :)
>
>And what exactly are we talking about here?
You'd better ask Mike, since although you quoted my attribution and
signature you didn't quote any of my message, and Mike wrote what you've
quoted. But it would be reasonable to assume that he was referring to
WG.
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Mike Holmans
>
>"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OdqeniWc...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
>
>
><snip fascinating stuff>
>
>Would Hirst or Fry fit into the scheme of things?
Maybe. Hirst wouldn't make this sort of XI, which is largely based
around people who did great things in Test matches. It's at least
arguable that Hirst is the greatest first-class cricketer ever,
though.
Fry was a pretty good bat, although not especially good. Rumours that
he was an all-rounder are somewhat misplaced. It was blindingly
obvious to anyone who saw him in his Varsity match that he was an
out-and-out chucker (of medium pace!), but his social status gave him
immunity from being called by umpires who were too cowed to call
anyone, really. Only when the Australian umpire James Phillips came
over and started calling bowlers for chucking, including Fry and most
notoriously Mold, were actions cleaned up.
>> > and still missed out the
>> >greatest of them all, who I assume is unavailable because no-one is
>> >now prepared to meet his outrageous demands of two million quid per
>> >match as "expenses".
>>
>> :)
>
>And what exactly are we talking about here?
WG Grace, the amateur, used to demand amazingly high expenses when he
played cricket, a game which he of course never played for money like
a professional would.
Cheers,
Mike
Ramakrishnan G
> In article <bu9e2f$f99hm$1...@ID-188547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Ramakrishnan G <grams1...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:OdqeniWc...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >
> ><snip fascinating stuff>
> >
> >Would Hirst or Fry fit into the scheme of things?
>
> At county level they were amongst the greatest, but their Test records
> are comparatively modest. You might look on them as Victorian/Edwardian
> equivalents of Graeme Hick.
>
Its amazing how the "greatest first class cricketer ever" can be compared to
a chap for whom the best I can do is "the best ever Zimbabwean to play for
Worcs".
>
> You'd better ask Mike, since although you quoted my attribution and
> signature you didn't quote any of my message, and Mike wrote what you've
> quoted.
I used your post because I wanted to acknowledge that exchange between you
and Mike and didnt want to post a separate message to Mike asking him to
clarify my ignorance.
Got my answer now!
Spaceman Spiff
DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<PJKNb.2113$Fl1....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
>>>
>> phase (and i quote here):
>> "a fat old drunk who lived on past glories".
>> his bowling had begun to decline long before this series.
>
> Then you agree why i think he cannot be England 's greatest bowler...
my choices would be syd barnes, bedser among the faster bowlers and laker and
perhaps verity among spinners.
> i disgaree though he got on average 4.5 wkts/test till the test under
> discussion ....and that is good for any bowler... he liked playing
> under brearley, under fletcher he faced the dead indian tracks but i
> remember he bowled well vs India in 1982 and i did not see Pakistan
> series... i am not sure but i think he got as many wickets in 81 as he
> did in 82..similar number which was also similar level at home in 84
> and 85....ofcourse 81, he purchased at 20 while 84 it was almost 35 if
> not 40 vs windies...
>
this is what he did after the 81 ashes series and before the 83-84 nz series:
81-82 vs ind 6 tests 17 wickets, avg. 38.82
82 vs sl 1 test 3 wkts, avg. 21.67
82 vs ind 3 tests 9 wkts avg 35.56
82 vs pak 3 tests 18 wkts avg 26.56
82-83 vs aus 5 tests 18 wickets avg 40.50
83 vs nz 4 tests 10 wkts avg 34.00
grand total:
22 tests, 75 wkts, avg. 34.56
so, the decline had obviously begun.
in the 85 ashes, his 31 wickets were at a decent average of 27.58
>> the 1981 ashes series was his last good series as a bowler. after
>> that he was sporadic at best- regardless of competition.
>> he had a decent series in the 85 ashes as a bowler, but other than
>> he had very poor results.
>> so, i don't think it was the competition with hadlee as much as the
>> general decline in his bowling.
>
> Lot of cricket is played in mind...Not specific competition with
> Hadlee but impact of personal defeat of that day would have weighed on
> his mind....
but even after coming off one of the greatest individual all-around series (81
ashes), he proceeded to bowl like crap vs india both home and away.
this continued into a crap ashes in 82-83, broken by a decent series vs pak in
82.
> That happens to best of players....there used to be a guy
> by the name of GR Vishwanath...happy go lucky guy likes his beer and
> great batsman....one day his best friend is injured and India needs
> him...he responded above and beyond call of duty...
> scored 52, 139 and 97*....that 97* coming in 190 all out against best
> the windies can throw at him...
>
> people say that was the end of the great batsman...the empty shell
> that was left had a lot of life yet...10 plus more test centuries and
> 4000 plus runs....
> but he was a Good batsman...not great any more...the pressures of that
> madras afternoon had an affect on his temprament...
>
> in next inning instintively started chasing the ball outside off
> stump... playing strokes when none were needed or possible...a edge of
> cavalireness entered the roundhead 's batting... i have accounts from
> several sources...those journalists who cannot appreciate the sheer
> tension of batting with such expectations...they castigated his next
> two innings as frivolous and some as downright irresponsible...others
> understood the impact of that inning on his psyche...by the way he
> scored 46 and 95 much faster but they were strokes of memory redeemed
> from chequebook of past.... he was not the same batsman anymore...
his average after the first innings of the madras test was 41.36, and he had
scored 1572 runs with 3 100's.
the rest of his career, he averaged 42.13, and scored 4508 runs with 11 100s.
and this even includes his horrid series in pakistan.
so, the facts of the matter are that he actually performed better after that
madras innings.
and the damage to his psyche did not stop him from scoring well under lot of
pressure, and still playing with his customary elan. for example, his 112 vs wi
at p-o-s ,75-76, or the 124 vs wi at madras, 78-79, the 113 at lords in 79 and
the marvellous 114 at melbourne in 80-81.
so, it is commendable that he fought his personal demons and still did such a
good job, even when operating with diminished capacity.
> A further point: John Snow responsible for bring Ashes back after 12
> years and 12 days in 1971 was picked for aussie tour after being 50th
> in First class averages of the season...
>
snow was already an established member of the test team.
things work differently for those already in the team.
at that point in his career he had already taken 99 wickets in 25 tests at
27.51, which is not too different from his career record of 202 wickets in 49
tests at 26.66.
John Hall
Ramakrishnan G <grams1...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ziwhIgS6...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <bu9e2f$f99hm$1...@ID-188547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> Ramakrishnan G <grams1...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >Would Hirst or Fry fit into the scheme of things?
>>
>> At county level they were amongst the greatest, but their Test records
>> are comparatively modest. You might look on them as Victorian/Edwardian
>> equivalents of Graeme Hick.
>>
>
>Its amazing how the "greatest first class cricketer ever" can be compared to
>a chap for whom the best I can do is "the best ever Zimbabwean to play for
>Worcs".
It's not intended to be an exact parallel (especially since Hirst was an
all-rounder rather than a specialist batsman), but it gives an idea of
the disparity between their f-c and Test records. And though Hick's
first-class average is down to about 53 now, ten years ago it stood at
over 58, which was verging on the phenomenal.
--
John Hall
"Think wrongly if you please,
but in all cases think for yourself."
Doris Lessing
Jan Buxton
John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> It's not intended to be an exact parallel (especially since Hirst was
> an all-rounder rather than a specialist batsman), but it gives an
> idea of
> the disparity between their f-c and Test records. And though Hick's
> first-class average is down to about 53 now, ten years ago it stood at
> over 58, which was verging on the phenomenal.
If you take his Test record away, his average in other FC games is
57.28.
--
Jan
Yuk Tang
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and
> bellowed:
>>
>> Robert Frost once wrote and or he copied "good neighbours make
>> good fences"...Caroline Westerhoff wrote on that and said it
>> represents boundary between personal space and
>> hospitability...she did not get the author 's irony... and
>> neither did Mr. Spaceman spiff...
>>
> actually it's "good fences make good neighbours".
> changes the meaning altogether, because good neighbours don't need
> fences. westerhoff wrote about the boundaries of *hospitality*.
> also, look up the meaning of "irony".
Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for one
another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours become good
friends.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com
Mad Hamish
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Fry was a pretty good bat, although not especially good. Rumours that
>he was an all-rounder are somewhat misplaced. It was blindingly
>obvious to anyone who saw him in his Varsity match that he was an
>out-and-out chucker (of medium pace!), but his social status gave him
>immunity from being called by umpires who were too cowed to call
>anyone, really.
Rubbish, it's an optical illusion.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
DiiVolunt
by your definition almost everyone bowled crap other than doshi in
those series...doshi only in one...7 tests of 9 were on dead
pitches...
in india, botham went up against kapil who got 22 at 37.95 on those
really dead pitches...
other than he had mr. draw the test fletcher as captain who slowed
things like anything...botham was still bowling an over at 4.7 minutes
which was faster than rest but slower for regular Botham...he bowled
actually quicker overs so Fletcher checked his natural game...batting
wise he enjoyed himself...
similarly in england: 2 tests were on solid pitches which saw one test
18 wickets for 804 runs... other 1300 runs for 25 wickets...
even kapil got 8 in kapil's test and 2 in these remaining 2 tests...
actually, botham bowled badly at australia in 1982 ....that was
surprising...especially he was the guy who broke aussies back in 4rth
test with that spell in 81...his failure with bat and ball maybe was
first indication...
then he lost it vs Hadlee next tour out and decided to skip india trip
and indulged in wild behaviour in windies and finito botham....
brearley once promised to write a psychological study of him...still
waiting...maybe he will write when his kids grow up...
yes! but see he had the potential to do lot more than that....he was
streets ahead of gavaskar and his temprament took a beating in that
madras heat...
as i had said lot of people wrote about that day and inning and what
affect it had on Vishy...read up mihir bose...read up if you like raju
bhartan...or dicky rutnagur and there are several more...they all see
a different batsman...
there are actually another 42 caser!...42 being the average proposed
by Mihir bose for differentiating great and good... the good who
failed greatness
Umrigar...you can also say that he averaged probably 30ish before
trueman and 45 plus after trueman includng 11 tons...but there was
something holding him back from that true greatness...and that was
memory of pusillanimity when India needed him vs trueman...
Manjrekar also failed the Mihir Bose test as did his son...his son 's
decline was perceptible in australia tour of 1991 while senior
manjrekar 's not very clear...some talk about blow on nose against
grifith but that was too late...it has to be something else...maybe
just a series of injuries at wrong time in late 50s...maybe he never
had the spark...people who saw him disagree...
> and the damage to his psyche did not stop him from scoring well under lot of
> pressure, and still playing with his customary elan. for example, his 112 vs wi
> at p-o-s ,75-76, or the 124 vs wi at madras, 78-79, the 113 at lords in 79 and
> the marvellous 114 at melbourne in 80-81.
> so, it is commendable that he fought his personal demons and still did such a
> good job, even when operating with diminished capacity.
i agree....as i said what was left in that shell was damn good too...
> > A further point: John Snow responsible for bring Ashes back after 12
> > years and 12 days in 1971 was picked for aussie tour after being 50th
> > in First class averages of the season...
> >
> snow was already an established member of the test team.
> things work differently for those already in the team.
> at that point in his career he had already taken 99 wickets in 25 tests at
> 27.51, which is not too different from his career record of 202 wickets in 49
> tests at 26.66.
Dolivera and Snow were two persons supported a lot by skipper
silligworth to be included...snow was the not that difficult a
case..illingworth does point to discussion done on his average that
summer...But Dolivera just sneaked by according to...."Captain's
notebook by Illingworth" in "Ashes by Illingworth and Gregory "....and
when each time dolivera scored in series...illingworth pointed out i
got him here!!
English always selected by style...great Gravney was dropped while
averaging high 40s and 50s...in 1907...middle order was made of guys
who were in 20s in avrages that season like 21st, 29th and they had
the skipper!!...
regards
PRanshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> Raising himself from all fours,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> >
> > Robert Frost once wrote and or he copied "good neighbours make good
> > fences"...Caroline Westerhoff wrote on that and said it represents
> > boundary between personal space and hospitability...she did not get
> > the author 's irony... and neither did Mr. Spaceman spiff...
> >
> actually it's "good fences make good neighbours".
> changes the meaning altogether, because good neighbours don't need fences.
> westerhoff wrote about the boundaries of *hospitality*.
> also, look up the meaning of "irony".
that was the joke dummy!....
and Frost was talking ironically ... he believed in no fences and
boundaries between humans...and still i say caroline westerhoff took
frost at face value...
Good neighbours make good fences came from cold war jargon in
1950s...i many not be surprised if it may come from Mccarthy
himself... and Frost believed in no fences...
are'nt hospitability and hospitality same thing? welcome, warmth,
kindness to strangers all that stuff... i think hospitability is more
english or maybe indian-english term...read it in hindu...and
hospitality is more american term...
and no comment on that you missed the goblin reference!!..
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> Raising himself from all fours,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> >>>
> >> 79 wickets at 25.xx vs australia and 86 wickets at 23.xx vs west
> >> indies (not to mention his 27 vs south africa at 22.xx) suggests
> >> that he was more than just a "fair sized goblin".
> >
> > Maybe, they were more afraid of bedser in 1953, Tyson was the
> > revelation in 55, and Laker in 56 and aussies conquered all after
> > that...
> >
> > coined for initially Spofforth and then in each series press would
> > nominate a fast pacer as the "Demon" bowler... till richardson came
> > and he was a "Titan" as he was not very fast but the best bowler and
> > then spinners et all started playing a role in ashes... larwood and
> > tyson comes as examples of word demon burning the telegraph wires
> > between oz and blighty....
> >
> this is common knowledge. try not stating the obvious.
sometimes common knowledge is very uncommon...and unless it is
repeated it won't become common...
> >> statham was a great bowler, but he was not in trueman's class.
> >> irrelevant stuff deleted
> >> do you still think they are comparable?
> >
> > as i never compared trueman or statham...you tell me where i did...
> umm... when you said that
> >> [snip] Statham 's 252 wickets compare well with Trueman 's 307 [snip]
> do kapildev's 434 wickets compare well with hadlee's 431?
yes! and there are thousands of reasons and this thread was to discuss
english cricketers...but of course common ng decorum can go bye bye
right..
> > When trueman does became the
> > premier bowler...England lost at home in 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965 and
> > you really cannot call a bowler great from a losing side...and this
> > despite adequate support from Statham...
> >
> but the person you tout as the greatest, bob willis, was fortunate to play
> against one of the weakest aussie teams in 77.
i listed four: Richardson, Barnes, Larwood and Willis...
the people can take their choice...different times...different
bowlers...atleast one with 300 plus wickets should come... so lets
pick the one who won more matches...
> > in spaceman spiff's vocabulary, supporting means comparable so let me
> > clarify
> when you say "compare with" it means comparable. ok?
> if you want to say supporting, say supporting.
> i see that you still haven't registered for that remedial english class.
>
> > i am not comparing Willis with Botham, Levers, Snow, hendricks,
> > jackman, Allott, et all..
> >
> did you forget when you compared willis with botham with reference to the test
> in new zealand?
I did not..please read again ... it was you or some one else on thread
who said his figures are not different from willis's for same test...
i merely pointed out that figures 4/51 and 1/88 are actually
different...i did not compare the bowlers...
> >> are marshall and kapildev comparable?
> >> do you think you might be wrong?
> >
> > You are just being an ass and that's all i have to say...
> > and neither did i nominate Tyson as greatest bowler...you either dont
> > read properly or you dont understand...
> if you write what you mean, i will understand.
> if you make incorrect statements, you will be challenged on them.
> like it or leave it.
>
> > or you are just trying to pick
> > a fight to dirty a very nice thread...
> see above. make incorrect statements and you will be challenged.
> i will not dispute any fair or correct statement.
>
> > and of course you are showing
> > your ignorance...
> >
> tell me one thing i said that is wrong.
> and then we will count the things that you said which are wrong.
> then we'll know who's ignorant.
read above...
regards
PRanshu B Saxena
p.s. Never argue with a six year old!
Spaceman Spiff
> 1950s...i many not be surprised if it may come from Mccarthy
> himself... and Frost believed in no fences...
>
the cold war war saying is an ironical twist on this proverb, which predates
both the cold war and robert frost, having its roots in both old english as
well as old american writings from as far back as the 1600s.
> are'nt hospitability and hospitality same thing? welcome, warmth,
> kindness to strangers all that stuff... i think hospitability is more
> english or maybe indian-english term...read it in hindu...and
> hospitality is more american term...
>
one of the meanings of hospitability is the same as hospitality, but it is less
used in that sense.
however, the exact word that westerhoff used was the latter.
Spaceman Spiff
DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
>>>
>> to play against one of the weakest aussie teams in 77.
>
> i listed four: Richardson, Barnes, Larwood and Willis...
> the people can take their choice...different times...different
> bowlers...atleast one with 300 plus wickets should come... so lets
> pick the one who won more matches...
>
larwood blazed brightly for one series, armed with the weapon of bodyline, but
other than that was a moderately proportioned troll.
tom richardson's test career, though outstanding, was too short to be a
consideration for the greatest.
both he and larwood best displayed their wares in the first class arena.
barnes, otoh, scorned the establishment first class game, and concentrated his
efforts in the more lucrative league cricket circuit. when he played in the
highest form of the game, he left no doubt as to who was the best.
> p.s. Never argue with a six year old!
my mistake, i thought you were eight.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message news:<pYJNb.1991$Fl1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
>> Raising himself from all fours,
>> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:>
>> >> statham was a great bowler, but he was not in trueman's class.
>> >> irrelevant stuff deleted
>> >> do you still think they are comparable?
>> >
>> > as i never compared trueman or statham...you tell me where i did...
>> umm... when you said that
>> >> [snip] Statham 's 252 wickets compare well with Trueman 's 307 [snip]
>> do kapildev's 434 wickets compare well with hadlee's 431?
>yes!
You reckon that 434 wickets from 131 tests compares with 431 wickets
from 86 tests?
>and there are thousands of reasons and this thread was to discuss
>english cricketers...but of course common ng decorum can go bye bye
>right..
>
>> > When trueman does became the
>> > premier bowler...England lost at home in 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965 and
>> > you really cannot call a bowler great from a losing side...and this
>> > despite adequate support from Statham...
So Muralidharan and Hadlee aren't great bowlers because their teams
lost more than they won?
Complete and utter rubbish.
oh, and btw bowling averages in the series you mention
1961
ER Dexter 79.4 16 223 9 24.77 3-16 0 0
FS Trueman 164.4 21 529 20 26.45 6-30 2 1
DA Allen 134 53 354 13 27.23 4-58 0 0
JB Statham 201.4 41 501 17 29.47 5-53 1 0
England appears to have lost this due to batting failures more than
anything else
1963
FS Trueman 236.4 53 594 34 17.47 7-44 4 2
ER Dexter 95 22 227 7 32.42 4-38 0 0
D Shackleton 243.2 73 518 15 34.53 4-72 0 0
with the support
JB Statham 81 11 243 3 81.00 3-68 0 0
Again, in the 3 English losses their scores were
205, 296
174, 231
275,223
if you don't make more runs than that against a team with Butcher,
Sobers, Kanhai and Hunte you aren't going to win many.
1964
FS Trueman 133.3 25 399 17 23.47 5-48 1 0
N Gifford 83 35 140 5 28.00 2-14 0 0
FJ Titmus 202 92 301 10 30.10 4-69 0 0
Statham didn't play
in the 1 match Australia won the English batting performances were
268 & 229
again you aren't going to win a lot of matches with those scores
in 1965 Trueman played 2 out of 3 tests against NZ in a series that
England won 3-0
so you're wrong there.
which suggests the problem wasn't with Fred...
and Statham provided adequate support in 1 of the 3 series you mention
which England actually lost.
>> >
>> but the person you tout as the greatest, bob willis, was fortunate to play
>> against one of the weakest aussie teams in 77.
>
>i listed four: Richardson, Barnes, Larwood and Willis...
>the people can take their choice...different times...different
>bowlers...atleast one with 300 plus wickets should come... so lets
>pick the one who won more matches...
Larwood got pummeled in 1930
Trueman played 67 tests and won 34 of them, Willis played 90 tests and
won 32 of them. So if you want the metric of "won more matches"
Trueman did better, if you want "won best percentage of matches"
Trueman's the winner by far more..
Barnes played 27 tests and won 14 of them
Richardson played 14 tests and won 6 of them.
Larwood won 13 out of 21 tests
List the Ashes series and series against the Windies that Willis
played in and won and those that were drawn or lost.
Mike Holmans
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:10:10 +0000, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Fry was a pretty good bat, although not especially good. Rumours that
>>he was an all-rounder are somewhat misplaced. It was blindingly
>>obvious to anyone who saw him in his Varsity match that he was an
>>out-and-out chucker (of medium pace!), but his social status gave him
>>immunity from being called by umpires who were too cowed to call
>>anyone, really.
>
>Rubbish, it's an optical illusion.
Those hadn't been invented when Fry was playing.
Cheers,
Mike
Bob Dubery
> So Muralidharan and Hadlee aren't great bowlers because their teams
> lost more than they won?
Careful Hamish. You're getting disturbingly close to arguing that
Murali is a great bowler.
John Hall
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>On 16 Jan 2004 20:12:06 -0800, diiv...@hotmail.com (DiiVolunt)
>wrote:
>>
>>the people can take their choice...different times...different
>>bowlers...atleast one with 300 plus wickets should come... so lets
>>pick the one who won more matches...
>
>Larwood got pummeled in 1930
So did every other English bowler. Against Bradman, Ponsford and
Woodfull, on generally very good pitches for batting seemingly lacking
much pace and bounce, that was almost inevitable. But in both 1926 and
1928-9 he did well. His figures may not look that great in 1928-9, but
in the context of a high-scoring series they helped England to a 4-1
win. He seems to have run out of steam in the last two Tests, but his
6-32 in the first innings of the First Test was obviously very
important. (It's surprising how well Geary - medium pace and White -
off-spin - did in 1928-9, since they were not types of bowler normally
expected to succeed in Australian conditions, and are generally reckoned
to have been short of the highest class.)
--
John Hall
"Three o'clock is always too late or too early
for anything you want to do."
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
John Hall
Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for one
>another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours become good
>friends.
I suspect that this won't mean much to our Transatlantic friends - lucky
them! :)
John Hall
DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> writes:
>English always selected by style...great Gravney was dropped while
>averaging high 40s and 50s
But Graveney was a beautiful stylist. If style had been the determining
factor, he would have played far more Tests in the late '50s and early
'60s, and Barrington (for instance) would have played fewer.
I think that what you say was true before WW1, but by the 1950s and
1960s things had changed.
Mad Hamish
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Xns9473F8B1BBAEj...@130.133.1.4>,
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for one
>>another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours become good
>>friends.
>
>I suspect that this won't mean much to our Transatlantic friends - lucky
>them! :)
When I was in Brisbane I lived at Ramsey St...
Apparently the BGs were from right around there as well.
Yuk Tang
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for
>>one another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours
>>become good friends.
>
> I suspect that this won't mean much to our Transatlantic friends -
> lucky them! :)
One of my favourite quotes, from Cate Blanchett.
Q: Were you ever in Neighbours?
CB: Of course not. I'm an actress.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
If we ignore the controversy about his action I can't see how you can
possibly argue against it.
Michael Creevey
> "Michael Creevey" <eusebius...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<bu5v01$e2k8r$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> snip
>
> >
> > Interesting. Actually Graveney's record v WI is quite outstanding, yet he
> > NEVER appears in any of these lists. I bought a book by Graveney, called
> > 'Top Ten' or somesuch when I was a nipper, and Tom himself rarely selects
> > himself for any of the lists. I suppose that is to be expected, but he
> > probably is a little underrated. Mind you he was a bit of a failure v
> > Australia, a little bit of the Amiss syndrome, however Australia's pace
> > bowlers in the 60s were a lot less ferocious than those of the mod 70s.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michael Creevey
>
> I wouldn't say 'never', Michael.
> In the thread last week about those poorly remembered by history, Tom
> Graveney was my choice.
I stand corrected. Well I'm actually sitting in an advanced lotus
position, but you get the general idea.
> Well, 2nd choice.
> After Ken Higgs
>
> The Hug
How about Tim... never mind.
BTW I was actually talking about David Graveney.
You know, statistically (Gafoors of this world take note) Ken Higgs
has to be considered one of the greatest bowlers ever. He probably was
the English equivalent of a Qlder; y'know, average 18 per wicket and
get discarded for some silly specious reason.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
> In article <Xns9473F8B1BBAEj...@130.133.1.4>,
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for one
> >another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours become good
> >friends.
>
> I suspect that this won't mean much to our Transatlantic friends - lucky
> them! :)
Nor does cricket, usually. But you can watch Neighbours in the US, I
believe (not that I can understand why you would really want to, mind
you the US soaps are every bit as bad).
BTW I have a connection with the show, like Hamish; I used to live in
the page of the Brisbane UBD that the producers of the show ripped out
and renamed.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
> Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for one
> another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours become good
> friends.
One of the truly great philosophical aphorisms of our time.
DiiVolunt
Ashes played by Willis: wins in 1971, 77, 78-79, 81
Ashes lost while willis might have played: 74-75, 82-83
Ashes shared: 1972
Won or shared 5 of 7 ashes...
Windies series lost when Willis played: 1973??, 76, 1980-81, 1980 and
maybe 1984
Windies shared: 1973-74...
Won or shared 1 of 6....
i count 7 windies series...which one am i missing...
willis played just 1 test of 6 in 1973...which one? vs kiwis or vs
windies..
anyway, same argument for trueman goes for willis that batting failed
a lot...i think willis got 10 wkts or something close in one of 76
tests and england scored less than 100 in that test...
still at home: willis played in 1973 series, 76, 80 (lost series by 2
wickets), 84 ...just 4 home series which ended in defeat...same number
as Trueman unless he played vs south africans in 65 then it becomes
5...
The teams and pitches of course change, trueman won 8 of 9 tests
against India at home while Willis 's time saw Indian win in england
and that chase at OVal...
Kiwis were slaughtered on two trips...7 defeats in 8 tests while in
70s they scored 440 to lose by 40 runs....
these are just weaker sides...
English with Trueman had Dexter, Barrington, Gravney, May, MCC...and
hutton, compton,edrich, washbrook in earlier years, honorable mention
Bailey....
while English in 70s had Boycott, Amiss & Edrich for some time, Gower,
Botham...
Gooch, Gatting did not come into batting greatness yet!
you can add a few more chaps in 70s but quality of english bats was
probably higher in 50s than in 70s ... of course 50 guys had weak
sides to scores runs of too..
See that's why it is difficult to compare guys from different
generations... so if you look back at 125 years of cricket...the
greatest would be ones looming in public imagination like Richardson
or Barnes or LArwood and reecent ones like Willis et all ...
I dont disagree that Trueman does not loom in public imagination but
his contemporaries like Tyson and laker who had few tests but left a
more lasting impression ... i am not arguing that, that is fair to
trueman... it is not...
look now, england 81 is probably greatest sporting memory except
soccer 66 and if you like rugby 2003 ....and you would remember willis
8/43... Or recent way...Malcom 9/57 more than Cork 7/44...which is
better...difficult to tell...
also people nowdays talk about meaningless ODOs and say they dont
matter....that 's what they called about "other" series vs likes of
india, pakistan, kiwis even windies back in 50s maybe everything
except Ashes....
i think first team ever to play a five day test against kiwis was as
late as 1968 and it was india...
who knows in 40 years time...our ignored meaningless ODOS are the
Ashes of future... and Murali would be remembered as the greatest
bowler or greatest con artist :-)
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in
> news:4DBzQ4F9...@jhall.demon.co.uk:
> > In article <Xns9473F8B1BBAEj...@130.133.1.4>,
> > Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for
> >>one another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours
> >>become good friends.
> >
> > I suspect that this won't mean much to our Transatlantic friends -
> > lucky them! :)
>
> One of my favourite quotes, from Cate Blanchett.
>
> Q: Were you ever in Neighbours?
> CB: Of course not. I'm an actress.
was she ever! haven't watched neighbours since 1995...mom was a fan...
regards
PRanshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> In article <bbe332a3.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >English always selected by style...great Gravney was dropped while
> >averaging high 40s and 50s
>
> But Graveney was a beautiful stylist. If style had been the determining
> factor, he would have played far more Tests in the late '50s and early
> '60s, and Barrington (for instance) would have played fewer.
>
> I think that what you say was true before WW1, but by the 1950s and
> 1960s things had changed.
Gravney got his chance on second XI type tours...send on tours to
india and like....he had his share in preventing first indian
win....maybe that was watkins...he scored 175 against India
one of best accounts of batsman-bowler duel is that of Gravney and
Mankad in 1952 Madras test....
I did'nt read much about him in initial english literature emanating
from the period and always felt little bad that second xi types were
sent to india till i read Worrell 's auto biography and he praises
Gravney and Richardson some...(peter not Derek)
Graveney of course measured for same spots as MCC, May, Barrington,
Compton, Bailey, later Dexter, Smith etc... it must have been
difficult to be english selector then...
regards
PRanshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
Wasnt "Farmer White" the vice captain and intially played because of
that...
Hammond praises him a lot in his auto bio which got searlized in
"Intenational Cricket"....
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
DiiVolunt
> Raising himself from all fours,
> DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> > Good neighbours make good fences came from cold war jargon in
> > 1950s...i many not be surprised if it may come from Mccarthy
> > himself... and Frost believed in no fences...
> >
> frost (and westerhoff) spoke about "good fences make good neighbours".
> the cold war war saying is an ironical twist on this proverb, which predates
> both the cold war and robert frost, having its roots in both old english as
> well as old american writings from as far back as the 1600s.
>
> > are'nt hospitability and hospitality same thing? welcome, warmth,
> > kindness to strangers all that stuff... i think hospitability is more
> > english or maybe indian-english term...read it in hindu...and
> > hospitality is more american term...
> >
> one of the meanings of hospitability is the same as hospitality, but it is less
> used in that sense.
> however, the exact word that westerhoff used was the latter.
Interesting, why did you read her writings. I had to in course of my
job and to investigate relevance of her organization 's application to
join the Last Acts initiative.
regards
Pranshu B Saxena
p.s. Illingworth played 15 years and played 30 tests before becoming
captain...
karthik and bahutule can take inspiration....
Samarth Shah
> In article <Xns9473F8B1BBAEj...@130.133.1.4>,
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Actually, a little understanding and a sense of being there for one
> >another make good neighbours. That's when good neighbours become good
> >friends.
>
> I suspect that this won't mean much to our Transatlantic friends - lucky
> them! :)
Several of your transatlantic friends grew up on the "subcontinent",
where one can not only watch live cricket from anywhere in the world
but also TV shows from anywhere in the world. The latter with a time
lag proportional to the quality of the show, which means I got to see
an episode or two in the mid- to late-90s or so.
-Samarth.
Gafoor
I am not sure if the above lines posted by Yuk were there in the theme
song when the soap was shown in India. The theme has been changed
a few times, I think. We saw those episodes which starred Kylie Minogue
& Guy Pearce - I don't recall which years episodes they were.
Doesn't this soap have a very interesting history ?
i.e. some TV bigshot's daughter was a fan & it's afternoon timing
clashed with her classes & hence she got it changed to prime time
where the soap became very popular.
Spaceman Spiff
DiiVolunt <diiv...@hotmail.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
>>>
>> it is less used in that sense.
>> however, the exact word that westerhoff used was the latter.
>
> Interesting, why did you read her writings. I had to in course of my
> job and to investigate relevance of her organization 's application to
> join the Last Acts initiative.
>
the name of her book is: "good fences: the boundaries of hospitality".
Mike Holmans
>> List the Ashes series and series against the Windies that Willis
>> played in and won and those that were drawn or lost.
>
>Ashes played by Willis: wins in 1971, 77, 78-79, 81
>Ashes lost while willis might have played: 74-75, 82-83
Willis captained the side in 82-83. Very badly.
Cheers,
Mike
John Hall
>I did'nt read much about him in initial english literature emanating
>from the period and always felt little bad that second xi types were
>sent to india till i read Worrell 's auto biography and he praises
>Gravney and Richardson some...(peter not Derek)
>
>Graveney of course measured for same spots as MCC, May, Barrington,
>Compton, Bailey, later Dexter, Smith etc... it must have been
>difficult to be english selector then...
Very true. I think it's fair to say that Graveney always looked good,
but that in his early Test career he had more failures than successes.
When he was restored to the England side in 1966 after a longish
absence, though he was almost forty he was a better Test batsman than he
had been earlier.
There's a fine article on him by Neville Cardus in the 1965 Wisden,
occasioned by his reaching 100 hundreds the previous summer. A short
extract: "If some destructive process were to eliminate all that we know
about cricket, only Graveney surviving, we could reconstruct from him,
from his way of batting and the man himself, every outline of the game,
every essential character and flavour which have contributed to cricket,
the form of it and its soul, and its power to inspire a wide and
sometimes great literature. Of how many living Test match cricketers
could you say as much? Could you imagine Bloggs of Blankshire reminding
you of the soul of cricket as he plods his computing way to a century in
six hours and a half?"
--
John Hall
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)