World Teams by Decade: The 1970s
John Hall
harder. I've selected a First Team, Second Team and Third Team again.
If your favourite player hasn't made the First Team, well competition
was extremely fierce.
An added complication was the ostracism of South Africa from Test
cricket after their series against Australia at the start of 1970. At
the time, SA were probably the best side in the world. I have included
two of their players in the First Team since, although they played
little Test cricket, they were clearly great players.
The repercussions of rebel tours to South Africa, and Kerry Packer's
World Series Cricket at the end of the decade, reduced the number of
Tests that some of the best players appeared in, drastically so in the
case of one or two West Indians.
Australia and West Indies were the dominant Test sides for most of the
decade, and the composition of the First Team reflects that. I decided
that Imran, Kapil Dev, Greenidge, Javed, Botham, Hadlee, Border, Gooch
and Gower were at their peaks in the 1980s, so they weren't chosen for
the 1970s team. However, although Viv Richards did not make his Test
debut till halfway through the 70s, and played throughout the 1980s, I
feel he was at his best in the 1970s and have accordingly selected
him. Similarly, Gavaskar's record for the 1970s seems somewhat better
than that for the 1980s.
After that lengthy preamble, here are the teams. Where 12 players are
named, who is omitted will depend on pitch conditions. Figures for
each player are number of Tests played, runs (if a batsman) or wickets
(if a bowler), average, number of hundreds (if a batsman) or 5 wicket
innings and 10 wicket matches (if a bowler), number of dismissals (if
a keeper).
First Team
1. Sunil Gavaskar (I) 125: 10122 at 51.12 (34); 108 ct
2. Barry Richards (SA) 4: 508 at 72.57 (2)
3. Viv Richards (WI) 121: 8540 at 50.23 (24); 122 ct
4. Greg Chappell (A) 87: 7110 at 53.86 (24); 122 ct
5. Clive Lloyd (WI) (c) 110: 7515 at 46.67 (19)
6. Mike Procter (SA) 7: 226 at 25.11; 41 at 15.02 (1/0)
7. Rodney Marsh (A) (wk) 96: 3633 at 26.51 (3); 355 d
8. Dennis Lillee (A) 70: 355 at 23.92 (23/7)
9. Michael Holding (WI) 60: 249 at 23.68 (13/2)
10. Joel Garner (WI) 58: 259 at 20.97 (7/0)
11. Derek Underwood (E) 86: 297 at 25.83 (17/6)
12. Bhagwat Chandrasekhar (I) 58: 242 at 29.74 (16/2)
I'm fairly satisfied that the batting is the best available (in spite
of the omission of Boycott), but the bowling was more difficult. No
doubt the omission of Bishen Bedi will be controversial. On a perfect
batting wicket Bedi would have the edge on Underwood because of his
flight, but in any other conditions I think Underwood just shades it.
Another possibility would be to play both slow left-armers, since they
are so different in style. However, I am reluctant to omit Chandra,
probably the most likely of the three to run through a side on a good
wicket.
Another problem was the choice of wicketkeeper. Even if you assign
Kirmani to the 1980s, there were still Marsh, Knott, Wasim Bari and
Deryck Murray to chose from, any one of whom would have been a worthy
choice. My initial inclination was to go for Knott, but in the end I
chose Marsh for his superior rate of dismissals per Test (so superior
that I don't think the quality of Australia's bowling can wholly
account for it).
Second Team
1. Geoff Boycott (E) 108: 8114 at 47.72 (22)
2. Glenn Turner (NZ) 41: 2991 at 44.64 (7)
3. Zaheer Abbas (P) 78: 5062 at 44.79 (12)
4. Doug Walters (A) 74: 5357 at 48.26 (15)
5. Ian Chappell (A) (c) 75: 5345 at 42.42 (14); 105 ct
6. Tony Greig (E) 58: 3599 at 40.43 (8);
141 at 32.20 (6/2)
7. Alan Knott (E) (wk) 95: 4389 at 32.75 (5); 269 d
8. Andy Roberts (WI) 47: 202 at 25.61 (11/2)
9. Jeff Thomson (A) 51: 200 at 28.00 (8/0)
10. Bob Willis (E) 90: 325 at 25.20 (16/0)
11. Vintcent van der Bijl (SA) - 0 Tests
12. Bishen Bedi (I) 67: 266 at 28.71 (14/1)
Another very strong team, stronger indeed than the first team of many
decades. The one surprise choice may be van der Bijl, but round about
1980 he was probably the best fast-medium (as opposed to fast) bowler
in the world, as his one season in county cricket indicated.
Third Team
1. Roy Fredericks (WI) 59: 4334 at 42.49 (8)
2. Dennis Amiss (E) 50: 3612 at 46.30 (11)
3. Dilip Vengsarkar (I) 116: 6868 at 42.13 (17)
4. Gundappa Viswanath (I) 91: 6080 at 41.93 (14)
5. Alvin Kallicharran (WI) 66: 4399 at 44.43 (12)
6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
7. Asif Iqbal (P) 58: 3575 at 38.85 (11);
53 at 28.33 (2/0)
8. Deryck Murray (WI) 62: 1993 at 22.90; 189 d
9. Max Walker (A) 34: 138 at 27.47 (6/0)
10. Ashley Mallett (A) 38: 132 at 29.84 (6/1)
11. Sylvester Clarke (WI) 11: 42 at 27.88 (1/0)
12. Colin Croft (WI) 27: 125 at 23.30 (3/0)
Very close here between Murray and Wasim Bari for keeper. Croft, on
his average, is perhaps unlucky only to be in the Third Team. Clarke
may be a slightly contentious choice, but at the end of the 70s and in
the early 80s he was the most feared fast bowler in county cricket
(when such bowlers as Roberts, Holding, Willis and Wayne Daniel were
also playing in county cricket). Someone I was tempted to include was
the off-spinner A.J.Traicos who, remarkably, played Test cricket for
SA in 1970 and for Zimbabwe in the 1990s.
Appended for interest are the leading Coopers and Lybrand ratings as
at the end of 1979, courtesy of http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d405gc/coopers/
COOPERS & LYBRAND RATINGS
-------------------------
World Ratings - Test Batsmen
----------------------------
After Australia v West Indies, Melbourne, 29/12/1979
Rank Player Team Rating Test Averages
Batting Bowling Batting Bowling
1 S.M.Gavaskar IND 874 4 * 56.74 134.00
2 Javed Miandad PAK 854 112 * 62.55 32.70
3 I.V.A.Richards WI 814 23 * 58.21 58.75
4 K.J.Hughes AUS 811 0 * 40.74 -
5 D.I.Gower ENG 796 0 * 49.45 -
6 C.G.Greenidge WI 763 0 * 46.81 -
7 G.Boycott ENG 740 13 * 49.72 52.00
8 A.I.Kallicharran WI 721 4 * 49.45 114.00
9 G.P.Howarth NZ 715 8 * 35.86 83.50
10 G.R.Viswanath IND 697 4 * 45.33 42.00
11 G.S.Chappell AUS 671 140 * 52.98 42.29
12 Wasim Raja PAK 654 222 * 38.84 31.38
13 G.N.Yallop AUS 647 7 * 39.15 70.00
14 C.H.Lloyd WI 638 36 * 43.71 62.10
15 D.B.Vengsarkar IND 637 0 * 39.49 -
16 I.T.Botham ENG 629 894 36.82 19.27
17 Asif Iqbal PAK 628 146 38.85 28.33
18 G.A.Gooch ENG 569 6 * 30.16 93.00
19 Zaheer Abbas PAK 564 0 * 40.89 -
20 Yashpal Sharma IND 555 0 * 40.00 -
21 Majid Khan PAK 554 138 * 39.56 48.11
22 G.M.Wood AUS 551 0 * 32.86 -
23 H.A.Gomes WI 543 * 6 * 35.84 99.00
24 M.G.Burgess NZ 511 23 * 31.62 35.33
25 Mushtaq Mohammad PAK 508 517 39.17 29.22
26 W.M.Darling AUS 501 0 * 26.80 -
27 G.Miller ENG 496 488 * 28.17 28.57
28= D.W.Randall ENG 489 0 * 28.20 -
C.P.S.Chauhan IND 489 6 * 30.83 72.00
30 Sadiq Mohammad PAK 488 0 * 37.20 -
COOPERS & LYBRAND RATINGS
-------------------------
World Ratings - Test Bowlers
----------------------------
After Australia v West Indies, Melbourne, 29/12/1979
Rank Player Team Rating Test Averages
Batting Bowling Batting Bowling
1 I.T.Botham ENG 629 894 36.82 19.27
2 C.E.H.Croft WI 73 * 799 20.66 21.53
3 J.Garner WI 180 * 797 * 16.90 22.48
4 M.A.Holding WI 133 777 11.25 24.55
5 D.R.Doshi IND 74 * 755 * 6.10 25.20
6 M.Hendrick ENG 73 736 5.15 22.64
7 G.Dymock AUS 145 728 10.42 26.37
8 R.G.D.Willis ENG 190 709 12.60 24.78
9 Imran Khan PAK 396 707 23.43 30.25
10 D.K.Lillee AUS 201 690 16.03 23.78
11 A.M.E.Roberts WI 164 656 8.78 25.15
12 Sarfraz Nawaz PAK 265 652 16.05 30.57
13 R.J.Hadlee NZ 340 651 20.09 30.14
14 J.R.Thomson AUS 139 639 11.70 25.61
15 R.M.Hogg AUS 115 619 7.46 23.43
16 P.H.Edmonds ENG 250 617 * 17.31 25.53
17 D.L.Underwood ENG 131 577 11.78 24.96
18 A.G.Hurst AUS 81 572 * 6.00 27.90
19 Sikander Bakht PAK 77 558 6.75 32.37
20 R.O.Collinge NZ 187 552 14.40 29.25
21 J.K.Lever ENG 180 545 12.72 23.60
22 C.M.Old ENG 183 528 14.72 27.86
23 Mushtaq Mohammad PAK 508 517 39.17 29.22
24 K.D.Ghavri IND 390 510 23.08 34.29
25 B.S.Bedi IND 121 506 8.98 28.71
26 B.S.Chandrasekhar IND 37 501 4.07 29.74
27 G.Miller ENG 496 488 * 28.17 28.57
28 V.A.Holder WI 188 478 14.20 33.27
29 J.D.Higgs AUS 65 449 6.13 32.86
30 Iqbal Qasim PAK 136 448 * 9.37 37.58
* indicates that batsman has played fewer than 20 Test innings or bowler
has taken fewer than 50 Test wickets and does not therefore have a full
Rating.
--
"...if I should sometimes put on a fool's cap...don't fly off,
but rather courteously give me credit for a little more wisdom
than appears upon my outside...either laugh with me, or at me,
or in short, do any thing, only keep your temper." Laurence Sterne
Uday Rajan
Venkatesh Sridharan <venk...@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>John Hall (Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: COOPERS & LYBRAND RATINGS
>: -------------------------
>: World Ratings - Test Batsmen
>: ----------------------------
>: After Australia v West Indies, Melbourne, 29/12/1979
>: Rank Player Team Rating Test Averages
>: Batting Bowling Batting Bowling
>: 1 S.M.Gavaskar IND 874 4 * 56.74 134.00
>: 2 Javed Miandad PAK 854 112 * 62.55 32.70
>: 3 I.V.A.Richards WI 814 23 * 58.21 58.75
>
>Pretty apt. Especially since these ratings placed Dilip Doshi (in 1979)
>(well) above Dennis Lillee, Imran Khan and Andy Roberts. Not to mention
>placing Karsan Ghavri ahead of Bedi and Chandrashekar! :-)
>
Let's see...Lillee didn't play any Tests between March, 1977 (the
Centenary Test vs England) and November 1979 (either England or WI, I
forget which; both were touring Aus that season). Hardly surprising
that he didn't feature prominently in these ratings. Andy Roberts
played exactly 2 Tests between April 1977 and November 1979. And Imran
likely just had the 3 Tests against India in 1978 in that time
span. Since these ratings are based on Tests, it is hardly suprising
that these three players did not feature prominently; in fact, it's
surprising that Richards does.
And, of course, there is no question that by the end of 1979 Karsan
Ghavri was a better Test bowler than either Bedi or
Chandrasekhar, both of whom had had a miserable time since India's
tour to Pakistan in 1978, and neither of whom played a Test in the
'80s.
Venkatesh Sridharan
[...deleted...]
: COOPERS & LYBRAND RATINGS
: -------------------------
: World Ratings - Test Batsmen
: ----------------------------
: After Australia v West Indies, Melbourne, 29/12/1979
: Rank Player Team Rating Test Averages
: Batting Bowling Batting Bowling
: 1 S.M.Gavaskar IND 874 4 * 56.74 134.00
: 2 Javed Miandad PAK 854 112 * 62.55 32.70
: 3 I.V.A.Richards WI 814 23 * 58.21 58.75
-------
Pretty apt. Especially since these ratings placed Dilip Doshi (in 1979)
(well) above Dennis Lillee, Imran Khan and Andy Roberts. Not to mention
placing Karsan Ghavri ahead of Bedi and Chandrashekar! :-)
Win or lose, forever Windies.
Venky (Venkatesh Sridharan).
S.Jagadish
> 1980 he was probably the best fast-medium (as opposed to fast) bowler
Well I dunno anithin abt the fella ... but does one season convince u of him
bein good enuf for a 70's WORLD TEAM ?
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
/ \
S.Jagadish Computer Engg Year 2 Nanyang Technological University Singapore
E-Mail : SF91...@NTUVAX.NTU.AC.SG : University E-Mail address
jaga...@hpsgk1.sgp.hp.com : Hewlett Packard (Industrial Attachment)
Die hard Kamal Hassan visiri ... from Kalatthur Kannama to Shuba Sankalpam !!
Why Dun U try out Indrajaal : http://www2.ntu.ac.sg:8000/~bn338405/intro.html
and Mayajaal : http://www2.ntu.ac.sg:8000/~sf918168/mayajaal.html
The Kamal Hassan page has been shifted to the Mayajaal site ... sorry
\_____________________________________________________________________________/
John Hall
sf91...@omega.ntu.ac.sg "S.Jagadish" writes:
> > decades. The one surprise choice may be van der Bijl, but round about
> > 1980 he was probably the best fast-medium (as opposed to fast) bowler
>
> Well I dunno anithin abt the fella ... but does one season convince u of him
> bein good enuf for a 70's WORLD TEAM ?
Not just one season, no. What makes you think that I was basing it on
just one season?
R. Bharat Rao
Lots of controversy here, as is guaranteed as you get closer to the
present. I will skim over all of those to point out one choice:
>Third Team
>6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
^^^^^^^^^
There is no way Mohindar Amarnath should be in the team for the
1970's. For the 1980's you could make a case for him being in the
second team, let alone the third -- for a while there in the 80's he
was arguably the best bat in the world.
However, in the 1970's he was a journeyman in the Indian team, with a
known weakness against the short ball. The contrast between the
pre-1981 and post-1981 Mohindar is startling. The former (pre-helmet)
was adequate -- the latter, an astounding bat.
This is indicated by the fact that Mohindar was not even in the top 30
batsmen in the C&L ratings in 1979 -- right smack bang in the middle
of his career.
Also, the 1970's first team is somewhat weak in the batting
department. After the first 4 (Gavaskar, the two Richards, and
Chappell -- all of whom I agree with), Lloyd and Proctor make for a
somewhat weaker lineup. (Lloyd was a great captain, but as a batsman
I think he fails to make the "great" category, but falls in the "very
good indeed" category.)
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao, E-mail:bha...@scr.siemens.com (note the change)
Siemens Corporate Research, 755 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540, Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F)
<Above opinions are exclusively the author's, and don't represent SCR>
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
> An added complication was the ostracism of South Africa from Test
> cricket after their series against Australia at the start of 1970. At
> the time, SA were probably the best side in the world. I have included
> two of their players in the First Team since, although they played
> little Test cricket, they were clearly great players.
Yes, but did they play the West Indies in the 60's and even the 70's?
It was not as if the WI were reluctant to engage the South Africans.
An excessively generous extrapolation of the averages, me thinks,
and for the 1st team? Procter in the 1st Team of the 70's?
On the basis of a few tests in the last years of the 60's?
> First Team
>
> 6. Mike Procter (SA) 7: 226 at 25.11; 41 at 15.02 (1/0)
> No doubt the omission of Bishen Bedi will be controversial. On a perfect
> batting wicket Bedi would have the edge on Underwood because of his
> flight, but in any other conditions I think Underwood just shades it.
> Another possibility would be to play both slow left-armers, since they
> are so different in style.
As Josh reminded us once, it's your XI/XII, so I'll let it go at that,
but then there is this...
> Second Team
>
> 11. Vintcent van der Bijl (SA) - 0 Tests
> 12. Bishen Bedi (I) 67: 266 at 28.71 (14/1)
On mere reputation, and no Test record, one can make the 2nd XII?
If one season of county cricket defines a player's merit, there's
no hope for the rest of the world. And if the records of the Rebel
tours helped out, well, I wish Bedi had been left out altogether.
> The one surprise choice may be van der Bijl, but round about
> 1980 he was probably the best fast-medium (as opposed to fast) bowler
> in the world, as his one season in county cricket indicated.
Round about 1980 --- does that make it 1970s in this context?
I think of 1980 as the last year of that decade, but that is
hardly the way C&L seems to operate. And Mike Procter played
in the 60's to make the same decade as van der Bijl.
> Third Team
>
> 1. Roy Fredericks (WI) 59: 4334 at 42.49 (8)
> 2. Dennis Amiss (E) 50: 3612 at 46.30 (11)
> 3. Dilip Vengsarkar (I) 116: 6868 at 42.13 (17)
> 4. Gundappa Viswanath (I) 91: 6080 at 41.93 (14)
> 5. Alvin Kallicharran (WI) 66: 4399 at 44.43 (12)
> 6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
And not one county season between them? Wait a tick...
They all had long careers and averages tend to average out over time.
No great spikes to help one along...
> I was tempted to include
> the off-spinner A.J.Traicos who, remarkably, played Test cricket for
> SA in 1970 and for Zimbabwe in the 1990s.
C'mon John, what was his average? C & L draws a blank here...
A bit of trivia at best; hope that was a note of whimsy.
Cheers!
-- Ramaswamy
John Hall
bha...@scr.siemens.com "R. Bharat Rao" writes:
> John Hall <Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Lots of controversy here, as is guaranteed as you get closer to the
> present.
Very true!
> I will skim over all of those to point out one choice:
>
> >Third Team
>
> >6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> There is no way Mohindar Amarnath should be in the team for the
> 1970's. For the 1980's you could make a case for him being in the
> second team, let alone the third -- for a while there in the 80's he
> was arguably the best bat in the world.
>
You're quite right. I goofed. On checking I find that early in 1980
his average was only 34.90, ie far inferior to his overall average.
>
> Also, the 1970's first team is somewhat weak in the batting
> department. After the first 4 (Gavaskar, the two Richards, and
> Chappell -- all of whom I agree with), Lloyd and Proctor make for a
> somewhat weaker lineup. (Lloyd was a great captain, but as a batsman
> I think he fails to make the "great" category, but falls in the "very
> good indeed" category.)
Well, an overall average of 46.67 is not at all bad, and I think
superior to any other candidate for the number 5 position. As for
Procter, I would assess him as a batsman about on a par with Botham or
Imran Khan.
--
Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
is a symptom of deficicient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
implies a catholic appetite and a strong sense of personal identity.
R.L.Stevenson "An Apology for Idlers" 1976
Venkatesh Sridharan
: >Third Team
: >6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
: ^^^^^^^^^
: There is no way Mohindar Amarnath should be in the team for the
: 1970's. For the 1980's you could make a case for him being in the
: second team, let alone the third -- for a while there in the 80's he
: was arguably the best bat in the world.
-------
Quite true. Mohinder was far from being among the world's best eight or
ten or so batsmen (which is what being in a World-second-eleven implies,
I guess) in the 1970s... For the 1980s, he would be in my first team.
-------
: Also, the 1970's first team is somewhat weak in the batting
: department. After the first 4 (Gavaskar, the two Richards, and
: Chappell -- all of whom I agree with), Lloyd and Proctor make for a
: somewhat weaker lineup. (Lloyd was a great captain, but as a batsman
: I think he fails to make the "great" category, but falls in the "very
: good indeed" category.)
-------
I thought so too... but I think Lloyd would *have* to fit into a seventies
World eleven, simply because he was a tremendous batsman when his team
was under pressure. I'm sure anybody who's seen one of his (many) sixties
or seventies when his team's been on the ropes, will agree.
Just out of curiosity, Bharat, who would you rather have in the first
eleven for the 1970s (instead of Lloyd, I mean) ?
: Bharat
Boden Library
couldn't make up my mind if Gavaskar or Boycott would open as the perfect
foil for Richards. Likewise I couldn't choose between Knotty and Marsh, tho'
I think I would've gone for Knotty. I take it that Pollock (RG) was in the
60's side (which I missed somehow). Would've been a great game against the
2nd team, good to see Big Vince getting a run. Faves of mine who didn't
make it were Majid Khan and Larry Gomes (how he used to frustrate England
if ever they did get into a winning position!). Was that a golden era or
was it that cricketers became so much more widely travelled and televised
so that we got to see the greats from all over the world?
Cheers
Tim
John Hall
> In article <802121...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall <Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > An added complication was the ostracism of South Africa from Test
> > cricket after their series against Australia at the start of 1970. At
> > the time, SA were probably the best side in the world. I have included
> > two of their players in the First Team since, although they played
> > little Test cricket, they were clearly great players.
>
> Yes, but did they play the West Indies in the 60's and even the 70's?
> It was not as if the WI were reluctant to engage the South Africans.
It's a pity the two sides could never meet. However, South Africa had
shown their strength by beating England 1-0 with 2 drawn in England in
1965, Australia 3-1 with 1 drawn in SA in 1966-7 and 4-0 with 0 draws
in SA in 1969-70. Meanwhile, WI were temporarily at a fairly low ebb
at the start of the 70s, losing to Australia 3-1 in 1968-9 in
Australia and 2-0 in WI in 1972-3. So on a form line through
Australia, I think my claikm that SA began the decade as the best side
in the world stands up. Taking the decade as a whole, I think 4 West
Indians, 3 Australians, 2 South Africans, 2 Indians and 1 Englishman
is a reasonable mixture for a World team.
> An excessively generous extrapolation of the averages, me thinks,
> and for the 1st team? Procter in the 1st Team of the 70's?
> On the basis of a few tests in the last years of the 60's?
>
> > First Team
> >
> > 6. Mike Procter (SA) 7: 226 at 25.11; 41 at 15.02 (1/0)
>
I generally try to give my reasons in advance for selections that look
as though they might be controversial. However I had thought that
Barry Richards and Procter were such obvious choices that there was no
need to justify them.
Perhaps I need to explain my selection criteria. In determining
who the best players are, if a player plays a substantial amount of
Test cricket then that will reveal how good a player he is, and it's
appropriate to make a decision based primarily on his Test record.
However, if a player plays little Test cricket, other than because he
was simply not good enough to play more, that doesn't necessarily
prove that he wasn't a great player; then one has to look at other
evidence. I've been consistent in not automatically excluding players
who have played little or no Test cricket. Most notably, I picked
J.Barton King of Philadelphia for the 1900s team, based on 3 tours of
England and on the opinions of contemporary experts. I nearly picked
George Challenor on the same basis (and increasing think I should have
been bold enough to do so).
Let me give some figures on Barry Richards and Procter.
Career records:
Runs Ave 100s Wkts Ave 5wI 10wM
Richards 28358 54.74 80
Procter 21307 36.60 47 1370 19.18 68 14
England v RoW 1970 (the RoW selectors evidently felt these players
were amongst the best 11 non-English players in the world at the time,
BTW):
Richards 257 runs at 36.71
Procter 292 runs at 48.66 15 wkts at 23.93
I could go on to quote figures from the RoW series v Australia a few
years later (if I could rember which Wisden to look in), from Packer's
WSC. I could also quote opinions from such people as John Arlott or
E.W.Swanton on their merits. Hopefully I've done enough, though, to
convince you that I felt (and still feel) justified in choosing them.
Richards kept out Boycott (just as well G.R.Barsey no longer takes
this group!), whilst Procter's replacement would be Tony Greig.
> > No doubt the omission of Bishen Bedi will be controversial. On a perfect
> > batting wicket Bedi would have the edge on Underwood because of his
> > flight, but in any other conditions I think Underwood just shades it.
> > Another possibility would be to play both slow left-armers, since they
> > are so different in style.
>
> As Josh reminded us once, it's your XI/XII, so I'll let it go at that,
> but then there is this...
>
> > Second Team
> >
> > 11. Vintcent van der Bijl (SA) - 0 Tests
> > 12. Bishen Bedi (I) 67: 266 at 28.71 (14/1)
>
> On mere reputation, and no Test record, one can make the 2nd XII?
> If one season of county cricket defines a player's merit, there's
> no hope for the rest of the world. And if the records of the Rebel
> tours helped out, well, I wish Bedi had been left out altogether.
No, I didn't look at the records of the Rebel tours. Perhaps van der
Bijl was a slightly eccentric choice, but I don't like these teams to
be totally predictable. Career record to the end of 1980: 585 wickets
at 17.17. Michael Melford wrote in the 1981 Wisden: "He more than
justified the reputation which had preceded him of being one of the
best fast-medium bowlers in the world". And Bedi is in good company in
not making the first team: Boycott, Turner, Knott, Willis, Thomson,
Roberts among others. I'm inclined to think there's never been greater
strength in depth in cricket than in the 1970s.
>
> > The one surprise choice may be van der Bijl, but round about
> > 1980 he was probably the best fast-medium (as opposed to fast) bowler
> > in the world, as his one season in county cricket indicated.
>
> Round about 1980 --- does that make it 1970s in this context?
> I think of 1980 as the last year of that decade, but that is
> hardly the way C&L seems to operate. And Mike Procter played
> in the 60's to make the same decade as van der Bijl.
Well, players don't fit neatly into one decade. Procter was clearly at
his peak in the 1970s, and so, I think, was van der Bijl.
>
> > Third Team
> >
> > 1. Roy Fredericks (WI) 59: 4334 at 42.49 (8)
> > 2. Dennis Amiss (E) 50: 3612 at 46.30 (11)
> > 3. Dilip Vengsarkar (I) 116: 6868 at 42.13 (17)
> > 4. Gundappa Viswanath (I) 91: 6080 at 41.93 (14)
> > 5. Alvin Kallicharran (WI) 66: 4399 at 44.43 (12)
> > 6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
>
> And not one county season between them? Wait a tick...
> They all had long careers and averages tend to average out over time.
> No great spikes to help one along...
Amiss and Kalli had plenty of county seasons, but I assume you're
talking about the Indian players. As Badri has pointed out, Amarnath
really shouldn't have been considered for this decade anyway. If you
look at the two V's, they were kept out of the 3-5 batting positions
by Viv Richards, Greg Chappell and Clive Lloyd in the First Team, and
Zaheer Abbas, Doug Walters and Ian Chappell in the Second Team. Which
of these players do you propose to demote? They all have better
averages than the 2 V's over Test careers of comparable length (OK,
Ian Chappell's average is only marginally better, but he also had his
captaincy to commend him).
>
> > I was tempted to include
> > the off-spinner A.J.Traicos who, remarkably, played Test cricket for
> > SA in 1970 and for Zimbabwe in the 1990s.
>
> C'mon John, what was his average? C & L draws a blank here...
> A bit of trivia at best; hope that was a note of whimsy.
Yes, it was.
>
> Cheers!
A little incongruous. You didn't sound at all cheerful. I hope I've
done enough to convince you that my selections were made solely on
cricketing criteria, and that I don't have any pro SA or anti Indian
bias, as you appeared to think. The teams may not be PC, but I don't
think one should penalise individual cricketers, most of whom took a
stand against apartheid (you can argue, of course, about how sincere
that was), for the sins of their government. (This doesn't mean that I
don't think the Test boycott was right.)
I'm sorry I was hard on your favourites, but my favourite cricketer of
the 1960s was John Edrich (didn't make the First Team) and of the
1970s probably Alan Knott (didn't make the First Team).
Boden Library
I can't agree with most of the sentiments expressed here, I know the choice
of a team is an individual thing and we'll all disagree somewhere along
the line but I think you are being a bit harsh here.
>In article <802121...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall <Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> An added complication was the ostracism of South Africa from Test
>> cricket after their series against Australia at the start of 1970. At
>> the time, SA were probably the best side in the world. I have included
>> two of their players in the First Team since, although they played
>> little Test cricket, they were clearly great players.
>
>Yes, but did they play the West Indies in the 60's and even the 70's?
>It was not as if the WI were reluctant to engage the South Africans.
>An excessively generous extrapolation of the averages, me thinks,
>and for the 1st team? Procter in the 1st Team of the 70's?
>On the basis of a few tests in the last years of the 60's?
>
>> First Team
>>
>> 6. Mike Procter (SA) 7: 226 at 25.11; 41 at 15.02 (1/0)
The fact that WI and SA did not meet was purely political, I think the players
would've been quite happy (more like desperate) to engage in Test cricket.
I don't know if you're implying that SA ducked the Windies, that was not
the case. As for Proctor, I think he is the same vintage as Barry Richards,
i.e. got into the SA team just as they were being banned and thus did not
get the chance to display their talents at Test level to any extent.
Proctor was a genuine allrounder in the Botham/Imran class, OK his batting
is not great from these stats, but the bowling ave. looks more than healthy.
Proctor came to England in the early 70's and anyone who followed the game
in England at that time will tell you that he was one of the standout
performers; and let's not forget that at that time the county scene was
awash with all the names that you see in those first 3 teams. Stats can
tell you part of the story, but in this case do not reflect the mans worth.
As an aside, I checked Proctors' stats for the Packer Circus where he
played for the WorldXI (the weakest team). They are more than impressive,
esp. in the bowling stakes, the only person who appears to best him (the
stats I have are difficult to decipher) is Garth Le Roux, not DKL or
Roberts or Imran et al.
>> No doubt the omission of Bishen Bedi will be controversial. On a perfect
>> batting wicket Bedi would have the edge on Underwood because of his
>> flight, but in any other conditions I think Underwood just shades it.
>> Another possibility would be to play both slow left-armers, since they
>> are so different in style.
>
>As Josh reminded us once, it's your XI/XII, so I'll let it go at that,
>but then there is this...
>
>> Second Team
>>
>> 11. Vintcent van der Bijl (SA) - 0 Tests
>> 12. Bishen Bedi (I) 67: 266 at 28.71 (14/1)
>
>On mere reputation, and no Test record, one can make the 2nd XII?
>If one season of county cricket defines a player's merit, there's
>no hope for the rest of the world. And if the records of the Rebel
>tours helped out, well, I wish Bedi had been left out altogether.
>
>> The one surprise choice may be van der Bijl, but round about
>> 1980 he was probably the best fast-medium (as opposed to fast) bowler
>> in the world, as his one season in county cricket indicated.
>
>Round about 1980 --- does that make it 1970s in this context?
>I think of 1980 as the last year of that decade, but that is
>hardly the way C&L seems to operate. And Mike Procter played
>in the 60's to make the same decade as van der Bijl.
I think John has mentioned that it was not just one season. To those of us
who saw him. it was obvious that Big Vince was not having a lucky season,
he was a class act without a shadow of a doubt. I believe he holds several
SA bowling records (we had a thread on him around Xmas time) and still
knocks em dead in the veterans comps. His one season just showed us what
we were missing, I for one would have paid big money to see SA take on the
WIndies in the middle/late 70's. Cricket is full of ifs and buts on a
players career, but these two you mention, I have seen enough of them to
convince me that they would've made the grade in the highest of companies.
>> Third Team
>>
>> 1. Roy Fredericks (WI) 59: 4334 at 42.49 (8)
>> 2. Dennis Amiss (E) 50: 3612 at 46.30 (11)
>> 3. Dilip Vengsarkar (I) 116: 6868 at 42.13 (17)
>> 4. Gundappa Viswanath (I) 91: 6080 at 41.93 (14)
>> 5. Alvin Kallicharran (WI) 66: 4399 at 44.43 (12)
>> 6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
>
>And not one county season between them? Wait a tick...
>They all had long careers and averages tend to average out over time.
>No great spikes to help one along...
>
>> I was tempted to include
>> the off-spinner A.J.Traicos who, remarkably, played Test cricket for
>> SA in 1970 and for Zimbabwe in the 1990s.
>
>C'mon John, what was his average? C & L draws a blank here...
>A bit of trivia at best; hope that was a note of whimsy.
Don't know about this one, you may be right :)
>
>Cheers!
>
>-- Ramaswamy
Cheers
Tim.
S Govindarajan
>In article <3qtr30$9...@transfer.stratus.com> ra...@cac.stratus.com writes:
>> In article <802121...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall <Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > Second Team
>> >
>> > 11. Vintcent van der Bijl (SA) - 0 Tests
>> > 12. Bishen Bedi (I) 67: 266 at 28.71 (14/1)
>>
>No, I didn't look at the records of the Rebel tours. Perhaps van der
>Bijl was a slightly eccentric choice, but I don't like these teams to
>be totally predictable. Career record to the end of 1980: 585 wickets
>at 17.17. Michael Melford wrote in the 1981 Wisden: "He more than
>justified the reputation which had preceded him of being one of the
>best fast-medium bowlers in the world".
If reputation alone can make players include in the list, Then may I
suggest two Indian players:
(1) Ranjinder Singh Goel (played for Haryana. maximum wickets in
Ranji trophy matches at a time when Bedi was at his peak).
(2) Paddy Shivalkar (One of the all-time best offies- was recalled
in his 50s to play for Bombay in Ranji trophy and didn't do
all that badly either).
Either of these two players would have made any other test team
(except for the WI maybe)
>Well, players don't fit neatly into one decade. Procter was clearly at
>his peak in the 1970s, and so, I think, was van der Bijl.
>> > 3. Dilip Vengsarkar (I) 116: 6868 at 42.13 (17)
>> > 4. Gundappa Viswanath (I) 91: 6080 at 41.93 (14)
>> > 5. Alvin Kallicharran (WI) 66: 4399 at 44.43 (12)
>> > 6. Mohinder Amarnath (I) 69: 4378 at 42.50 (11)
>>
>Amiss and Kalli had plenty of county seasons, but I assume you're
>talking about the Indian players. As Badri has pointed out, Amarnath
>really shouldn't have been considered for this decade anyway. If you
>look at the two V's, they were kept out of the 3-5 batting positions
>by Viv Richards, Greg Chappell and Clive Lloyd in the First Team, and
>Zaheer Abbas, Doug Walters and Ian Chappell in the Second Team. Which
>of these players do you propose to demote?
I would remove Zaheer Abbas and include Vishwanath in his place. Was a
much better all-round player (especially in the 70s). Zaheer, by all
accounts had a dislike for genuine pace and wouldn't have done all
that well in the 70s. Also, his best batting seems to come in
Pakistan, which goes against him. Amarnath shouldn't have been in the
70s team. Except for the 85 at PoS (WI '76), I don't think he played a
good inings throughout the decade. Same goes for Vengsarkar - no great
shakes in the 70s. Guy just made his life flogging the likes of Nobert
Phillips and an aging Vanburn Holder in India. I would replace them
with Wasim Raja, imho, a very underrated player - sort of the Mohinder
Amarnath of Pakistan and Asif Iqbal (a very good crisis player).
>Yes, it was.
>>
>> Cheers!
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"And the moral of that is -`Be what you seem to be' - or if you'd like it put
more simply - `Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might
appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than
what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'" - The Duchess
in Alice In Wonderland.
S.Govindarajan | Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
email: govi...@maya.rutgers.edu | Rutgers University
Ph: (908) 445 5769 | P.O.Box 909
http://www-caip.rutgers.edu/~govindra/ | Piscataway, NJ 08855.
John Hall
lib...@summer.chem.su.oz.au "Boden Library" writes:
> couldn't make up my mind if Gavaskar or Boycott would open as the perfect
> foil for Richards.
Can you imagine the stick I would have got if I'd left Gavaskar out?
Seriously, though, his record is definitely superior to Boycott's.
> Likewise I couldn't choose between Knotty and Marsh, tho'
> I think I would've gone for Knotty.
My heart said Knotty, but in the end my head just said Marsh.
> I take it that Pollock (RG) was in the
> 60's side (which I missed somehow).
Yes, he was. Email me if you'd like me to send it to you. There's been
very little response to that posting, so maybe it got lost somewhere.
> Would've been a great game against the
> 2nd team, good to see Big Vince getting a run. Faves of mine who didn't
> make it were Majid Khan and Larry Gomes (how he used to frustrate England
> if ever they did get into a winning position!). Was that a golden era or
> was it that cricketers became so much more widely travelled and televised
> so that we got to see the greats from all over the world?
I think it must have been a golden era. Even the Third Team looks very
formidable.
--
Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
is a symptom of deficicient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
implies a catholic appetite and a strong sense of personal identity.
R.L.Stevenson "An Apology for Idlers" 1876
Department of State Library
>I generally try to give my reasons in advance for selections that look
>as though they might be controversial. However I had thought that
>Barry Richards and Procter were such obvious choices that there was no
>need to justify them.
>evidence. I've been consistent in not automatically excluding players
>who have played little or no Test cricket. Most notably, I picked
>J.Barton King of Philadelphia for the 1900s team, based on 3 tours of
>England and on the opinions of contemporary experts. I nearly picked
>George Challenor on the same basis (and increasing think I should have
>been bold enough to do so).
course I enjoyed your selection of King (I'm playing a social match at
Haverford College in Philadelphia this Saturday -- I'll be on the lookout for
Bart King's restless spirit); similarly, I would wholeheartedly support
Challenor's
inclusion. They still tell stories of his prowess in the Caribbean.
>> Cheers!
>
>A little incongruous. You didn't sound at all cheerful. I hope I've
>done enough to convince you that my selections were made solely on
>cricketing criteria, and that I don't have any pro SA or anti Indian
>bias, as you appeared to think. The teams may not be PC, but I don't
>think one should penalise individual cricketers, most of whom took a
>stand against apartheid (you can argue, of course, about how sincere
>that was), for the sins of their government. (This doesn't mean that I
>don't think the Test boycott was right.)
treated as such by evreyone on RSC. Now about Barrington's Test average...
Cheers, (honest!)
Ted Seay
ust...@class.org
DO...@delphi.com
John Hall
govi...@caip.rutgers.edu "S Govindarajan" writes:
>
> If reputation alone can make players include in the list, Then may I
> suggest two Indian players:
>
> (1) Ranjinder Singh Goel (played for Haryana. maximum wickets in
> Ranji trophy matches at a time when Bedi was at his peak).
>
> (2) Paddy Shivalkar (One of the all-time best offies- was recalled
> in his 50s to play for Bombay in Ranji trophy and didn't do
> all that badly either).
>
> Either of these two players would have made any other test team
> (except for the WI maybe)
>
I must admit I don't know enough about these players to evaluate them.
Their reputation doesn't seem to have spread beyond India.
>
> I would remove Zaheer Abbas and include Vishwanath in his place. Was a
> much better all-round player (especially in the 70s). Zaheer, by all
> accounts had a dislike for genuine pace and wouldn't have done all
> that well in the 70s. Also, his best batting seems to come in
> Pakistan, which goes against him. Amarnath shouldn't have been in the
> 70s team. Except for the 85 at PoS (WI '76), I don't think he played a
> good inings throughout the decade. Same goes for Vengsarkar - no great
> shakes in the 70s. Guy just made his life flogging the likes of Nobert
> Phillips and an aging Vanburn Holder in India. I would replace them
> with Wasim Raja, imho, a very underrated player - sort of the Mohinder
> Amarnath of Pakistan and Asif Iqbal (a very good crisis player).
You make some good points here. Asif Iqbal is already in the Third
Team at number 7, BTW, perhaps a little too low in the order.
--
Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
is a symptom of deficicient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
implies a catholic appetite and a strong sense of personal identity.
R.L.Stevenson "An Apology for Idlers" 1876
Jim Bright
Astonishing that Bob Taylor doesn't make any of the teams as keeper.
Surely with all the batting above him, Bob's poor batting is irrelevant.
Even Alan Knott admitted a) Bob was the better keeper and b) that Knott
never regularly performed well with both gloves and bat in one game.
Clive Lloyd as captain?!! Again I'd argue that with batting in depth,
the only man for the job is the greatest captain ever to set foot on a
cricket pitch, one J.M. Brearley of Cambridge, Middlesex and England.
Jim Bright
R. Bharat Rao
>Astonishing that Bob Taylor doesn't make any of the teams as keeper.
>Surely with all the batting above him, Bob's poor batting is irrelevant.
>Even Alan Knott admitted a) Bob was the better keeper and b) that Knott
>never regularly performed well with both gloves and bat in one game.
This I'll let go...
>Clive Lloyd as captain?!! Again I'd argue that with batting in depth,
>the only man for the job is the greatest captain ever to set foot on a
>cricket pitch, one J.M. Brearley of Cambridge, Middlesex and England.
Only problem. To become captain one needs to make the team. Brearley
wouldn't even make the all 1970s English team, let alone get a sniff
at the 3rd World XI.
>Jim Bright
Kurt Toolsie
>
>
>Clive Lloyd as captain?!! Again I'd argue that with batting in depth,
>the only man for the job is the greatest captain ever to set foot on a
>cricket pitch, one J.M. Brearley of Cambridge, Middlesex and England.
>
>
>
Rubbish, Jim. Clive Lloyd was an extremely astute captain. His
accomplishments were never given the respect they deserved. I believe
that in terms of captaincy alone, Lloyd was head and shoulders above
Brearley. He was a better motivator/disciplinarian and a better
tactician. Oh, and he won!
Kurt
---
These views are mine, I tell you... mine, all mine!
Kurt O. Toolsie ktoo...@gelac.lasc.lockheed.com
John Hall
J.Br...@unsw.edu.au "Jim Bright" writes:
>
> Astonishing that Bob Taylor doesn't make any of the teams as keeper.
> Surely with all the batting above him, Bob's poor batting is irrelevant.
> Even Alan Knott admitted a) Bob was the better keeper and b) that Knott
> never regularly performed well with both gloves and bat in one game.
Well, Knott may just have been being modest. I would have said there
was little to choose between them as keepers, and Knott was obviously
the better bat. As to (b), that wasn't my impression. Taylor's Test
career was half in the 70s and half in the 80s, and he certainly has a
good chance of being selected for the latter decade.
>
> Clive Lloyd as captain?!! Again I'd argue that with batting in depth,
> the only man for the job is the greatest captain ever to set foot on a
> cricket pitch, one J.M. Brearley of Cambridge, Middlesex and England.
It's an interesting debate as to whether you should include a player
who was a great captain but only a mediocre player. I decided not to
do so. Lloyd was a notably successful, if ruthless, captain, though
having a great side to captain didn't hurt, of course.
Tansen Varghese
>the only man for the job is the greatest captain ever to set foot on a
>cricket pitch, one J.M. Brearley of Cambridge, Middlesex and England.
>
Can anyone please post "the greatest captain's" record in Tests,
please?
Tanny
Joshua Saunders
: Astonishing that Bob Taylor doesn't make any of the teams as keeper.
: Surely with all the batting above him, Bob's poor batting is irrelevant.
: Even Alan Knott admitted a) Bob was the better keeper and b) that Knott
: never regularly performed well with both gloves and bat in one game.
And does this make him more appropriate for the job than any of Marsh,
Knott, Murray and Bari, the others considered? Taylor only played 23
tests in the 70's anyway - almost all during World Series Cricket. He
played 34 tests in the 80's.
: Clive Lloyd as captain?!! Again I'd argue that with batting in depth,
: the only man for the job is the greatest captain ever to set foot on a
: cricket pitch, one J.M. Brearley of Cambridge, Middlesex and England.
Mike Brearley as captain. Great. On this basis you should be advocating
one of the REAL cricket brains - Benaud maybe, who did very well with a
pretty average team, and full strength opposition. At least he could bat and
bowl.
Who should Brearley replace? I know - Greg Chappell. Wait, no, Mike Procter.
I believe these teams are selected on playing ability, and from the
players selected a captain is chosen. There were three options in this
team - Lloyd, Chappell and Sunny. Why import someone cause they did OK
during WSC?
Cheers, Josh
--
Joshua Saunders. jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au
Things to do in a lift #1. Say "ding" at each floor.
IRCnick: rogan
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
I expect I didn't express my thoughts properly but my issues had
more to do with the selection of players that were not part of the
international scene in the 70's. But if Wisden's says they were the
cream of the crop, well, who's to argue.
>>
>> Cheers!
>
>A little incongruous. You didn't sound at all cheerful.
Point taken.
-- Ramaswamy
Jonathan Rosenberg
ommission (sp) from the 70's team of Graeme Pollock who until the
emergence of Brian Lara, whom I have not seen play, was the greatest
left handed batsman ever. His world reputation was inhibited by the
absence of SA from world cricket during the peak of his career, but
for those of us who remember those effortless cover drives crashing
through to the boundary there is no doubt.
Department of State Library
>Mike Brearley as captain. Great. On this basis you should be advocating
>one of the REAL cricket brains - Benaud maybe, who did very well with a
>pretty average team, and full strength opposition. At least he could bat and
>bowl.
>players selected a captain is chosen. There were three options in this
>team - Lloyd, Chappell and Sunny. Why import someone cause they did OK
>during WSC?
captaincy in greater detail than any who came before (and with astonishing
indiscretion about colleagues and adversaries still living, IMHO); and
Brearley did point out how average Lloyd's results were as a county captain
when he couldn't just hand the ball to Holding/Roberts/Garner/et.al., but had
to try to wring the most out of an unexciting attack...In my book, Keith
Miller as captain of NSW rates a look as best ever, and a scratch of the
head for Australia's (Bradman's?) unwillingness to let him try on the baggy
green cap as captain. One more point: England's theory that one chooses the
sort of fellow who is made of the right stuff to captain the side, and then
picks the rest of the team around him, would seem to have come in a poor
second to the Aussie theory (since adopted by most/all other Test sides) of
picking talent and choosing the captain from among them. 'Nuff said.
Cheers,
Ted Seay
ust...@class.org
DO...@delphi.com
John Hall
75327...@CompuServe.COM "Jonathan Rosenberg" writes:
That's because he was in the 60s team, and the rule I adopted was that
a player should not be in more than one team.
S Govindarajan
>Joshua Saunders <jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au> writes:
>
>>Mike Brearley as captain. Great. On this basis you should be advocating
>
>>team - Lloyd, Chappell and Sunny. Why import someone cause they did OK
>
>"Greatest captain" is another imponderable -- Brearley certainly WROTE about
>captaincy in greater detail than any who came before (and with astonishing
>indiscretion about colleagues and adversaries still living, IMHO); and
>Brearley did point out how average Lloyd's results were as a county captain
>when he couldn't just hand the ball to Holding/Roberts/Garner/et.al., but had
>to try to wring the most out of an unexciting attack...In my book, Keith
>Miller as captain of NSW rates a look as best ever, and a scratch of the
>head for Australia's (Bradman's?) unwillingness to let him try on the baggy
>green cap as captain. One more point: England's theory that one chooses the
What you say is essentially true. But Lloyd's contribution was getting
four of the best bowlers to work as a team - something started by Ian
Chappel, but it was Lloyd who perfected it.
Captaincy implies not just uniting a bunch of great talents, but also
requires you to win with a not-so-good team. Whatever may be the state
of the current English side, the ones from the late 70s and the early
80s were certainly not deviod of talents. And Brearley did not play
best team of the time and yet his record is far from astonishing.
IMHO, Lloyd, with his proven record, is perhaps the best guy to lead
the most talented team. He might favor the pace bowlers at the expense
of Bedi and co., but as long as he is winning, no one can quibble with
his tactics. Certainly Imran and Border of the late 80s would be
better candidates, as would be Gavasker of the early and mid 80s
(after all he had a equal win-loss record operating a team with just
one bowler). Krish Srikkanth would also be up there for captaincy
alone - after all he drew a series in Pakistan with just two bowlers
(three in the last test and India was in quite a winning position)
against the mighty Khan. But all these are in the 80s.
>Cheers,
>Ted Seay
>ust...@class.org
>DO...@delphi.com--
John Hall
> suggest two Indian players:
>
> (1) Ranjinder Singh Goel (played for Haryana. maximum wickets in
> Ranji trophy matches at a time when Bedi was at his peak).
>
> (2) Paddy Shivalkar (One of the all-time best offies- was recalled
> in his 50s to play for Bombay in Ranji trophy and didn't do
> all that badly either).
>
> Either of these two players would have made any other test team
> (except for the WI maybe)
Did they play any Tests at all; if they did, how did they get on? Was
Shivalkar kept out by Prasanna and/or Venkat? How many wickets did
they take in first-class cricket at what average, and how do their
averages compare with those of Bedi and Prasanna?
(Yes, I know I could look most of this up in cricinfo myself, but it's
you who is trying to make a case so it's only right that you should do
the work. :-)
Venkatesh Sridharan
: Astonishing that Bob Taylor doesn't make any of the teams as keeper.
: Surely with all the batting above him, Bob's poor batting is irrelevant.
: Even Alan Knott admitted a) Bob was the better keeper and b) that Knott
: never regularly performed well with both gloves and bat in one game.
: Clive Lloyd as captain?!! Again I'd argue that with batting in depth,
: the only man for the job is the greatest captain ever to set foot on a
: cricket pitch, one J.M. Brearley of Cambridge, Middlesex and England.
: Jim Bright
-------
Brearley would'nt qualify to carry the drinks for a team that has Viv
Richards, Barry Richards and Dennis Lillee in it's ranks.
Tansen Varghese
>Brearley would'nt qualify to carry the drinks for a team that has Viv
>Richards, Barry Richards and Dennis Lillee in it's ranks.
>
>
>Win or lose, forever Windies.
>Venky (Venkatesh Sridharan).
Not only that, I'm not even sure that Brearley should be
in the 70/80s England team. Just because of a innings by
Botham at Headingley, Brearley was elevated to the status
of a superstar. The only thing that can be said about
Brearley (as far as Test cricket is concerned; even Hick
hits runs in county cricket) is that he was miles ahead
of Botham as a captain, and that contrast was obvious
when Brearley took over from Botham, but that's not saying
much about Brearley's captaincy.
Tanny
S Govindarajan
>> If reputation alone can make players include in the list, Then may I
>> suggest two Indian players:
>>
>> (1) Ranjinder Singh Goel (played for Haryana. maximum wickets in
>> Ranji trophy matches at a time when Bedi was at his peak).
>>
>> (2) Paddy Shivalkar (One of the all-time best offies- was recalled
>> in his 50s to play for Bombay in Ranji trophy and didn't do
>> all that badly either).
>>
>> Either of these two players would have made any other test team
>> (except for the WI maybe)
>Did they play any Tests at all; if they did, how did they get on? Was
>Shivalkar kept out by Prasanna and/or Venkat? How many wickets did
>they take in first-class cricket at what average, and how do their
>averages compare with those of Bedi and Prasanna?
>(Yes, I know I could look most of this up in cricinfo myself, but it's
>you who is trying to make a case so it's only right that you should do
>the work. :-)
Point taken :-) The following are taken from th venerable crincinfo:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Date-stamped : 16 Jan95 - 18:50
Top wicket-takers in the Ranji Trophy:
(Stats updated to the end of the 1992-93 season)
Name Team B M R W Avg. RPO SR
Rajinder Goel Hary 31950 1753 10973 640 17.14 2.06 49.92
S. Venkataraghavan TN 26760 1273 9664 530 18.23 2.17 50.49
B. S. Chandrasekhar Karn 17418 600 8345 436 19.13 2.87 39.95
V.V. Kumar TN 19873 880 7577 417 18.17 2.29 47.65
Bishen Bedi Delhi 17496 983 6072 402 15.10 2.08 43.52
Erapalli Prasanna Karn 16560 780 6414 373 17.19 2.32 44.40
Padmakar Shivalkar Bbay 21015 1271 6472 361 17.78 1.85 58.21
[Others' Deleted]
<END> Contributed by VKFan (kar...@cs.umn.edu)
.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Goel's SR and RPO were marginally beter than Venkat's. Also Goel
played well into the 80s when his SR and economy were falling down,
but he was, by far the best in the country, at that time, which isn't
saying much (India in the mid 80s depended on Madan Lal and Roger
Binny for wickets, apart from Kapil). Still, 640 wickets @ 17.14 AND a
SR of 50 AND an economy rate betten than Bedi and Venkat isn't all
that bad. Paddy Shivalkar, was a very effective bowler on bad wickets,
a bit like Underwood. Towards the end of his career, B'by lost most of
its bowlers, and he was their main strike bowler and containing bowler
rolled into one.
Stephen Devaux
taken place on rec.sport.cricket (with the assistance of CricInfo).
Can anyone imagine this discussion, complete with the information that
ir gives to the interested but ignorant fan such as myself, occuring in
any other medium? Newspaper, radio, TV discussion, even WCM? This is
another reason why the Internet, within 5 years, will be more important
than all other cricket media COMBINED!! And we are an early (alas, for
me, not seminal; I bow enviously to those who were in at the
conception) part of this!
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
In <3rsopk$9...@caip.rutgers.edu> govi...@caip.rutgers.edu (S
>Date-stamped : 16 Jan95 - 18:50
>Top wicket-takers in the Ranji Trophy:
>(Stats updated to the end of the 1992-93 season)
>
>Name Team B M R W Avg. RPO SR
>Rajinder Goel Hary 31950 1753 10973 640 17.14
2.06 49.92
>S. Venkataraghavan TN 26760 1273 9664 530 18.23
2.17 50.49
>B. S. Chandrasekhar Karn 17418 600 8345 436 19.13
2.87 39.95
>V.V. Kumar TN 19873 880 7577 417 18.17
2.29 47.65
>Bishen Bedi Delhi 17496 983 6072 402 15.10
2.08 43.52
>Erapalli Prasanna Karn 16560 780 6414 373 17.19
2.32 44.40
>Padmakar Shivalkar Bbay 21015 1271 6472 361 17.78
1.85 58.21
>
>[Others' Deleted]
>
><END> Contributed by VKFan (kar...@cs.umn.edu)
>.
>______________________________________________________________________
________
>
>Goel's SR and RPO were marginally beter than Venkat's. Also Goel
>played well into the 80s when his SR and economy were falling down,
>but he was, by far the best in the country, at that time, which isn't
>saying much (India in the mid 80s depended on Madan Lal and Roger
>Binny for wickets, apart from Kapil). Still, 640 wickets @ 17.14 AND a
>SR of 50 AND an economy rate betten than Bedi and Venkat isn't all
>that bad. Paddy Shivalkar, was a very effective bowler on bad wickets,
>a bit like Underwood. Towards the end of his career, B'by lost most of
>its bowlers, and he was their main strike bowler and containing bowler
>rolled into one.
>
>--
>______________________________________________________________________
________
Stephen Devaux
writes:
>
>> 60's side (which I missed somehow).
>
>very little response to that posting, so maybe it got lost somewhere.
John, it did. I for one never received it. Could you possibly repost?
Fraternally in cricket.
Steve the Bajan
Harish Chandramouli
[..........]
ta...@grove.ufl.edu (Tansen Varghese) wrote:
TV> Not only that, I'm not even sure that Brearley should be in the 70/80s
~~~~
YOU may not think so - but a certain Ian Botham does. (yes, Beefy had an
"English Xi" (of players he played with) drawn up in the very final
chapter of his autobiography - talk about John Hall's posts being a
source of inspiration! :-) And what's more, Botham paid special tribute
to Brearley by saying that here was a captain who fully understood his
players and thus could get the very best out of them in EVERY match; and
to him (Botham) THAT was the equivalent of a test century, or even
a five wicket haul. [I'll gladly post the relevant text from the book if
needed].
Honestly, when I first stared at Brears's Test stats (batting average of
22.88, no centuries) I couldn't for the life of me figure out why on
earth such a dismal batsman was allowed to remain in the team, let alone
become captain - but then again Tanny, don't you think the players who've
actually benefited under Brears's captaincy and have played under the
man for several years, are far better judges of his capablities than we
are ?
[..........]
Cheeka.
TV> Tanny
John Hall
govi...@caip.rutgers.edu "S Govindarajan" writes:
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Date-stamped : 16 Jan95 - 18:50
> Top wicket-takers in the Ranji Trophy:
> (Stats updated to the end of the 1992-93 season)
>
> Name Team B M R W Avg. RPO SR
> Rajinder Goel Hary 31950 1753 10973 640 17.14 2.06 49.92
> S. Venkataraghavan TN 26760 1273 9664 530 18.23 2.17 50.49
> B. S. Chandrasekhar Karn 17418 600 8345 436 19.13 2.87 39.95
> V.V. Kumar TN 19873 880 7577 417 18.17 2.29 47.65
> Bishen Bedi Delhi 17496 983 6072 402 15.10 2.08 43.52
> Erapalli Prasanna Karn 16560 780 6414 373 17.19 2.32 44.40
> Padmakar Shivalkar Bbay 21015 1271 6472 361 17.78 1.85 58.21
>
> [Others' Deleted]
>
> <END> Contributed by VKFan (kar...@cs.umn.edu)
> .
> _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> Goel's SR and RPO were marginally beter than Venkat's. Also Goel
> played well into the 80s when his SR and economy were falling down,
> but he was, by far the best in the country, at that time, which isn't
> saying much (India in the mid 80s depended on Madan Lal and Roger
> Binny for wickets, apart from Kapil). Still, 640 wickets @ 17.14 AND a
> SR of 50 AND an economy rate betten than Bedi and Venkat isn't all
> that bad. Paddy Shivalkar, was a very effective bowler on bad wickets,
> a bit like Underwood. Towards the end of his career, B'by lost most of
> its bowlers, and he was their main strike bowler and containing bowler
> rolled into one.
>
Thanks for the info. They are certainly very impressive figures.
Looking in Wisden, it appears that neither played even a single Test,
which is surprising. Is it possible they offended someone in high
places, as even with the "big four" around one would have expected
them to play in at least a handful of Tests?
I'm very surprised at how low all those bowling averages for the Ranji
trophy are. One tends to have the impression that most domestic
matches in India are played on batsman-friendly pitches, but this is
clearly not the case.
Aravind Bedekar
unlucky both Shivalkar and Goel were! Gavaskar has included both in his book "idols" (I think published in 1983)
V. V. Kumar was an orthodox right arm legspinner who would also have played test cricket regularly for any other side except India.
Aravind Bedekar
S Govindarajan
>Thanks for the info. They are certainly very impressive figures.
>Looking in Wisden, it appears that neither played even a single Test,
>which is surprising. Is it possible they offended someone in high
>places, as even with the "big four" around one would have expected
>them to play in at least a handful of Tests?
Bedi was quite an influential figure in the Indian selection scene
until about his retirement (late 70s). I guess he wouldn't have liked
any competition from Goel, Shivalkar or any others. This was the
favourite gripe of Prasanna, who played only 44 tests (he took some
time off for academics). Prasanna, actually felt that Bedi was
deliberately keeping him off the team, as he felt that Prasanna would
outshine him.
Apart from all these, I guess the selectors did not want to distrub
what was a very effective combination (a match winner under most
circumstances). Had Paddy or Goel played even a single series, they
might have done enough to cement their place in team for a long time
to come. Which would mean that one of the Big Four would lose his
place. So one would think the selectors were playing it safe.
>I'm very surprised at how low all those bowling averages for the Ranji
>trophy are. One tends to have the impression that most domestic
>matches in India are played on batsman-friendly pitches, but this is
>clearly not the case.
Not until the 80s. Until then, many of them were spinners' paradises
under prepared ones or in some cases out and out bowlers pitches. In
fact, Chepauk would have given the Perth a run for the money as far as
assistance for pace was concerned. Even Karsan Ghavri bowling here was
capable of extracting blood out of a batsman (Herbert Chang, 78-79). I
remember a Ranji match between B'by and T.N at Chepauk around '73. The
highest individual score in the entire match was around 30. Paddy got
15 wickets in the match and Venkat about 13. Only Gavaskar (B'by) and
Abdul Jabbar (T.N) reached double figures in both the innings in the
entire match. Eden Gardens was also not that far behind in giving
bowlers assistance. Had Bedi bowled in the mid or the late 80s, his
records might have been different.
>--
> Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
> is a symptom of deficicient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
> implies a catholic appetite and a strong sense of personal identity.
> R.L.Stevenson "An Apology for Idlers" 1876
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
J. Sreedhar
>Thanks for the info. They are certainly very impressive figures.
>Looking in Wisden, it appears that neither played even a single Test,
>which is surprising. Is it possible they offended someone in high
>places, as even with the "big four" around one would have expected
>them to play in at least a handful of Tests?
>I'm very surprised at how low all those bowling averages for the Ranji
>trophy are. One tends to have the impression that most domestic
>matches in India are played on batsman-friendly pitches, but this is
>clearly not the case.
Yes! Indeed, somehow one always gets the impression that Ranji
matches are high-scoring *boring* affairs...
Another interesting point is that *all* the bowlers in the
above list are spinners...no quick bowlers, not even Kapil!
Ample evidence for India's reliance on spin over the years.
Paddy not getting a single test shoots down the pet 'theory'
of many that Bombay players get far more opportunities than
they deserve (and that Bombay has too much influence in matters
of national selection)...
But maybe what all those people mean is that there have been many more
non-Bombay players than Bombay players who deserved a go and were
never recognized. E.g., I find it strange that V. V. Kumar (of Tamilndu)
didn't get a chance.
Kumar Venkataraman
: John Hall <Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
: >Thanks for the info. They are certainly very impressive figures.
: >Looking in Wisden, it appears that neither played even a single Test,
: >which is surprising. Is it possible they offended someone in high
: >places, as even with the "big four" around one would have expected
: >them to play in at least a handful of Tests?
: Bedi was quite an influential figure in the Indian selection scene
: until about his retirement (late 70s). I guess he wouldn't have liked
: any competition from Goel, Shivalkar or any others. This was the
: favourite gripe of Prasanna, who played only 44 tests (he took some
: time off for academics). Prasanna, actually felt that Bedi was
: deliberately keeping him off the team, as he felt that Prasanna would
: outshine him.
Actually, Prasanna in a recent interview for Deccan Herald here,
said that it was Wadekar who kept Prasanna out as Wadekar
thought that Pras was a Pataudi-man. Wadekar once told Pras
directly:"You are all Pataudi's men.". Bedi also might have
played his part as he was no simple mind. (Remember, how he came
out against the six players who played for some money in US).
: Apart from all these, I guess the selectors did not want to disturb
: what was a very effective combination (a match winner under most
: circumstances).
I dont think the combination really mattered. Venkat and Kumar for TN,
Pras and Chandra for Mysore were terrific combinations themselves.
The problem was, that the quartet was just so popular that the
selection committee stuck to them religiously. That way, the selectors
also suppressed some good medium-pacers like Salgaonkar of Maharashtra.
They included the same 4 spinners for the '74 tour to England and
got the worst drubbing ever. (I can never forget that 64-xx-224-6
that Bedi got at Lord's).
: I remember a Ranji match between B'by and T.N at Chepauk around '73. The
: highest individual score in the entire match was around 30. Paddy got
: 15 wickets in the match and Venkat about 13. Only Gavaskar (B'by) and
: Abdul Jabbar (T.N) reached double figures in both the innings in the
: entire match.
I think you are talking about the 72-73 Ranji final between TN and Bombay.
Bombay 151 (Mankad 38, Venkat and Kumar 5 each) and 113+ (Venkat 6,
Kalyanasundaram 4 incl.hattrick). TN 100+ and 80+ (Shiv.16 wkts).
: S.Govindarajan | Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Amitabha Lahiri
(jsg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> > govi...@caip.rutgers.edu "S Govindarajan" writes:
> >> Name Team B M R W Avg. RPO SR
> >> Rajinder Goel Hary 31950 1753 10973 640 17.14 2.06 49.92
> >> Bishen Bedi Delhi 17496 983 6072 402 15.10 2.08 43.52
> >> Padmakar Shivalkar Bbay 21015 1271 6472 361 17.78 1.85 58.21
> Paddy not getting a single test shoots down the pet 'theory'
> of many that Bombay players get far more opportunities than
> they deserve (and that Bombay has too much influence in matters
> of national selection)...
Suru who? :-)
There was no getting ahead of Bedi.
(Bombay didn't have _that_ much influence.)
Bedi was by far the best of the three according to many observers,
and as you can see he had a much better average and strike rate.
He did lose out on RPO but that could be attributed to his attacking style.
(That also made him a bad choice for ODIs and similar situations, notably
in the last moments of Lahore and Karachi 1978-79.)
> But maybe what all those people mean is that there have been many more
> non-Bombay players than Bombay players who deserved a go and were
> never recognized. E.g., I find it strange that V. V. Kumar (of Tamilndu)
> didn't get a chance.
He did.
Amitabha
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
No one else is responsible for what I say and vice versa.
Today it's the Bengalis, tomorrow it will be you.
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
S Govindarajan
>Actually, Prasanna in a recent interview for Deccan Herald here,
>said that it was Wadekar who kept Prasanna out as Wadekar
>thought that Pras was a Pataudi-man. Wadekar once told Pras
>directly:"You are all Pataudi's men.". Bedi also might have
>played his part as he was no simple mind. (Remember, how he came
>out against the six players who played for some money in US).
I remember reading some complaints against Bedi in Pras'
autobiography. A similar sentiment was expressed in Doshi's
autobiography too, though he seemed to think every selector and
captain was conspiring against him.
>I dont think the combination really mattered. Venkat and Kumar for TN,
>Pras and Chandra for Mysore were terrific combinations themselves.
Actually Mysore (later Karnataka, I think) had an excellent bowling
attack, probably the best in India. Prasanna, Chandra, Vijaykrishna
and later Raghuram Bhatt formed an excellent spin attack on their
own. Plus, they had a decent opening attack in Binny (:-0).
Their batting, too, was nothing to laugh at - Vishy, Patel, Sudhakar
Rao among others and Kiri too. Wonder why they didn't win the Ranji
more than once during that time?
Venkat, too was a very versatile bowler - could attack too when
needed. But for most of the time, he was the silent partner in the
quartet. I still remember the way Bedi, Pras and Venkat used to
outthink a batsman. Bedi used to run to mid-on or gully (where Venkat
was fileding) whenever he got a wicket and likewise for Pras and
Venkat too.
>They included the same 4 spinners for the '74 tour to England and
>got the worst drubbing ever. (I can never forget that 64-xx-224-6
>that Bedi got at Lord's).
I don't think it was a lack of talent that did India in. It was that
*&!%^(# politics. Too bad, it sorta broke India's winning streak.
Venkat too did India in on the English tour of '79 when he insisted on
Bharat Reddy over Kiri. His stewardship of the TNCA was filled with
acrimony. Sad, considering that TNCA was perhaps the best managed
cricket association in the country.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"And the moral of that is -`Be what you seem to be' - or if you'd like it put
more simply - `Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might
appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than
what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'" - The Duchess
in Alice In Wonderland.
S.Govindarajan | Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Harish Chandramouli
SG> Venkat, too was a very versatile bowler - could attack too when
SG> needed. But for most of the time, he was the silent partner in the
SG> quartet. I still remember the way Bedi, Pras and Venkat used to
SG> outthink a batsman.
Can someone explain to me, why on earth it is that Venkat is ALWAYS
included with these other greats ?? (i.e Bedi, Prasanna and Chandra).
Admittedly, he played a pivotal role as the "defensive spinner" who
kept a good line and length at all times, and thus ensured that nothing
was being given away whilst the likes of Chandra (Chandrasekhar) ran
through the opposition; but as some people will tell you, over the long run,
statistics are what differentiate the truly great from the average
performers, and looking at Venkat's stats (since I for one have little
else to go by) I am but amazed that a man who averaged 36 with the ball
(and had just *ONE* five wicket haul) kept his place in the side for so
long (of course the fact that he was vice-captain helped just a teeny
weeny bit didn't it - $&^*&*&(* politics once again) - this imo would have
been acceptable if there had not been another truly WORLD CLASS spinner
(Prasanna) who played a lot less tests than he really should have, as a
consequence. A true shame.
Just for comparison's sake:
Venkat - 57 Tests, 156 wickets at 36.11.
Bedi - 67 Tests, 266 wickets at 28.71.
Prasanna - 49 Tests, 189 wickets at 30.38
Chandrasekhar - 58 Tests, 242 wickets at 29.74
Ghavri (well he has a better average than Venkat anyway) - 39 T, 109w@ 33.54
Cheeka.
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
> In article <3rvqot$5...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> J. Sreedhar (jsg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
>> But maybe what all those people mean is that there have been many more
>> non-Bombay players than Bombay players who deserved a go and were
>> never recognized. E.g., I find it strange that V. V. Kumar (of Tamilndu)
>> didn't get a chance.
>
> He did.
>
And did quite well on his debut against Pakistan at Delhi (5th test)
in 1961. Bowled Imtiaz with his 5th ball in Test cricket, a googly,
finishing with 37.5-21-64-5, and 36-17-68-2 in the 2nd innings after
Pakistan followed on (all 5 tests and 9 1st class matches of that tour
ended in a draw). He was selected for the 1st test at Brabourne
against Dexter's England, 0 for 70 (didn't bowl in the 2nd innings),
and presumably dropped in favour of Salim Durrani (Durani).
> Amitabha
-- Ramaswamy
Venkatesh Sridharan
: Can someone explain to me, why on earth it is that Venkat is ALWAYS
: included with these other greats ?? (i.e Bedi, Prasanna and Chandra).
[...deleted...]
: but as some people will tell you, over the long run, statistics are what
: differentiate the truly great from the average performers, and looking
: at Venkat's stats (since I for one have little else to go by) I am but
[...deleted...]
: Cheeka.
-------
Statistics seem to suggest that Venkat was an "average" bowler. People
like Sir Garfield Sobers and Clive Lloyd, on the other hand, seemed
to think that he was an excellent bowler.
Both of them -- stats, and the folks who actually played against him
can't be right, can they? :-)
Win or lose, forever Windies.
Venky (Venkatesh Sridharan).
PS: On a similar note, in an interview he gave a year or so ago, when
asked to compare Lloyd's team with the present West Indian team,
Kallicharan explicitly stated that he thought Garner, who was the
fourth man in the quartet then, was a better bowler than Ambrose.
I don't think the stats quite say that, but Kalli being Kalli, I
think his opinion deserves to be taken seriously. Comments, anyone?
John Hall
venk...@utdallas.edu "Venkatesh Sridharan" writes:
> Statistics seem to suggest that Venkat was an "average" bowler. People
> like Sir Garfield Sobers and Clive Lloyd, on the other hand, seemed
> to think that he was an excellent bowler.
>
> Both of them -- stats, and the folks who actually played against him
> can't be right, can they? :-)
By coincidence I read an article about Venkat in The Times (I think it
was) today. This was mainly about his umpiring (he's the overseas
umpire in the 1st two Tests this summer), but in passing it mentioned
that he was thought be be an especially good bowler against
lefthanders (both Sobers and Lloyd were lefthanders of course).
>
>
> PS: On a similar note, in an interview he gave a year or so ago, when
> asked to compare Lloyd's team with the present West Indian team,
> Kallicharan explicitly stated that he thought Garner, who was the
> fourth man in the quartet then, was a better bowler than Ambrose.
> I don't think the stats quite say that, but Kalli being Kalli, I
> think his opinion deserves to be taken seriously. Comments, anyone?
>
I would have thought Garner was generally third in the pecking order
in Lloyd's side. He was certainly a tremendous bowler. If you go
purely on averages, he is neck and neck with Marshall, with Ambrose
slightly behind. I would want to put Holding at the top, though, even
though his average isn't quite as good. In one-day cricket, as opposed
to Tests, I think Garner was the best bowler there's ever been.
Vishwesh Kulkarni
In article <3safsk$7...@news.utdallas.edu>, venk...@utdallas.edu (Venkatesh Sridharan) writes:
|> Garner was an excellent bowler, by any standards. The point Kalli was
|> trying to make (IMO) was that, in Lloyd's team, there were atleast
|> two bowlers who were ahead of him -- Holding and Roberts (who cares
|> what the averages say, these two were all-time great fast bowlers).
|> Croft was arguably better than him, and was certainly about as good.
|> So, Garner was probably third or fourth best in that pack of pacemen.
|> In the team that had Marshall, Holding, Garner and Patterson/Davis/*,
|> Garner was again probably third best.
Garner, vastly under-rated, should also be rated as an all-time great fast
bowler. In the mid-eighties he was definitely 2nd best WI bowler. Holding used
to come as a first change or second change or sometimes to rotate the strike
between M and G (in fact he was brought on for that purpose in the '85 (?) test
vs Aus. After his over Lloyd decided to stick with him and Holding took 6/21)
-----------
Kurt Toolsie
>I would have thought Garner was generally third in the pecking order
>in Lloyd's side. He was certainly a tremendous bowler. If you go
>purely on averages, he is neck and neck with Marshall, with Ambrose
>slightly behind. I would want to put Holding at the top, though, even
>though his average isn't quite as good. In one-day cricket, as opposed
>to Tests, I think Garner was the best bowler there's ever been.
Yes, I remember being at the Queens Park Oval for Garner's Test debut.
Both he and Colin Croft had been abruptly called into the side. Croft
was the star that day. Though Garner had a long and extremely successful
career, he was always the slowest of the West Indian quartet of pace
bowlers. His main attribute was to make the ball rise steeply, when pitched
only fractionally short. This coupled to his (for a West Indian somewhat
rare) ability to keep a good line and length, made him the most difficult
of bowlers to put away.
He was the ideal first change bowler, in that the batsmen were faced with a
different challenge to the sheer speed and hostility of the opening bowlers.
Garner would give the first-strike bowlers time to rest, whilst conceding
very few runs. All this is not take away from his ability to get wickets on
his own right. Indeed, the records show he was very proficient at this.
However, he was not the bowler you would pick as the most likely to bag
six or seven wickets.
This unique style made Garner the ultimate one-day bowler. I can only wonder
what a bowler he would have been, if he had the sheer speed of the others.
A bowler like Ambrose, perhaps ?
Kurt
---
These views are mine, I tell you... mine, all mine!
Kurt O. Toolsie ktoo...@gelac.lasc.lockheed.com
Mohammad A. Rahin
<snip><snip><snip>
>I would have thought Garner was generally third in the pecking order
>in Lloyd's side. He was certainly a tremendous bowler. If you go
>purely on averages, he is neck and neck with Marshall, with Ambrose
>slightly behind. I would want to put Holding at the top, though, even
>though his average isn't quite as good. In one-day cricket, as opposed
>to Tests, I think Garner was the best bowler there's ever been.
I always wanted to ask this about Garner. Did he actually formally retire from
test cricket when he did not make the WI team or is it that the WI selectors
pushed him out of the team? Garner was indeed a very fine bowler.
- Rahin
---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------
_ _ _ __ _ __ | Janet : ra...@uk.ac.leeds.scs
' ) ) ) / ) ' ) ) / | Internet : ra...@scs.leeds.ac.uk
/ / / /--/ /--' __. /_ o ____ |______________________________________
/ ' (_/ (_ / \_(_/|_/ /_<_/ / <_ | Phones :
M.A. Rahin | Office : (0113) 233 5480
School of Computer Studies | (0113) 233 5485
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK | Home : (0113) 262 9452
---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------
Venkatesh Sridharan
: > Statistics seem to suggest that Venkat was an "average" bowler. People
: > like Sir Garfield Sobers and Clive Lloyd, on the other hand, seemed
: > to think that he was an excellent bowler.
: >
: > Both of them -- stats, and the folks who actually played against him
: > can't be right, can they? :-)
: By coincidence I read an article about Venkat in The Times (I think it
: was) today. This was mainly about his umpiring (he's the overseas
: umpire in the 1st two Tests this summer), but in passing it mentioned
: that he was thought be be an especially good bowler against
: lefthanders (both Sobers and Lloyd were lefthanders of course).
-------
Not only that, but Venkat was especially good against the West Indians
because he was a very tight bowler, and the West Indians have always
had problems with (the few) bowlers who (manage to) peg them down.
I'm pretty positive that this played a big role in the high esteem in
which Lloyd, Sobers (and Tony Cozier, though I'm not sure he was a
leftie :-) held him.
-------
: > PS: On a similar note, in an interview he gave a year or so ago, when
: > asked to compare Lloyd's team with the present West Indian team,
: > Kallicharan explicitly stated that he thought Garner, who was the
: > fourth man in the quartet then, was a better bowler than Ambrose.
: > I don't think the stats quite say that, but Kalli being Kalli, I
: > think his opinion deserves to be taken seriously. Comments, anyone?
: >
: I would have thought Garner was generally third in the pecking order
: in Lloyd's side. He was certainly a tremendous bowler. If you go
: purely on averages, he is neck and neck with Marshall, with Ambrose
: slightly behind. I would want to put Holding at the top, though, even
: though his average isn't quite as good. In one-day cricket, as opposed
: to Tests, I think Garner was the best bowler there's ever been.
-------
Garner was an excellent bowler, by any standards. The point Kalli was
trying to make (IMO) was that, in Lloyd's team, there were atleast
two bowlers who were ahead of him -- Holding and Roberts (who cares
what the averages say, these two were all-time great fast bowlers).
Croft was arguably better than him, and was certainly about as good.
So, Garner was probably third or fourth best in that pack of pacemen.
In the team that had Marshall, Holding, Garner and Patterson/Davis/*,
Garner was again probably third best.
In today's attack, by contrast, Ambrose is easily the best bowler.
I would presume that Ambrose has better figures than Garner (I don't
have either's record handy). Kalli's rating of Garner >> Ambrose,
quite simply, contradicts what the stats say. Hence the parallel with
Venkat.
I've never heard anybody claiming that Venkat was a better offie than
Prasanna, but a stats-based comparison does'nt, IMO, do Venkat justice.
Pras was a better bowler, but the margin was'nt as wide as the stats
say.
Win or lose, forever Windies.
Venky (Venkatesh Sridharan).
PS: In *one-day* cricket, Garner was, IMO, easily the best of his time.
Jim Bright
>Botham at Headingley, Brearley was elevated to the status
>of a superstar. The only thing that can be said about
>Brearley (as far as Test cricket is concerned; even Hick
>hits runs in county cricket) is that he was miles ahead
>of Botham as a captain, and that contrast was obvious
>when Brearley took over from Botham, but that's not saying
>much about Brearley's captaincy.
. and another innings at Old Trafford, and a bowling performance at
Edgbaston (where Brearley was the game's Top Scorer). Not to mention
Australia 1977 (vs. Greg Chappell for those who reckoned 78-79 was the
only time Brearley faced Chappell), Pakistan 78, New Zealand 78,
Australia 78-79, India 79, India 1980 (I think - Jubilee test or some
such?).
As for him being a better captain than Botham, I would add Fletcher,
Willis, Gatting, Gower, Gooch, Lamb (!!), Emburey, Stewart, Cowdrey (MCC
and C.S.), Denness, Greig, Dexter, Smith, Lewis, Edrich, et al.
To give you an idea of how good he was, and how bad the rest were, they
are even talking about Atherton as a good captain!!
You want good captains? Illingworth, Benaud, Bradman.
So Brearley couldn't bat. I see nobody has picked me up on Bob Taylor
as keeper of the seventies and his batting wasn't up to much either.
The point of Brearley as captain was, if you've got Richards, B.A. and
Richards V. et al in your side, then Brearley's 22 or so runs per
innings is more than enough, and of course it gives the spoiled
spectators a measure of how good the others really are!
Jim Bright
Amitabha Lahiri
(ara...@koppang.cs.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
> V. V. Kumar was an orthodox right arm legspinner who would also have
> played test cricket regularly for any other side except India.
Difficult to say. There is no doubt that he was a brilliant spinner of the
the ball, a genuine artist. But there were strong doubts about his
temperament. Apparently he refused to take a catch off his own bowling in
an Irani trophy match, saying that his fingers were meant for spinning the
ball, not for catching it.
Tansen Varghese
>This unique style made Garner the ultimate one-day bowler. I can only wonder
>what a bowler he would have been, if he had the sheer speed of the others.
>A bowler like Ambrose, perhaps ?
>
>Kurt
I don't think that Garner wasn't genuinely fast, he
just wasn't as fast as Marshall, Holding, Croft or
Clarke. I haven't watched Ambrose recently, but I
used to think he was just as fast as Garner and Walsh,
but not in the fastest category, with bounce being his
main weapon.
Tanny
Ashim Garg
|> Venkatesh Sridharan <venk...@utdallas.edu> writes:
|> What is at work here, I think, is the tendency to speak favorably of those whom
|> you played with or against, especially when comparing them with more recent
Unfortunely, there is also a tendency to speak extremely reverently about
people you have never played against. A classical example is don bradman.
-ashim
R. Bharat Rao
I think his 99.9* average has a bit to do with that reverance,
wouldn't you say? Chances are anyone averaging almost twice what
"great" batsmen average would get the same reverance...
>-ashim
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao, E-mail:bha...@scr.siemens.com (note the change)
Siemens Corporate Research, 755 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540, Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F)
<Above opinions are exclusively the author's, and don't represent SCR>
do...@delphi.com
>Unfortunely, there is also a tendency to speak extremely reverently about
>people you have never played against. A classical example is don bradman.
past -- but having said that, I'm quite happy to jump on the Bradman bandwagon
having been born 10 years after he laid down his bat in first-class matches;
a quick look at the "statistical hagiography" posting will explain why...
Cheers,
Ted Seay
ust...@class.org
DO...@delphi.com
Department of State Library
>-------
>Statistics seem to suggest that Venkat was an "average" bowler. People
>like Sir Garfield Sobers and Clive Lloyd, on the other hand, seemed
>to think that he was an excellent bowler.
>
>Both of them -- stats, and the folks who actually played against him
>can't be right, can they? :-)
> asked to compare Lloyd's team with the present West Indian team,
> Kallicharan explicitly stated that he thought Garner, who was the
> fourth man in the quartet then, was a better bowler than Ambrose.
> I don't think the stats quite say that, but Kalli being Kalli, I
> think his opinion deserves to be taken seriously. Comments, anyone?
you played with or against, especially when comparing them with more recent
Jove!" Added to that is a tendency on the part of those such as Sir Gary to
be apparently unable to say anything bad about anyone at all -- at least in
public...
K. Shrinivasan (Jinny)
>John Hall (Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> By coincidence I read an article about Venkat in The Times (I think it
> was) today. This was mainly about his umpiring (he's the overseas
> umpire in the 1st two Tests this summer), but in passing it mentioned
> that he was thought be be an especially good bowler against
> lefthanders (both Sobers and Lloyd were lefthanders of course).
Boycott must think Eknath Solkar was the best left-arm seamer in history! Venkat
caught the Windies in their Sobers-Lloyd transition when Prasanna either did not
make the '71 tour or did not play at all. I remember India playing Bedi, Venkat
and Durrani during that historic tour. Pras and Venkat were different kinds of
bowlers, the former willing to buy his wickets through the spinner's traditional
tools of spin and flight, while Venkat relied on tightness and bounce. I surmise
Venkat did better abroad than Pras because of this difference. Any comments?
What did The Times say about his umpiring?
John Hall
<ond...@sirius.com> writes
>
>>John Hall (Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> By coincidence I read an article about Venkat in The Times (I think it
>> was) today. This was mainly about his umpiring (he's the overseas
>> umpire in the 1st two Tests this summer), but in passing it mentioned
>> that he was thought be be an especially good bowler against
>> lefthanders (both Sobers and Lloyd were lefthanders of course).
<snip>
>What did The Times say about his umpiring?
>
They were complimentary, IIRC. I think he is generally recognised here
as India's best umpire and amongst the best 3 or 4 in the world.
--
Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
is a symptom of deficient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
> Though Garner had a long and extremely successful
> career, he was always the slowest of the West Indian quartet of pace
> bowlers. His main attribute was to make the ball rise steeply, when pitched
> only fractionally short.
Six feet eight inches tall if I remember right. I should have thought
a ball delivered from nearly 9 feet above the pitch *would* rise steeply!
-- Ramaswamy