Allrounders of the 80s
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
to be incorrect. Consider the batting avg table.
T IN NO RUNS HST AVG 100 50 0
Hadlee 86 134 19 3124 151* 27.17 2 15 12
Imran 88 126 25 3807 136 37.69 6 18 8
Botham 102 161 6 5200 208 33.55 14 22 14
Kapil 131 184 15 5248 163 31.05 8 27 16
If you remove the not outs, their avgs become:
Hadlee 23.31
Imran 30.21
Botham 32.30
Kapil 28.52
Now 23.x is quite a low average so probably Hadlee was more of a bowler who
could bat decently rather than an allrounder !
jagadish
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Garyth
> bowler who
> could bat decently rather than an allrounder !
>
mate, in NZ, an average of 23 is almost worth a knighthood on its own.
:-)
--
Garyth
NZ: Super Max 8's Champions!!!!!!
Ravi Krishna
>
>Including Hadlee's name in the list of the great 80s allrounders somehow seems
>to be incorrect. Consider the batting avg table.
>
> T IN NO RUNS HST AVG 100 50 0
>
>Hadlee 86 134 19 3124 151* 27.17 2 15 12
>Imran 88 126 25 3807 136 37.69 6 18 8
>Botham 102 161 6 5200 208 33.55 14 22 14
>Kapil 131 184 15 5248 163 31.05 8 27 16
>
>If you remove the not outs, their avgs become:
>
>Hadlee 23.31
>Imran 30.21
>Botham 32.30
>Kapil 28.52
Thanks Jagadish for a good analysis. First and foremost,Hadlee was a lousy bat.
That fella can't even hit Indian bowlers. He has a miserable record against
India as a batsman. Imran and Botham have much better record.
Who gives a shit to allrounder thing. Hadlee was a much better watchwinner than
bit-of-this-bit-of-that allrounders, atleast in test cricket. Do you know that
in 80s , NZ had the second best success ratio (total number of tests/total
number of victories), even ahead of Pakistan. India was way down.
I don't think any test country depended on one guy to win test matches, as much
as NZ did on Hadlee.
It is interesting to see that Imran's average dropping 7 points if you remove
not outs. Now this will be used by Ravi Iyengar to prove that Imran = Kapil in
batting. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
RK-
PS: AKram is also a lousy bat. He shouldn't be called a allrounder.
pma...@aol.com
sjag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Including Hadlee's name in the list of the great 80s allrounders somehow seems
> to be incorrect. Consider the batting avg table.
>
> T IN NO RUNS HST AVG 100 50 0
>
> Hadlee 86 134 19 3124 151* 27.17 2 15 12
> Imran 88 126 25 3807 136 37.69 6 18 8
> Botham 102 161 6 5200 208 33.55 14 22 14
> Kapil 131 184 15 5248 163 31.05 8 27 16
>
> If you remove the not outs, their avgs become:
>
> Hadlee 23.31
> Imran 30.21
> Botham 32.30
> Kapil 28.52
>
> could bat decently rather than an allrounder !
Is that why Hadlee is the only one to have achieve the double in Eglish season
from the lot listed above.
>
> jagadish
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Courage is walking naked through a cannibal village.
Roshan Diwakar
>Is that why Hadlee is the only one to have achieve the double in Eglish
season
>from the lot listed above.
>>
Oh yeah, who gives a damn to English season performance. The same
championships which allow Hick to score more than 100 centuries, Lara to
score a 501, has one-day tournaments by the lot and still unable to produce
a team which can win a decent tournament. Come on, our Ranji trophy is more
competitive and atleast produces some international class players.
Roshan
Mad Hamish
>Including Hadlee's name in the list of the great 80s allrounders somehow seems
>to be incorrect. Consider the batting avg table.
>
> T IN NO RUNS HST AVG 100 50 0
>
>Hadlee 86 134 19 3124 151* 27.17 2 15 12
>Imran 88 126 25 3807 136 37.69 6 18 8
>Botham 102 161 6 5200 208 33.55 14 22 14
>Kapil 131 184 15 5248 163 31.05 8 27 16
>
>If you remove the not outs, their avgs become:
>
>Hadlee 23.31
>Imran 30.21
>Botham 32.30
>Kapil 28.52
That's _not_ an average, it's a runs/innings. You might want to look at what
happens to other people when you go that route.
Boycott drops from 47.72 to 42.04
Gower from 44.25 to 40.34
Then consider that the above allrounders normally batted between #6 and #8 in
the order and had more chance of getting stranded with the tail.
>
>Now 23.x is quite a low average so probably Hadlee was more of a bowler who
>could bat decently rather than an allrounder !
Except that 23.xx _isn't_ his average. You're comparing apples and oranges
there.
Now it really depends on how you define allrounder. By Hadlee's own definition
he falls well short of it, considering the first class statistics of some people
I've seen called allrounders he's a Sobers.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> Is that why Hadlee is the only one to have achieve the double in Eglish season
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ English county cricket ? I rest my case :)
Bob Dubery
<Ros...@bellcore.com> wrote:
>Oh yeah, who gives a damn to English season performance.
Oh I don't know.... a lot of people actually.
>The same
>championships which allow Hick to score more than 100 centuries, Lara to
>score a 501, has one-day tournaments by the lot and still unable to produce
>a team which can win a decent tournament. Come on, our Ranji trophy is more
>competitive and atleast produces some international class players.
I'm not sure about that. I remember India's first tour to SA in 1993.
Everybody in that touring party seemed to be credited with a
first-class century - and no, they hadn't all played county cricket.
Time after time we'd see a man who, the commentators would inform us,
had a first class century to his name and thus "could obviously bat a
bit" seem incapable of getting the ball off of the square.
"First class" cricket seems to be in decline all over the place. It's
certainly not what it was in SA (though my perspective might be skewed
by being a Transvaal... ag *Gauteng* supporter). If you're looking for
really tough first class cricket played to a high standard I think
you'll find it only in the Caribbean and in Australia.
Which is a pity, really.
---
The e-mail address in the headers is bogus.
Unknot mega...@KNOTglobal.co.za to mail me
pma...@aol.com
"Roshan Diwakar" <Ros...@bellcore.com> wrote:
> Oh yeah, who gives a damn to English season performance.
Australia and to recollect,the development of Botham,Imran,Hadlee,Rice,Viv and
Barry Richards,Younis,Akram.. etc..,etc..,etc.. are all product of English
County Cricket.
> championships which allow Hick to score more than 100 centuries, Lara to
> score a 501,
Hick has only himself to blame for his downfall, he reminds me of Amiss,who
also had an awful start like Hick but finished his career on a high note.
Lara, scored his 501* against some known team with an first class status,
Hanif's 499 was scored against a Club team with an fist-class status as this
was the standard for many Indians and Pakistanis first class teams in the 50's
thru 70's. One only has to see their combined records in England from 50's
through 70's to undestand (only two test won in England, Pak 54 and India in
71.
Ironically, India and Pakistan are no longer considred an force in Hockey,
Why?..I think it's obvious to say that Europe has promoted Hockey and the
result speaks for itself.
I realy hope the German's don't take fancy to Cricket.
Peter
> Roshan
>
>
--
Courage is walking naked through a cannibal village.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
pma...@aol.com
sjag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Including Hadlee's name in the list of the great 80s allrounders somehow seems
> to be incorrect. Consider the batting avg table.
>
> T IN NO RUNS HST AVG 100 50 0
>
> Hadlee 86 134 19 3124 151* 27.17 2 15 12
> Imran 88 126 25 3807 136 37.69 6 18 8
> Botham 102 161 6 5200 208 33.55 14 22 14
> Kapil 131 184 15 5248 163 31.05 8 27 16
I think the best way to judge an All-rounder is by their perforamnce as match
winners.
from 1899 to 1978, On 16 occasions, 14 all-rounders achieved the double(100
and 5 wickets) in a match. This is the ultimate feat for an all-rounder to
achieve at any level. Of the 14 only two players repeated the feat, Gary
Sobers and Mushtaq Mohammad.
and from 1978-1998, the feat, was repeated no other then 9 times, and the
breakdown
Botham 6
Imran 2
W Akram 1
Hadlee and Kapil Dev failed to achieve this feat.
Botham and Imran took 5 wickets twice in the same match,hence 10w and 100.
Mushtaq Mohammad and D Atkinson scored 200 and took 5 wickets.
My point. BOTHAM has to be the "Greatest of all"
Peter
Mike Holmans
>
>> Is that why Hadlee is the only one to have achieve the double in Eglish season
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ English county cricket ? I rest my case :)
>
couldn't manage it for Worcester or Northants?
The double is now almost impossible. In the old days, about half a dozen
players a season would manage it, but then they would play about 30-35
matches a season, so it was only 35 runs and 3 wkts a match. Nowadays
you'd need to get 55 runs and 5+ wickets a match, and any player good
enough to do that would be a genuine Test all-rounder, and sod the
Flintioakes.
Cheers,
Mike
--
"Yorkshire is a state of mind" - Dave Budd
Tim Cotsford
Roshan Diwakar wrote:
> >
> >Is that why Hadlee is the only one to have achieve the double in Eglish
> season
> >from the lot listed above.
> >>
>
> Oh yeah, who gives a damn to English season performance. The same
> championships which allow Hick to score more than 100 centuries, Lara to
> score a 501, has one-day tournaments by the lot and still unable to produce
> a team which can win a decent tournament. Come on, our Ranji trophy is more
> competitive and atleast produces some international class players.
>
> Roshan
Roshan,
wise up a bit.
Lara is a class act, he has scored runs all over the world, his ave is around
50+, he didn't achieve that merely by playing against England. Likewise Hadlee
took wickets & scored runs virtually eveerywhere. He DID take over 400 wickets,
in case that slipped your memory. Hick is one of those players who looks good
against all but Test class attacks (tho' I seem to recall him scoring a century
against India in India.
And England have won plenty of OD tourneys, including some containing India.
Cheers
Tim
Tim Cotsford
Ravi Krishna wrote:
> sjag...@my-dejanews.com says...
> >
> >Including Hadlee's name in the list of the great 80s allrounders somehow seems
> >to be incorrect. Consider the batting avg table.
> >
> > T IN NO RUNS HST AVG 100 50 0
> >
> >Hadlee 86 134 19 3124 151* 27.17 2 15 12
> >Imran 88 126 25 3807 136 37.69 6 18 8
> >Botham 102 161 6 5200 208 33.55 14 22 14
> >Kapil 131 184 15 5248 163 31.05 8 27 16
> >
> >If you remove the not outs, their avgs become:
> >
> >Hadlee 23.31
> >Imran 30.21
> >Botham 32.30
> >Kapil 28.52
>
> Thanks Jagadish for a good analysis. First and foremost,Hadlee was a lousy bat.
> That fella can't even hit Indian bowlers. He has a miserable record against
> India as a batsman. Imran and Botham have much better record.
> Who gives a shit to allrounder thing. Hadlee was a much better watchwinner than
> bit-of-this-bit-of-that allrounders, atleast in test cricket. Do you know that
> in 80s , NZ had the second best success ratio (total number of tests/total
> number of victories), even ahead of Pakistan. India was way down.
> I don't think any test country depended on one guy to win test matches, as much
> as NZ did on Hadlee.
> It is interesting to see that Imran's average dropping 7 points if you remove
> not outs. Now this will be used by Ravi Iyengar to prove that Imran = Kapil in
> batting. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
>
> RK-
> PS: AKram is also a lousy bat. He shouldn't be called a allrounder.
So averaging 27 in Tests with a top score of 151 indicates a lousy batting
performance?
In an era which you yourself argued was much stronger than that we are in now?
No, Hadlee wasn't as good a bat as Botham/Kapil/Imran, but he was pretty useful and
fully desreves the tag of champion allrounder.
Cheers
Tim
Samir Dhume
: Imran: "If find Botham very similar to Kapil". [ Imran's low opinion of Kapil
: Dev is rather too open ].
: Hadlee:"Botham is overrated. His strike rate went down the moment packer era
: got over. "
: Kapil: "My blood boils whenever I see Botham's record". This he told in an
: interview with Sportstar just after he took his 300th wicket in Dec
: 1986.
What curious things to say ! Perhaps you're quoting
out of context.
Samir
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ English county cricket ? I rest my case :)
> >
> Makes Kapil Dev look pretty feeble, though, doesn't it, since he
> couldn't manage it for Worcester or Northants?
touched a raw nerve ? just coz kapil didnt succeed in county doesnt mean he
was bad, azhar didnt do that well in county, neither did tendulkar ... so ?
otoh we have graeme hick creating wonders in county !!
jagadish
Mike Holmans
>
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ English county cricket ? I rest my case :)
>> >
>> Makes Kapil Dev look pretty feeble, though, doesn't it, since he
>> couldn't manage it for Worcester or Northants?
>
>touched a raw nerve ? just coz kapil didnt succeed in county doesnt mean he
>was bad, azhar didnt do that well in county, neither did tendulkar ... so ?
>otoh we have graeme hick creating wonders in county !!
>
jest, it seemed the wrong way of going about it.
Anyway, haven't people got anything better to do than argue about Kapil
Dev in every damn thread?
Bob Dubery
<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The double is now almost impossible. In the old days, about half a dozen
>players a season would manage it, but then they would play about 30-35
>matches a season, so it was only 35 runs and 3 wkts a match. Nowadays
>you'd need to get 55 runs and 5+ wickets a match, and any player good
>enough to do that would be a genuine Test all-rounder,
Am I right in saying that only 2 men have done the double since the
county fixture list was slimmed down? IIRC the men are Hadlee and
Franlyn Stevenson.
Those are not achievements to sneer at. Players as good as Rice,
Sobers, Imran, Kapil, Botham and Proctor didn't get a double.
Bob Dubery
>Including Hadlee's name in the list of the great 80s allrounders somehow seems
>to be incorrect. Consider the batting avg table.
>
> T IN NO RUNS HST AVG 100 50 0
>
>Hadlee 86 134 19 3124 151* 27.17 2 15 12
>Imran 88 126 25 3807 136 37.69 6 18 8
>Botham 102 161 6 5200 208 33.55 14 22 14
>Kapil 131 184 15 5248 163 31.05 8 27 16
>
>If you remove the not outs, their avgs become:
>Hadlee 23.31
>Imran 30.21
>Botham 32.30
>Kapil 28.52
>Now 23.x is quite a low average so probably Hadlee was more of a bowler who
>could bat decently rather than an allrounder !
I think the maths is a bit dodgy, that 23.x is certainly not an
"average" in the accepted sense of the word. I mean, apply that method
to the career figures of one DG Bradman and you'd probably get a
figure in the low 90s.
You also leave Kapil in the 28s and Imran at just on 30 - figures that
do not reflect their true talent. Interesting that Botham suffers less
than the others.
I'm not sure that Hadlee was a an all-rounder at Test level. He
certainly was no mug with the bat. My impression was always that
Hadlee regarded himself as a bowler who could bat a bit. I'm reading
an Imran Khan biography at the moment, and the author - Ivo Tennant -
makes the point that Hadlee could not be regarded as an all-rounder
until helmets came into regular use. perhaps somebody would like to
enlarge on that.
Personally I think you can argue about all of the 4 great "all
rounders" of the 80s being all rounders (or not). I'm not sure that
any of them would have fulfilled the classic definition whereby they'd
still be picked to bat if they couldn't bowl - or vice versa. And I'd
submit that at *Test* level very few men have met that requirement
Imran, of course, was picked as a batsman when he was unable to bowl,
and England might have done the same with Botham - and some would
argue that they did ;-)
Let me finish off by saying that all 4 men were, no matter how we
interpret the numbers, very, very fine cricketers. I just wish I'd had
more chance to see them.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>Anyhow I always got a feeling that the other 3 allrounders are jealous of
>Botham. This I got after reading their interviews/comments on IB.
The "best" I heard was from Rod Marsh.
Me: you mentioned all the players you rated, but I am most surprised
not to hear Ian Botham mentioned.
RM: Botham? He wasn't an all-rounder at all. Not much of a player
really.
Me: but he had an incredible record against Australia, against
Australian teams that you played in.
RM: we were too busy trying to hoik all those long-hops out of the
ground.
Mike Holmans
decided to opine:
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:18:55 +0100, Mike Holmans
><pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>The double is now almost impossible. In the old days, about half a dozen
>>players a season would manage it, but then they would play about 30-35
>>matches a season, so it was only 35 runs and 3 wkts a match. Nowadays
>>you'd need to get 55 runs and 5+ wickets a match, and any player good
>>enough to do that would be a genuine Test all-rounder,
>
>Am I right in saying that only 2 men have done the double since the
>county fixture list was slimmed down? IIRC the men are Hadlee and
>Franlyn Stevenson.
Correct. On both counts. (Well, I think the latter actually called
himself Franklyn Stephenson, but what's a letter or two ames, er,
amiss?)
>
>Those are not achievements to sneer at. Players as good as Rice,
>Sobers, Imran, Kapil, Botham and Proctor didn't get a double.
Indeed. Of course, thinking about this does put Bradman into
perspective. After all, he just filled his Test match boots against
the products of English county cricket, and never played against the
giants of the Ranji Trophy, who would undoubtedly have made him look
extremely ordinary.
Cheers,
Mike
--
"Yorkshire is a state of mind" - Dave Budd, in alt.folklore.urban
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> sjag...@my-dejanews.com felt like saying:
> >
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ English county cricket ? I rest my case :)
> >> >
> >> Makes Kapil Dev look pretty feeble, though, doesn't it, since he
> >> couldn't manage it for Worcester or Northants?
> Anyway, haven't people got anything better to do than argue about Kapil
> Dev in every damn thread?
You started it, I didnt ;)
Bob Dubery
Holmans) wrote:
>Correct. On both counts.
But maybe Rice got a vicarious double. He's been credited, in some
circles, with master-minding Hadlee's double (EG "we're playing
Crapshire on the 14th, you can get 85 runs and 7 wickets off of that
lot. But on the 19th we play Yorkshire - 12 wickets there, but only 40
runs because we'll only bat the once" and so on).
I don't think anybody planned or even expected Stephenson's double -
especially in his debut county season.
>Indeed. Of course, thinking about this does put Bradman into
>perspective. After all, he just filled his Test match boots against
>the products of English county cricket, and never played against the
>giants of the Ranji Trophy, who would undoubtedly have made him look
>extremely ordinary.
And would no doubt have smashed the laughable likes of O'Reilly clean
Uday Rajan
> On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:18:55 +0100, Mike Holmans
> <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >The double is now almost impossible. In the old days, about half a dozen
> >players a season would manage it, but then they would play about 30-35
> >matches a season, so it was only 35 runs and 3 wkts a match. Nowadays
> >you'd need to get 55 runs and 5+ wickets a match, and any player good
> >enough to do that would be a genuine Test all-rounder,
>
> Am I right in saying that only 2 men have done the double since the
> county fixture list was slimmed down? IIRC the men are Hadlee and
> Franlyn Stevenson.
>
> Those are not achievements to sneer at. Players as good as Rice,
> Sobers, Imran, Kapil, Botham and Proctor didn't get a double.
Not achievements to sneer at at all. On the other hand, I would
venture that, as an allrounder, every player in your list above was
better than either Hadlee or Stephenson. Perhaps one can quibble about
Kapil and Rice (who was unable to play Test cricket, so we have less
to go by), but at least, in my book, they were ahead of Hadlee and
Stephenson as well. Neither Hadlee nor Stephenson would rank amongst
the three greatest allrounders ever (I offer Sobers, Miller,
Imran/Botham). So, a tremendous achievement, the double, but due to
more than just ability (as you mention elsewhere, perhaps careful
planning on Hadlee's part (or on the part of Rice on behalf of
Hadlee), with perhaps a little bit of luck as well).
John Hall
Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Anyway, haven't people got anything better to do than argue about Kapil
>Dev in every damn thread?
Of course. They can argue about Gavaskar instead :-)
--
John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
John Hall
Bob Dubery <el...@theking.org> writes:
>Am I right in saying that only 2 men have done the double since the
>county fixture list was slimmed down? IIRC the men are Hadlee and
>Franlyn Stevenson.
Yep. And now it's been slimmed down further it's unlikely ever to be
done again. (Though in 1906 George Hirst did get over 2000 runs and 200
wickets in approximately double the current number of first-class
fixtures.)
John Hall
Uday Rajan <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>el...@theking.org (Bob Dubery) writes:
>>
>> Those are not achievements to sneer at. Players as good as Rice,
>> Sobers, Imran, Kapil, Botham and Proctor didn't get a double.
>
> Not achievements to sneer at at all. On the other hand, I would
>venture that, as an allrounder, every player in your list above was
>better than either Hadlee or Stephenson. Perhaps one can quibble about
>Kapil and Rice (who was unable to play Test cricket, so we have less
>to go by), but at least, in my book, they were ahead of Hadlee and
>Stephenson as well. Neither Hadlee nor Stephenson would rank amongst
>the three greatest allrounders ever (I offer Sobers, Miller,
>Imran/Botham). So, a tremendous achievement, the double, but due to
>more than just ability (as you mention elsewhere, perhaps careful
>planning on Hadlee's part (or on the part of Rice on behalf of
>Hadlee), with perhaps a little bit of luck as well).
>
Thus Hadlee had a better chance than most (and also he benefited from
the habitual green pitches at Trent Bridge at this period). Stephenson's
Double, whilst he was undoubtedly a fine player, had something of the
glorious fluke about it.
Tim Hall
<el...@theking.org> writes
>I'm not sure that Hadlee was a an all-rounder at Test level. He
>certainly was no mug with the bat. My impression was always that
>Hadlee regarded himself as a bowler who could bat a bit. I'm reading
>an Imran Khan biography at the moment, and the author - Ivo Tennant -
>makes the point that Hadlee could not be regarded as an all-rounder
>until helmets came into regular use. perhaps somebody would like to
>enlarge on that.
>
All the putative all-rounders under discussion were part of a team, and
had a role to fill in that team. Going from memory, I recall them at
their peak as:
Botham: batting #6 behind a middle-order which often relied on his runs
rather than saw them as a bonus, he often provided them; having a front-
line bowler who could convincingly bat at #6 meant England could play a
specialist w/k without worrying whether he could bat or not, and four
other bowlers. It hardly needs saying that this luxury for the England
selectors has not since been reproduced, hence what I think has been
called the Flintioake problem. Botham's batting ability may not have
improved as his bowling diminished, but he became more responsible, and
more like a Test #6.
Imran: even playing purely as a batsman might find himself as low as #7
in a strong batting XI, and you'd imagine he'd normally expect the likes
of Javed etc. to get the runs; especially when he'd be more valuable
saving himself to bowl.
Kapil: playing below the likes of Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, much the same as
Imran in terms of being expected to get runs, although he wouldn't have
the same seam bowling support.
Hadlee: I suspect, and am prepared to be proved wrong, that Hadlee was
picked as NZ's strike bowler first, and everything else second. Clearly
he's the one of the four who would have played exactly the same number
of Tests even if he didn't know which end of the bat to hold, and ran
away from that hard red thing if he ever saw it in the field. The fact
that he could bat and field was an enormous bonus: but when NZ picked
their team, they surely followed the usual plan of picking a certain
number of batsmen, bowlers etc., which would have put him at about #7,
as the best batsman of the bowlers.
I've no statistics here, I've just looked a few teams from the 1980s,
and it seems to me that all four had different expectations put upon
them, even though they were all expected to perform one way or the
other: Botham was usually picked in the position a man like Ramprakash
or Crawley takes these days, and I think the selectors are entitled to
expect more high scores from a specialist batsman (apologies to the
Ramprakash fans) than Botham. As it was, Botham's average as a batsman
alone is embarrassing to the current England middle order. Imran was
part of a much stronger batting line-up, but was still capable of
playing long innings as if he was batting two or three places higher up
the order; Kapil had a similar role, but it was always obvious that he
was being picked as the main, or sometimes only, quick bowler, which
makes that his main role; Hadlee, however, didn't have the support that
Imran or Kapil had from really good spinners. I'm not trying to do down
the likes of Bracewell, or for that matter, Chatfield and Cairns, since
they all had their days (not least against England), but Sir Richard
could hardly be expected to take his normal first-class batting into
Test matches while carrying the main threat with the ball.
In short, Botham probably took most credit with the bat because he had
to, given his extra place up the order; Imran and Kapil had a slightly
lesser degree of responsibility, and benefitted from it; and Hadlee had
the least need of any of them to worry about his batting, because he
would be playing as a bowler even while averaging 0.00 with the bat from
start to finish of his career.
All I need now is someone to quote Hadlee saying in 1984 that he wanted
to improve his batting, to stop people arguing over his status as an
all-rounder fifteen years later.
--
Tim Hall
http://www.indiscreet.com/hornets
"To go to a cricket match for nothing but cricket is as though a man were
to go into an inn for nothing but drink." Neville Cardus
Bob Dubery
<nws...@jhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Yep. Also the 100 wickets part is much harder than the 1000 runs parts.
>Thus Hadlee had a better chance than most (and also he benefited from
>the habitual green pitches at Trent Bridge at this period).
That particular aspect hadn't occured to me. it should have. Rice was
always fond of a green top.
> Stephenson's
>Double, whilst he was undoubtedly a fine player, had something of the
>glorious fluke about it.
And style!
He got the 100 wickets before the season's end, but went into the last
first class game with just under 800 runs to his name. So what does he
do? He smacks a 100 in each innings. That's panache for you!
Was Rice still captain wehen Stephenson got his double?
And hang on... Sobers, Rice, Hadlee, Stephenson. Notts seem to have
had a liking for all-rounders.
Bob Dubery
<t...@topicaltim.demon.co.uk> wrote:
A whole lot of good stuff which I have snipped (to keep my news server
happy)...
Tim's analysis of the roles these 4 great cricketers played within
their teams, and the demands placed upon them is illuminating.
I'd argue that all of them would've been picked as a bowler if they
couldn't bat. All of them made the 300 wicket club - and there are no
mugs in that lot. Imran was the first genuinely quick Pakistani
bowler, and Kapil either the first for India or the first for a long
time (and let's not forget that Sobers, possibly the greatest
all-rounder ever - and that was Imran's opinon BTW - began his Test
career as an off-spinner batting *way* down the order).
But what of the various batting skills. I'm still working my way
through Tennant's biography of Imran, and it seems that several people
thought he had more potential as a batsman than a bowler. Similar
sentiments were expressed about Botham early in his career. Botham and
Imran (who has the best Test batting average of the 4) were the 2 who
had the regular opportunity to shine as batsmen, but all 4 could bat,
and Hadlee and Kapil - who both came in down the order - often got
runs when their teams really needed them. Some runs are worth more
than others and the averages do not always reflect this.
Remember Kapil's onslaught to save India from following on at Lord's,
or his thrilling century at Port Elizabeth.
>All I need now is someone to quote Hadlee saying in 1984 that he wanted
>to improve his batting, to stop people arguing over his status as an
>all-rounder fifteen years later.
Well I remember a quote of Rice's from a one day final which Hadlee
rescued for Notts - with the bat. Somebody asked him (Rice) if he were
a bit nervous when several wickets fell early on and Hadlee went in
earlier than would usually be the case. Rice replied "No. I know that
Hadlee can bat." And on that day (well, two days actually) he
certainly did bat.
Mike Holmans
decided to opine:
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:53:19 +0100, Tim Hall
><t...@topicaltim.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>A whole lot of good stuff which I have snipped (to keep my news server
>happy)...
>
>Tim's analysis of the roles these 4 great cricketers played within
>their teams, and the demands placed upon them is illuminating.
>
>I'd argue that all of them would've been picked as a bowler if they
>couldn't bat. All of them made the 300 wicket club - and there are no
>mugs in that lot. Imran was the first genuinely quick Pakistani
>bowler, and Kapil either the first for India or the first for a long
>time (and let's not forget that Sobers, possibly the greatest
>all-rounder ever - and that was Imran's opinon BTW - began his Test
>career as an off-spinner batting *way* down the order).
This is true of Botham before about 1984. After that, I doubt whether
he'd have been picked purely as a bowler. He'd lost pace and swing,
and was actually getting wickets by in effect bowling rubbish and
having batsmen hole out.
>
>But what of the various batting skills. I'm still working my way
>through Tennant's biography of Imran, and it seems that several people
>thought he had more potential as a batsman than a bowler. Similar
>sentiments were expressed about Botham early in his career. Botham and
>Imran (who has the best Test batting average of the 4) were the 2 who
>had the regular opportunity to shine as batsmen, but all 4 could bat,
>and Hadlee and Kapil - who both came in down the order - often got
>runs when their teams really needed them. Some runs are worth more
>than others and the averages do not always reflect this.
>
Botham started as a bowler who could swing the ball both ways and
could bat a fair bit.
He lost the ability to swing it in and out after his back injury,
after which he was never the same bowler. But he developed his batting
and became a genuine Test no 6. By the mid-80s his function was as the
no 6 who bowled a lot (a great deal too much, in my view, but still).
This is where I disagree a bit with Tim Hall. Botham's place was
genuinely as the no 6. He also had a place as a main seam bowler, but
he could just as easily have been the fifth bowler. Despite Bajan
blandishments, very few sides have had only four bowlers. Even WI
sides tended to have a batsman who could bowl six overs in a Test when
everyone else was tired. And with the best will in the world, you can
hardly call the likes of Allan Lamb, David Gower, and Robin Smith
bowlers of any description. One of the batsmen had to be able to at
least turn his arm over, and obviously Botham could. In other words,
if he wasn't the first choice no 6 in pure batting terms, he was so
near it that his bowling would have got him the nod ahead of an
equally qualified batsman who couldn't bowl.
Botham was no slogger: he had pretty classical technique based on a
very straight bat, even if it was a very heavy one.
Craig Sutton
Tim Hall <t...@topicaltim.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<acUVOfAv...@topicaltim.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <35ed0c16....@hermes.is.co.za>, Bob Dubery
> <el...@theking.org> writes
> >I'm not sure that Hadlee was a an all-rounder at Test level. He
> >certainly was no mug with the bat. My impression was always that
> >Hadlee regarded himself as a bowler who could bat a bit. I'm reading
> >an Imran Khan biography at the moment, and the author - Ivo Tennant -
> >makes the point that Hadlee could not be regarded as an all-rounder
> >until helmets came into regular use. perhaps somebody would like to
> >enlarge on that.
> >
> What was Hadlee's regular position in the NZ batting order?
>
He batted between 6-11 he started at 11 at made his way up the order.
> All the putative all-rounders under discussion were part of a team, and
> Hadlee: I suspect, and am prepared to be proved wrong, that Hadlee was
> picked as NZ's strike bowler first, and everything else second. Clearly
> he's the one of the four who would have played exactly the same number
> of Tests even if he didn't know which end of the bat to hold, and ran
> away from that hard red thing if he ever saw it in the field. The fact
> that he could bat and field was an enormous bonus: but when NZ picked
> their team, they surely followed the usual plan of picking a certain
> number of batsmen, bowlers etc., which would have put him at about #7,
> as the best batsman of the bowlers.
>
Hadlees F/C stats
M I NO Runs Ave HS 100 50 CT
333 464 93 11715 31.57 210* 14 56 194
> All I need now is someone to quote Hadlee saying in 1984 that he wanted
> to improve his batting, to stop people arguing over his status as an
> all-rounder fifteen years later.
>
Taken from the book rythem and Swing...
Public opinion- and i guess that of the national selectors as well places
me in the all rounder class but I regard myself as a bowler who bats,
rather than a player who can do either task sufficiently well. I think you
need a batting average up towards the mid thirties to be considered a
competent batsmean and, while I've improved my test batting average from
19.18 in 1978 to about 27 today, its still well short of the standard I'd
accept for a specialist batsman. My all rounder status, at first-class
level at least, arrived only in 1981 when i began to make hundreds for
Notts. My achievements as a test batsman also improved significantly around
that time but, with just the 2 hundres and a 99, I can't compare with my
contemporaries yet as a bowler, I'm superior on strike rate and wickets
taken
Craig Sutton
Ravi Krishna <srkr...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<6sltp9$1...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> In article <35ee2f00....@hermes.is.co.za>, el...@theking.org
says...
>
> >>Yep. Also the 100 wickets part is much harder than the 1000 runs parts.
> >>Thus Hadlee had a better chance than most (and also he benefited from
> >>the habitual green pitches at Trent Bridge at this period).
> >That particular aspect hadn't occured to me. it should have. Rice was
> >always fond of a green top.
>
> He benefited from green top as much as he benefited from the dead asian
tracks,
> where he took 10 wkts in a match twice in 7 tests in India and Lanka.
> Hadlee IMO took wkts on all tracks.
>
> RK-
In India
6matches 1367balls 689runs 31W 22.22 ave 6-49BB 2-5W 1-10W
In Pakistan
3matches 602 balls 447runs 10W 44.70ave 5-121BB 1-5W
In Sri Lanka
4matches 940 balls 332runs 27W 12.29ave 5-29 BB 2-5W 1-10W
Hadlees took 622 wickets for Notts at an average of 14.51
Want any more Hadlee stats as theres a lot in his book.
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 06:15:57 GMT, el...@theking.org (Bob Dubery)
> decided to opine:
>
> he could just as easily have been the fifth bowler. Despite Bajan
> blandishments, very few sides have had only four bowlers. Even WI
> sides tended to have a batsman who could bowl six overs in a Test when
> everyone else was tired.
Hey! Never denied this. Gomes, Viv and the early Hooper, along with
Binary and S****ns. But none of these were allrounders, by any
stretch. They were specialist batsmen who maintained their place on the
basis of their batti... Oops! Hm. Binary and S****ns. Ne-ver mind!
> And with the best will in the world, you can
> hardly call the likes of Allan Lamb, David Gower, and Robin Smith
> bowlers of any description. One of the batsmen had to be able to at
> least turn his arm over, and obviously Botham could.
I think you're being a little unfair to Beefy. Even in his later years,
he was a useful player, far better than any Flintioake will ever be.
Actually, with Greig before Beefy, England have been a bit spoiled in
this regard. Maybe that's why they seem unable to break away from the
habit, now that there is no one to fill the role adequately.
> In other words,
> if he wasn't the first choice no 6 in pure batting terms, he was so
> near it that his bowling would have got him the nod ahead of an
> equally qualified batsman who couldn't bowl.
>
> Botham was no slogger: he had pretty classical technique based on a
> very straight bat, even if it was a very heavy one.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
John Hall
No, he'd gone by then.
>
>And hang on... Sobers, Rice, Hadlee, Stephenson. Notts seem to have
>had a liking for all-rounders.
Yep. At a pinch, Paul Strang qualifies too.
--
John Hall
"But I am a great eater of beef, and I believe
that does harm to my wit."
William Shakespeare, "Twelfth Night"
Sridhar
pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk (Mike Holmans) wrote:
>
> This is true of Botham before about 1984. After that, I doubt whether
> he'd have been picked purely as a bowler. He'd lost pace and swing,
> and was actually getting wickets by in effect bowling rubbish and
> having batsmen hole out.
at any rate, he wasn't half the bowler he started out as.
> He lost the ability to swing it in and out after his back injury,
> after which he was never the same bowler. But he developed his batting
you're mixing him up with imran. botham's batting didn't "develop".
took a nosedive, in fact. from feb '84 onwards, he played 38 tests
at 26 with 1 100 and 8 50s. surely no improvement for a guy that had
averaged 38 in 64 tests with 13 100s and 14 50s up to then.
a big reason for the dip is the absence of tests vs india after '82.
he averaged 70 vs india.
> and became a genuine Test no 6. By the mid-80s his function was as the
> no 6 who bowled a lot (a great deal too much, in my view, but still).
>
>
> Botham was no slogger: he had pretty classical technique based on a
> very straight bat, even if it was a very heavy one.
and he reverse swept with a straight bat too. 've seen it with
my own eyes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Chris Weston
<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I'd argue that all of them would've been picked as a bowler if they
>>couldn't bat. All of them made the 300 wicket club - and there are no
>>mugs in that lot. Imran was the first genuinely quick Pakistani
>>bowler, and Kapil either the first for India or the first for a long
>>time (and let's not forget that Sobers, possibly the greatest
>>all-rounder ever - and that was Imran's opinon BTW - began his Test
>>career as an off-spinner batting *way* down the order).
>
>he'd have been picked purely as a bowler. He'd lost pace and swing,
>and was actually getting wickets by in effect bowling rubbish and
>having batsmen hole out.
Botham was still a 'golden-arm' after that time. Remember in 1985 (so
long ago!) he took 30-odd wickets against the Aussies in a high scoring
series. When he returned in 1991 he was so obviously better than the
alternatives, bowling at a much reduced pace but with great guile.
>>
>>But what of the various batting skills. I'm still working my way
>>through Tennant's biography of Imran, and it seems that several people
>>thought he had more potential as a batsman than a bowler. Similar
>>sentiments were expressed about Botham early in his career. Botham and
>>Imran (who has the best Test batting average of the 4) were the 2 who
>>had the regular opportunity to shine as batsmen, but all 4 could bat,
>>and Hadlee and Kapil - who both came in down the order - often got
>>runs when their teams really needed them. Some runs are worth more
>>than others and the averages do not always reflect this.
>>
>Botham started as a bowler who could swing the ball both ways and
>could bat a fair bit.
>
>He lost the ability to swing it in and out after his back injury,
>after which he was never the same bowler. But he developed his batting
>and became a genuine Test no 6. By the mid-80s his function was as the
>no 6 who bowled a lot (a great deal too much, in my view, but still).
He was definitely over-bowled, but out of desparation at times. He
always *wanted* to bowl.
>
>This is where I disagree a bit with Tim Hall. Botham's place was
>genuinely as the no 6. He also had a place as a main seam bowler, but
>he could just as easily have been the fifth bowler. Despite Bajan
>blandishments, very few sides have had only four bowlers. Even WI
>sides tended to have a batsman who could bowl six overs in a Test when
>everyone else was tired. And with the best will in the world, you can
>hardly call the likes of Allan Lamb, David Gower, and Robin Smith
>bowlers of any description. One of the batsmen had to be able to at
>least turn his arm over, and obviously Botham could. In other words,
>if he wasn't the first choice no 6 in pure batting terms, he was so
>near it that his bowling would have got him the nod ahead of an
>equally qualified batsman who couldn't bowl.
Allan Lamb, not a bowler? Find me a test bowler with a better average!
>
>Botham was no slogger: he had pretty classical technique based on a
>very straight bat, even if it was a very heavy one.
>
A great player, but burdened with carrying the England team for most of
the early eighties. His technique was good, if his patience
occasionally wore thin, but another poster remarked on his innings in
1987 against Pakistan which was a monumental effort of concentration.
The enduring memory of his late career is of him striding out to bat
at Brisbane in 1986, sans helmet, about to score his last test hundred.
Great stuff.
--
Chris Weston
Simon Flatman
<01bdd73a$7a7058a0$668b4fd1@craig>...
<snip Hadlee discussion >
> In India
>
> 6matches 1367balls 689runs 31W 22.22 ave 6-49BB 2-5W 1-10W
>
> In Pakistan
> 3matches 602 balls 447runs 10W 44.70ave 5-121BB 1-5W
>
> In Sri Lanka
> 4matches 940 balls 332runs 27W 12.29ave 5-29 BB 2-5W 1-10W
>
> Hadlees took 622 wickets for Notts at an average of 14.51
>
> Want any more Hadlee stats as theres a lot in his book.
>
>
And none of them prove a single thing :-) Especially those 3 games in
Pakistan - hardly a representative sample of games either in Pakistan, or
in Hadlees career.
Hadlee was just ever so slightly obsessed with the milestone / statistics
thing. It may have spurred him on to greater heights but you only have to
watch cricket for five minutes to realise that statistics prove what you
want them to prove - numbers are not what crickets about at all. I prefer
to leave the statistics to the lesser sports.... baseball :-)
I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
Simon
Simon Flatman
> All I need now is someone to quote Hadlee saying in 1984 that he wanted
> to improve his batting, to stop people arguing over his status as an
> all-rounder fifteen years later.
I broadly agree but think you've been a bit harsh on Hadlee. There are
all-rounders and "great" all-rounders. Where do the '80s quartet fit in
with, say, Shastri, Hirst, Grace, Greig etc etc etc ?
Hadlee started off as a totally rubbish tearaway quick bowler who could not
bat and converted himself completely into an all-rounder. However, I think
because of the start to his career he thought like a bowler and saw the
runs as a bonus until quite late on. Also that he had to bowl so much for
NZ meant that he was never going to be the kind of bowler that was used
less if he had an off day.
Having seen shots of his early bowling style I think we should find
Hadlee's coach and give him a knighthood too - a remarkable turnaround. If
he had been from almost any other country I suspect that he could well have
been dropped early on and never been heard of again.
Simon
Chris Weston
<sfla...@avocet-consulting.co.uk> writes
>Tim Hall <t...@topicaltim.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><snip>
>> All I need now is someone to quote Hadlee saying in 1984 that he wanted
>> to improve his batting, to stop people arguing over his status as an
>> all-rounder fifteen years later.
>
>I broadly agree but think you've been a bit harsh on Hadlee. There are
>all-rounders and "great" all-rounders. Where do the '80s quartet fit in
>with, say, Shastri, Hirst, Grace, Greig etc etc etc ?
>
>Hadlee started off as a totally rubbish tearaway quick bowler who could not
>bat and converted himself completely into an all-rounder. However, I think
>because of the start to his career he thought like a bowler and saw the
>runs as a bonus until quite late on. Also that he had to bowl so much for
>NZ meant that he was never going to be the kind of bowler that was used
>less if he had an off day.
How did Hadlee fare with the bat against the WI? I have never seen his
stats against them, and my last memory of Hadlee batting was him playing
Devon Malcolm from somewhere approaching square leg.
Anybody?
--
Chris Weston
Bob Dubery
<CWe...@middleton-maintenance.co.uk> wrote:
>How did Hadlee fare with the bat against the WI? I have never seen his
>stats against them, and my last memory of Hadlee batting was him playing
>Devon Malcolm from somewhere approaching square leg.
I recall that this was a not uncommon tactic for Hadlee. However, it
may not have been born from concern for physical well being, but was
calculated to rile the bowler or confuse him by showing him all 3
stumps.
Stephen Devaux
>
> How did Hadlee fare with the bat against the WI? I have never seen his
> stats against them, and my last memory of Hadlee batting was him playing
> Devon Malcolm from somewhere approaching square leg.
>
> Anybody?
> --
> Chris Weston
In the 79-80 series in NZ )the Croft umpire-pushing incident):
Batting: 51 & 17, 103, 7.
Bowling: 5/34 & 6/68, 3/58 & 0/64, 4/75 & 1/62.
In 84-85 in WI:
Batting: 18 & 39*, 16, 29 & 3, 18 & 14.
Bowling: 4/82 & 0/58, 2/83 & 2/32, 3/86, 4/53 & 0/15.
In 86-87 in NZ:
Batting: 35*, 0 & 14, 25*.
Bowling: 2/77 & 0/12, 6/105 & 0/9, 6/50 & 3/101.
Overall (10 M):
Batting: I:16; NO:3; HS:103; 100:1; 50:1; R:389; AV:29.92
Bowling: 51/1124; AV:22.04; 5W:4; 10W:1.
But perhaps most telling:
In the two Tests NZ won:
Batting: I:3; NO:1; HS:51; R:93; 50:1; AV:45.50.
Bowling: 20/253; AV:12.65; 5W:2; 10W:1.
In the three Tests NZ lost:
Batting: I:6; NO:0; HS:29; R:78; 50:0; AV:13.00.
Bowling: 13/268; AV:20.62; 5W:1; 10W:0.
Mike Holmans
>How did Hadlee fare with the bat against the WI? I have never seen his
>stats against them, and my last memory of Hadlee batting was him playing
>Devon Malcolm from somewhere approaching square leg.
>
>Anybody?
As usual in these matters, www.khel.com is your friend.
M I NO R Ave HS 100 50
Hadlee 10 15 3 389 32.42 103 1 1
Botham 20 38 1 792 21.41 81 0 4
Cheers,
Mike
Chris Weston
<el...@theking.org> writes
>On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:51:10 +0100, Chris Weston
><CWe...@middleton-maintenance.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>How did Hadlee fare with the bat against the WI? I have never seen his
>>stats against them, and my last memory of Hadlee batting was him playing
>>Devon Malcolm from somewhere approaching square leg.
>
>may not have been born from concern for physical well being, but was
>calculated to rile the bowler or confuse him by showing him all 3
>stumps.
So Devon sending all three stumps pinging to the back sightscreen was
part of the plan too? ;-)
--
Chris Weston
Mike Holmans
decided to opine:
>In article <01bdd7f8$5b14e840$0100007f@testsamm>, "Simon says...
>
>>I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
>
>Provided Gower scores 30 against top class attack. :-)
>
>From whatever I have seen of Gower, he was an very stylish batsman, but his
>style was such that it can never succeed against fast bowlers, specially
>WI bowlers.
>
Here are his figures against WI:
M I NO R Ave HS 100 50
19 38 3 1149 32.83 154* 1 6
Not exactly the stuff of greatness, but it certainly indicates that
his getting 30 against WI wasn't exactly beyond him either.
>Take it from me, England is yet to get a better batsman than Boycott in the last
>many decades, though Gooch was very good.
At a simple technical level, that's true.
>
>I however agree Boycott was very boring. Once someone asked what's the
>difference between Gavaskar and Boycott. Brealey (or was it some one else)
>said that "while SMG will definitely dispatch a bad ball to the boundary,
>Boycott will defend it". The only thing interesting about Boycott is the
>techniques he displays. Very perfect.
>
>A question to Britishers: Why was Boycott so hated in England. ? I mean things
>like "probably his mother likes him" just shows the dislike many people had.
>
>Of course Boycott was no saint. I read reports that he was so selfish that if he
>had even a iota of doubt that he will get run out, he will simply return to his
>crease. I saw this in the 1979 Oval test against India. Boycott started running
>and seeing that he had no chance of completing the run, simply returned back to
>the crease, leaving Botham high and dry. Botham's remarks while going back to
>the pavilion was unprintable.
>
Yes, he was utterly dedicated to his own performance. There's the
famous story of someone having a mid-wicket conference with him and
saying "I think I've worked out how to pick so-and-so's googly."
Boycott's reply was allegedly that he'd worked it out some time ago,
but he wasn't about to tell anyone else about it.
I remember being one of Boycott's defenders in the early 80s, and how
I would drivel on about how many Test centuries he'd scored. Then
someone told me to look up how many of those centuries had set England
up for a win, and how many had been scored in the second innings of
matches which were obviously heading for a draw. He may have been
playing in weak England teams, and it may be that if he hadn't scored
the runs he did, England's performances would have looked even more
pathetic than they did.
Whatever else you can say about him, you could never accuse him of
putting the interests of the team before his own.
Chris Weston
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Chris Weston wrote:
>
>>
>> How did Hadlee fare with the bat against the WI? I have never seen his
>> stats against them, and my last memory of Hadlee batting was him playing
>> Devon Malcolm from somewhere approaching square leg.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Weston
>
<sniiip Thanks Steve>
>But perhaps most telling:
>In the two Tests NZ won:
>Batting: I:3; NO:1; HS:51; R:93; 50:1; AV:45.50.
>Bowling: 20/253; AV:12.65; 5W:2; 10W:1.
>
>In the three Tests NZ lost:
>Batting: I:6; NO:0; HS:29; R:78; 50:0; AV:13.00.
>Bowling: 13/268; AV:20.62; 5W:1; 10W:0.
>
Better than I expected, in fact pretty good. Bowling-wise, usual Hadlee
excellence, but the batting records, even in losing tests where lots of
good bats get rolled over by the WI quicks, are laudable indeed.
cheers.
--
Chris Weston
Chris Weston
<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>On 4 Sep 1998 05:49:05 -0700, Ravi Krishna <srkr...@yahoo.com>
>decided to opine:
>
>>In article <01bdd7f8$5b14e840$0100007f@testsamm>, "Simon says...
>>
>>>I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
>>
>>Provided Gower scores 30 against top class attack. :-)
>>
>>From whatever I have seen of Gower, he was an very stylish batsman, but his
>>style was such that it can never succeed against fast bowlers, specially
>>WI bowlers.
>>
>Here are his figures against WI:
>
>M I NO R Ave HS 100 50
>19 38 3 1149 32.83 154* 1 6
>
>Not exactly the stuff of greatness, but it certainly indicates that
>his getting 30 against WI wasn't exactly beyond him either.
>
regarded as one of the very best ever made by an Englishman in the
West Indies.
Sorry, can't help sticking my oar in where Gower is concerned.
--
Chris Weston
Mike Holmans
<CWe...@middleton-maintenance.co.uk> decided to opine:
I entirely agree, although those of us who admire him greatly would
probably admit that he played the odd embarrassing waft outside off
stump on the odd occasion.
His figures against Australia aren't bad, though, and neither are they
against India or Pakistan:
v A 42 77 4 3269 44.78 215 9 12
v I 24 37 6 1391 44.87 200* 2 6
v P 17 27 3 1185 49.38 173* 2 9
However, you've done it now. You know what happens when Ravi detects
that you think the world of a player and he doesn't. Just look at the
amount of drivel he's spouted about Kapil Dev with the sole purpose of
annoying Shridhar. He's going to spend weeks dragging up all the
unflattering things he can find to say about Gower, thinking that
getting you to respond and tell him he's talking through his arse is
the acme of achievement.
Oh well.
Chris Weston
<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:41:16 +0100, Chris Weston
><CWe...@middleton-maintenance.co.uk> decided to opine:
>
>>In article <35eff717...@news.axion.bt.co.uk>, Mike Holmans
>><pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>M I NO R Ave HS 100 50
>>>19 38 3 1149 32.83 154* 1 6
>>>
>>>Not exactly the stuff of greatness, but it certainly indicates that
>>>his getting 30 against WI wasn't exactly beyond him either.
>>>
>>However, that 154 was made under extremely hostile conditions, and is
>>regarded as one of the very best ever made by an Englishman in the
>>West Indies.
>>
>>Sorry, can't help sticking my oar in where Gower is concerned.
>
>I entirely agree, although those of us who admire him greatly would
>probably admit that he played the odd embarrassing waft outside off
>stump on the odd occasion.
>
>His figures against Australia aren't bad, though, and neither are they
>against India or Pakistan:
>
>v A 42 77 4 3269 44.78 215 9 12
>v I 24 37 6 1391 44.87 200* 2 6
>v P 17 27 3 1185 49.38 173* 2 9
>
>However, you've done it now. You know what happens when Ravi detects
>that you think the world of a player and he doesn't. Just look at the
>amount of drivel he's spouted about Kapil Dev with the sole purpose of
>annoying Shridhar. He's going to spend weeks dragging up all the
>unflattering things he can find to say about Gower, thinking that
>getting you to respond and tell him he's talking through his arse is
>the acme of achievement.
Whoops. I think I've already done that on (one of) the Kapil thread(s).
Just when I thought that it couldn't get any worse than Shridhar, up
pops this loon to match him.
Well, anybody who wants to knock Big Dave has to go through *me* first.
>
>Oh well.
>
Indeed.
--
Chris Weston
John Hall
Ravi Krishna <srkr...@yahoo.com> writes:
>In article <01bdd7f8$5b14e840$0100007f@testsamm>, "Simon says...
>
>>I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
>
>Provided Gower scores 30 against top class attack. :-)
>
>From whatever I have seen of Gower, he was an very stylish batsman, but his
>style was such that it can never succeed against fast bowlers, specially
>WI bowlers.
I think "never" is overstating it. Most notably he made 154* out of
302-6 in England's second innings at Kingston in 1980-1 against an
attack of Holding, Marshall, Croft and Garner. However, Marshall
probably suffered an injury, as he only bowled 5 overs.
>
>Take it from me, England is yet to get a better batsman than Boycott in the last
>many decades, though Gooch was very good.
If you wanted one England batsman to bat for your life then, post-
Barrington, Boycott would be the best choice.
>
>I however agree Boycott was very boring. Once someone asked what's the
>difference between Gavaskar and Boycott. Brealey (or was it some one else)
>said that "while SMG will definitely dispatch a bad ball to the boundary,
>Boycott will defend it". The only thing interesting about Boycott is the
>techniques he displays. Very perfect.
>
>A question to Britishers: Why was Boycott so hated in England. ? I mean things
>like "probably his mother likes him" just shows the dislike many people had.
Primarily because he was seen, rightly or wrongly, as a very selfish
cricketer, who put his own batting average above his team's interests, I
think. And it didn't help when from 1974-7 he refused to play for
England. It was rumoured that this was because he thought he should have
been chosen as captain rather than Mike Denness.
>
>Of course Boycott was no saint. I read reports that he was so selfish that if he
>had even a iota of doubt that he will get run out, he will simply return to his
>crease. I saw this in the 1979 Oval test against India. Boycott started running
>and seeing that he had no chance of completing the run, simply returned back to
>the crease, leaving Botham high and dry. Botham's remarks while going back to
>the pavilion was unprintable.
>
>Actually Boycoot and Brealey had a love hate relationship. I once read something
>very funny. They both were playing some exhibition match on a Sunday. Boycott
>shouldered arm to all the deliveries of the first over. At the end of the over,
>Brealey told him "Geoff,I think the crowd has come to see the match to have some
>entertainment, not to see your technique". Not to be outdone Boycott replied,
>"Mike, you don't know what it means to be a test class player, you see no test
>player will ever play to balls pitched 3 feet outside the off stump".
>
>HA HA HA HA. I would love to see the expression on Mike's face. Brealey, as we
>all know was a great captain but a lousy bat.
Not quite true Test standard, I agree, though worse batsmen have been
chosen for England. At county level, he was a prolific batsman, and when
a young player he did once make 312 in a day for an England Under-25
side during a tour of Pakistan.
>
>Boycott's commentary during the WC 1996 was very cynical. He had nothing good to
>say about England.
He seems to have mellowed in recent years, though. He is no longer quite
so insistent on players reaching an unattainable level of perfection.
He's even displaying a sense of humour these days.
--
John Hall
"Wit is educated insolence."
Aristotle (322-284 B.C.)
Ravi Krishna
>However, you've done it now. You know what happens when Ravi detects
>that you think the world of a player and he doesn't. Just look at the
>amount of drivel he's spouted about Kapil Dev with the sole purpose of
>annoying Shridhar.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is partly true. Shridhar is not the only Kapil fan in rsc. However point
noted. I was *abusing* public forum for personal agenda, but then it takes 2
hands to clap.
> He's going to spend weeks dragging up all the
>unflattering things he can find to say about Gower
Nope. Gower is not an Indian or a Pakistani for me to show so much interest.
RK-
Sundarraman Subramanian
> opener did not bat well. Whatever one may say, losing 1-0 is far better than
> losing 4-0.
Yep, spot on. Kaps (Pak) and SRT (WI) did that :-)
Sundar Subramanian
Mike Holmans
>pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk says...
>
>>However, you've done it now. You know what happens when Ravi detects
>>that you think the world of a player and he doesn't. Just look at the
>>amount of drivel he's spouted about Kapil Dev with the sole purpose of
>>annoying Shridhar.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This is partly true. Shridhar is not the only Kapil fan in rsc. However point
>noted. I was *abusing* public forum for personal agenda, but then it takes 2
>hands to clap.
>
Cheers,
Mike
pma...@aol.com
pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk (Mike Holmans) wrote:
> On 4 Sep 1998 05:49:05 -0700, Ravi Krishna <srkr...@yahoo.com>
> decided to opine:
>
> >
> >>I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
> >
> >Provided Gower scores 30 against top class attack. :-)
> >
> >From whatever I have seen of Gower, he was an very stylish batsman, but his
> >style was such that it can never succeed against fast bowlers, specially
> >WI bowlers.
> >
>
> M I NO R Ave HS 100 50
> 19 38 3 1149 32.83 154* 1 6
>
> Not exactly the stuff of greatness, but it certainly indicates that
> his getting 30 against WI wasn't exactly beyond him either.
>
last
> >many decades, though Gooch was very good.
>
> >
> >difference between Gavaskar and Boycott. Brealey (or was it some one else)
> >said that "while SMG will definitely dispatch a bad ball to the boundary,
> >Boycott will defend it". The only thing interesting about Boycott is the
> >techniques he displays. Very perfect.
> >
> >A question to Britishers: Why was Boycott so hated in England. ? I mean
things
> >like "probably his mother likes him" just shows the dislike many people had.
> >
if he
> >had even a iota of doubt that he will get run out, he will simply return to
his
> >crease. I saw this in the 1979 Oval test against India. Boycott started
running
> >and seeing that he had no chance of completing the run, simply returned back
to
> >the crease, leaving Botham high and dry. Botham's remarks while going back to
> >the pavilion was unprintable.
> >
> famous story of someone having a mid-wicket conference with him and
> saying "I think I've worked out how to pick so-and-so's googly."
> Boycott's reply was allegedly that he'd worked it out some time ago,
> but he wasn't about to tell anyone else about it.
>
> I remember being one of Boycott's defenders in the early 80s, and how
> I would drivel on about how many Test centuries he'd scored. Then
> someone told me to look up how many of those centuries had set England
> up for a win, and how many had been scored in the second innings of
> matches which were obviously heading for a draw. He may have been
> playing in weak England teams, and it may be that if he hadn't scored
> the runs he did, England's performances would have looked even more
> pathetic than they did.
He may be the only player to have scored Double hundred (246* vs India
1967), it took him almost two days and with Ken Barrington at the other end
you can imagine the boredom , I watched it on tele I remember the 148 by The
Nawab, a "crown in the jewel". I was fourteen at that time..goodness Where
have all the years gone.. Cheers Peter
>
> Whatever else you can say about him, you could never accuse him of
> putting the interests of the team before his own.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> --
> "Yorkshire is a state of mind" - Dave Budd, in alt.folklore.urban
>
--
Courage is walking naked through a cannibal village.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Shridhar
>
>Ravi Krishna <srkr...@yahoo.com> felt like saying:
>>pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>>>However, you've done it now. You know what happens when Ravi detects
>>>that you think the world of a player and he doesn't. Just look at the
>>>amount of drivel he's spouted about Kapil Dev with the sole purpose of
>>>annoying Shridhar.
Glad to know that Mr.Mike Holmans can also think in a positive way towards
Shridhar. BTW, i am not a great Kapil fan or whatever, just like it irks
any Englander(i guess those supporting the England team and not British
inclusive of Scotland, Wales etc :-) no ends when any English player is trashed,
similarly it irks we Indians no ends when someone trashes one of the great
players we have had, leave alone the fact that he is a Hero( as far as his
personality is concerned) to many of us. I consider all of Gavaskar, Kapil,
Sachin as great with no comparisons among them and would not like people
trashing them. Its one thing to analyse their feat and talk about something they
wouldn't have achieved but quiet another thing to label them as crap or whatever
inanity that person could dish out in order to irritate people. BTW, i am just
amused by the fact that a certain Ravikrishna is getting away with doing all
this for his entertainment as he himself admits, i can't imagine what would have
happened in rsc if i had been upto all this. Anyway, just wanted to say what i
feel about all this, i have alreday got sick of it and would be happy if people,
especially a certain Mr.Sunderraman, can put an end to this thread.
Shridhar
Duane Pettet
>
> In article <35ee2f00....@hermes.is.co.za>,
> Bob Dubery <el...@theking.org> writes:
> >And hang on... Sobers, Rice, Hadlee, Stephenson. Notts seem to have
> >had a liking for all-rounders.
>
> Yep. At a pinch, Paul Strang qualifies too.
Hey! How dare you both forget about the greatest all-rounder ever to
grace Trent Bridge! Chris C.... err Nathan Astle of course! Sure, it was
only for half a season, but it left an everlasting effect on the Notts
club that they fail so miserably now for want of his services back ...
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
NJ Astle 10 16 0 644 100 40.25 2 3 11 -
PA Strang 13 18 3 300 48 20.00 - - 19 -
Bowling O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
NJ Astle 209 44 523 22 23.77 5-46 1 - 57.0 2.50
PA Strang 353.3 105 983 30 32.76 5-166 1 - 70.7 2.78
Oh how they miss him so ...
--
Later,
Duane [ never one to have a personal agenda ]
-------- ----------------------------------------------------
| | Duane Pettet |
| | Mail: de...@student.canterbury.ac.nz |
| \_ | WWW: http://www.cricket.org |
| </ | IRC: AstleFan, JonahLomu |
| /) | University of Canterbury |
| (/ | Christchurch, *** NEW ZEALAND *** |
| ----------------------------------------------------
| | 1998 Kuala Lumpur Super Max Eights Champions |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lyth
Roshan Diwakar wrote in message <35eb1...@froot.cc.bellcore.com>...
>>
>>Is that why Hadlee is the only one to have achieve the double in Eglish
>season
>>from the lot listed above.
>>>
>
>
>Oh yeah, who gives a damn to English season performance. The same
>championships which allow Hick to score more than 100 centuries, Lara to
>score a 501, has one-day tournaments by the lot and still unable to produce
>a team which can win a decent tournament. Come on, our Ranji trophy is more
>competitive and atleast produces some international class players.
>
>Roshan
And I presume that England cannot produce any international class players?
I think that one or two of the South African players may actually disagree
with you there.
And let us be fair India didn't exactly show themselves to be world beaters
the last time they were over here-even Ally Brown can tank that lot around.
Hmm, let me think which world class players England has produced in the last
25 years, off the top of my head: Botham, Gooch, Gatting, Gower, Boycott
(Say 35 for him!), Lamb, Underwood, Willis, Taylor, Knott, Stewart, Thorpe,
Atherton.
And our current batch of under 19's don't appear to be doing too badly
against Pakistan-leading the series are we? Oh yes, so we are! Funny I
thought we had a terrible youth system and were getting thrashed by
everyone. What's that I here? We are also the current under 19 world
champions, ahh must be a coincidence because this country is such a
cricketing grave yard.
--
Regards
-
Mark Lyth
-
"Don't remember where I was
I realized life was a game
The more seriously I took things
The harder the rules became"
-Megadeth
"A Tout Le Monde"
>
>
Mark Lyth
Ravi Krishna wrote in message <6sonk1$f...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <01bdd7f8$5b14e840$0100007f@testsamm>, "Simon says...
>
>>I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
>
>Provided Gower scores 30 against top class attack. :-)
>
>From whatever I have seen of Gower, he was an very stylish batsman, but his
>style was such that it can never succeed against fast bowlers, specially
>WI bowlers.
>
>Take it from me, England is yet to get a better batsman than Boycott in the
last
>many decades, though Gooch was very good.
>
>I however agree Boycott was very boring. Once someone asked what's the
>difference between Gavaskar and Boycott. Brealey (or was it some one else)
>said that "while SMG will definitely dispatch a bad ball to the boundary,
>Boycott will defend it". The only thing interesting about Boycott is the
>techniques he displays. Very perfect.
>
>A question to Britishers: Why was Boycott so hated in England. ? I mean
things
>like "probably his mother likes him" just shows the dislike many people
had.
>
>Of course Boycott was no saint. I read reports that he was so selfish that
if he
>had even a iota of doubt that he will get run out, he will simply return to
his
>crease. I saw this in the 1979 Oval test against India. Boycott started
running
>and seeing that he had no chance of completing the run, simply returned
back to
>the crease, leaving Botham high and dry. Botham's remarks while going back
to
>the pavilion was unprintable.
>
>Actually Boycoot and Brealey had a love hate relationship. I once read
something
>very funny. They both were playing some exhibition match on a Sunday.
Boycott
>shouldered arm to all the deliveries of the first over. At the end of the
over,
>Brealey told him "Geoff,I think the crowd has come to see the match to have
some
>entertainment, not to see your technique". Not to be outdone Boycott
replied,
>"Mike, you don't know what it means to be a test class player, you see no
test
>player will ever play to balls pitched 3 feet outside the off stump".
>
>HA HA HA HA. I would love to see the expression on Mike's face. Brealey, as
we
>all know was a great captain but a lousy bat.
>
>Boycott's commentary during the WC 1996 was very cynical. He had nothing
good to
>say about England.
>
>RK-
Just like everyone else, and most of the criticsm's were valid too-thats the
most annoying part.
Mark Lyth
Bob Dubery wrote in message <35ed0ff4....@hermes.is.co.za>...
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 19:18:55 +0100, Mike Holmans
><pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>The double is now almost impossible. In the old days, about half a dozen
>>players a season would manage it, but then they would play about 30-35
>>matches a season, so it was only 35 runs and 3 wkts a match. Nowadays
>>you'd need to get 55 runs and 5+ wickets a match, and any player good
>>enough to do that would be a genuine Test all-rounder,
>
>Am I right in saying that only 2 men have done the double since the
>county fixture list was slimmed down? IIRC the men are Hadlee and
>Franlyn Stevenson.
>
>Those are not achievements to sneer at. Players as good as Rice,
>Sobers, Imran, Kapil, Botham and Proctor didn't get a double.
>---
Well for 80% of his entire career Botham was playing this silly game called
Test cricket, you may have heard of it, for most of the county season. Just
a thought.
--
Regards
-
Mark Lyth
-
"Don't remember where I was
I realized life was a game
The more seriously I took things
The harder the rules became"
-Megadeth
"A Tout Le Monde"
>The e-mail address in the headers is bogus.
Mark Lyth
Chris Weston wrote in message ...
>In article <35ee5ca...@news.axion.bt.co.uk>, Mike Holmans
><pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>I'd argue that all of them would've been picked as a bowler if they
>>>couldn't bat. All of them made the 300 wicket club - and there are no
>>>mugs in that lot. Imran was the first genuinely quick Pakistani
>>>bowler, and Kapil either the first for India or the first for a long
>>>time (and let's not forget that Sobers, possibly the greatest
>>>all-rounder ever - and that was Imran's opinon BTW - began his Test
>>>career as an off-spinner batting *way* down the order).
>>
>>This is true of Botham before about 1984. After that, I doubt whether
>>he'd have been picked purely as a bowler. He'd lost pace and swing,
>>and was actually getting wickets by in effect bowling rubbish and
>>having batsmen hole out.
>
>Botham was still a 'golden-arm' after that time. Remember in 1985 (so
>long ago!) he took 30-odd wickets against the Aussies in a high scoring
>series. When he returned in 1991 he was so obviously better than the
>alternatives, bowling at a much reduced pace but with great guile.
>
>>>
>>>But what of the various batting skills. I'm still working my way
>>>through Tennant's biography of Imran, and it seems that several people
>>>thought he had more potential as a batsman than a bowler. Similar
>>>sentiments were expressed about Botham early in his career. Botham and
>>>Imran (who has the best Test batting average of the 4) were the 2 who
>>>had the regular opportunity to shine as batsmen, but all 4 could bat,
>>>and Hadlee and Kapil - who both came in down the order - often got
>>>runs when their teams really needed them. Some runs are worth more
>>>than others and the averages do not always reflect this.
>>>
>>Botham started as a bowler who could swing the ball both ways and
>>could bat a fair bit.
>>
>>He lost the ability to swing it in and out after his back injury,
>>after which he was never the same bowler. But he developed his batting
>>and became a genuine Test no 6. By the mid-80s his function was as the
>>no 6 who bowled a lot (a great deal too much, in my view, but still).
>He was definitely over-bowled, but out of desparation at times. He
>always *wanted* to bowl.
>
>>
>>This is where I disagree a bit with Tim Hall. Botham's place was
>>genuinely as the no 6. He also had a place as a main seam bowler, but
>>he could just as easily have been the fifth bowler. Despite Bajan
>>blandishments, very few sides have had only four bowlers. Even WI
>>sides tended to have a batsman who could bowl six overs in a Test when
>>everyone else was tired. And with the best will in the world, you can
>>hardly call the likes of Allan Lamb, David Gower, and Robin Smith
>>bowlers of any description. One of the batsmen had to be able to at
>>least turn his arm over, and obviously Botham could. In other words,
>>if he wasn't the first choice no 6 in pure batting terms, he was so
>>near it that his bowling would have got him the nod ahead of an
>>equally qualified batsman who couldn't bowl.
>Allan Lamb, not a bowler? Find me a test bowler with a better average!
>
>>
>>Botham was no slogger: he had pretty classical technique based on a
>>very straight bat, even if it was a very heavy one.
>>
>A great player, but burdened with carrying the England team for most of
>the early eighties. His technique was good, if his patience
>occasionally wore thin, but another poster remarked on his innings in
>1987 against Pakistan which was a monumental effort of concentration.
>
>The enduring memory of his late career is of him striding out to bat
>at Brisbane in 1986, sans helmet, about to score his last test hundred.
>Great stuff.
>
>
Ahh, that 6 over third man the most exsillerating shot I have ever seen.
I bet Merv Hughes remembers the day well too, particularly one over where he
hit him for 22 runs.
I quote Tony Grieg:
"...This really has been a magnificent batting performance, by one of the
greatest allrounders of all time..."
And:
"...And now he really is gonna go. He's smashed that miles, it's gone way
over the top of deep square leg. Well he's gonna cut loose now that's for
sure, what a magnificent shot. A short ball their from Hughes and Botham
smashed it over the top of square leg for six..."
Finally:
"...Having hit him for six and four, he dispatched that one straight down
the ground over the top of of the mid-on fieldsmans head for another
four..."
--
Regards
-
Mark Lyth
-
"Don't remember where I was
I realized life was a game
The more seriously I took things
The harder the rules became"
-Megadeth
"A Tout Le Monde"
>--
>Chris Weston
Simon Flatman
I'm not sure about the umpiring but I think the embarrassment of NZ giving
the W.I. a tough time wound a few people up. Clive Lloyd was a great
batsman but some other parts of the game were of questionable merit to say
the least. Sad but true.
Simon
Ravi Krishna <srkr...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<6sop8f$j...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> In article <ALkRotA+...@middleton-maintenance.co.uk>, Chris says...
<snip>
> This was the same series where the NZ umpiring image
> took a severe beating. Here are some samples of it.
>
> Lloyd on Hadlee's century: And Hadlee completed his century after record
number
> of LBW's.
>
> There is a famous photo of Holding kicking the stumps in disgust. As
Patric
> Eager (famous photographer) told, "only Holding would have made it look
so
> graceful, what was otherwise a deplorable incident".
>
> RK-
>
Simon Flatman
> In article <01bdd7f8$5b14e840$0100007f@testsamm>, "Simon says...
>
> >I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
>
> Provided Gower scores 30 against top class attack. :-)
>
vs. Holding, Garner, Marshall etc etc etc will do you nicely ...... :-)
> From whatever I have seen of Gower, he was an very stylish batsman, but
his
> style was such that it can never succeed against fast bowlers, specially
> WI bowlers.
>
Excuse me ? He only scored 150-odd on a dodgy track when they were at
their height. He still topped the averages or came close in a number of
series. He was an average captain but you can't have everything... but he
did win the Ashes :-)
> Take it from me, England is yet to get a better batsman than Boycott in
the last
> many decades, though Gooch was very good.
>
I think Gooch as captain was better that Boycs at his height although
overall Boycs got more runs. The problem with "Sir" Geoffrey was that he
only ever batted in one gear - his own. He rarely upped the pace and just
could not see that sometimes a brief calculated assault can often take the
pressure out of even the tightest of games. It wasn't that Boycs didn't
have the shots - he had an almost perfect technique - he once scored an
amazing hundred in the John Player (remember that ??) shots all around the
ground off a strongish bowling side. I think he did it to prove the point
that it wasn't that he could not play the shots and score quickly - he
chose not too. Goochie could blast a quick ton one day or bat for 2 days
for 154 against the W.Indes at Leeds. His pace was the one which was best
for the side - he did not care about risking his average if a few shots
could help win the game.
Whilst Boycs made a major contribution to English Tests, D.I.G. wasn't far
behind either. And people don't pay to watch Boycs; cricket is primarily
entertainment. If everyone took 2 and a half days to score 240 you'd need
to be a real Boycs buff to even turn up :-)
Averages don't come into this - if I had a single choice I'd rather have
Gooch than Boycs anyday and if choosing between Boycs at his peak and Gower
at his peak, D.I.G. would be the one. Just because Boycs scored more runs
it does not make him a better player.
Greatness is not about how many you score but what you are like when the
score is 10 for 3 on a dodgy track and Michael Holding has just come on at
the top end. Equally it matters what you are like when against a similar
attack you need to up the run rate on a last day run chase. And Boycs
"retired" early for his own ends - D.I.G. would never have retired from
Tests for 3 years just because of a bit of quick bowling ;-)
Of course there was a time when we could have all three in the side but
that is another story.....
<snip>
Simon
Simon Flatman
> Yes, he was utterly dedicated to his own performance. There's the
> famous story of someone having a mid-wicket conference with him and
> saying "I think I've worked out how to pick so-and-so's googly."
> Boycott's reply was allegedly that he'd worked it out some time ago,
> but he wasn't about to tell anyone else about it.
>
I've heard a few tales like this and Boycott has not rushed to deny them.
He was a great player but with a real problem.
I've met cricketers at club level with precisely the Boycs attitude, that
they won't help anyone because they might then get more runs than Boycs or
in the end might be better than them. I never have been able to understand
this, it's not at all typical of cricketers.
Perhaps Boycs would have been more at home in tennis or Formula One.....
now Boycs and Schu would be a team and a half. "Team" being used to
represent that they drove the same colour cars - I'd never insult them by
suggesting that they might be on the same side or anything :-)
Simon
Simon Flatman
<snip>
> However, you've done it now. You know what happens when Ravi detects
> that you think the world of a player and he doesn't. Just look at the
> amount of drivel he's spouted about Kapil Dev with the sole purpose of
> unflattering things he can find to say about Gower, thinking that
> getting you to respond and tell him he's talking through his arse is
> the acme of achievement.
Oh no, Mike not a Gower thread to equal the Kapil one :-(
I'll get me coat,
Simon
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> Bad eg. Kaps lost at *Home* to Pak.SRT could not even score 120 to win the
Oh no not again ? Not in _THIS_ thread too !
jagadish
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> Shridhar. BTW, i am not a great Kapil fan or whatever, just like it irks
> any Englander(i guess those supporting the England team and not British
> inclusive of Scotland, Wales etc :-) no ends when any English player is
Shridhar, is this supposed to be a tribute to your high school geography
teacher ? U are pretty good at your knowledge of the UK man !!
John Hall
Simon Flatman <sfla...@avocet-consulting.co.uk> writes:
>It wasn't that Boycs didn't
>have the shots - he had an almost perfect technique - he once scored an
>amazing hundred in the John Player (remember that ??) shots all around the
>ground off a strongish bowling side. I think he did it to prove the point
>that it wasn't that he could not play the shots and score quickly - he
>chose not too.
You may be thinking of his 146 in the final of the Gillette Cup in 1965.
Unfortunately, Yorkshire's opponents were Surrey :-(
--
John Hall
"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
Wernher von Braun
Kenny
<sfla...@avocet-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure about the umpiring but I think the embarrassment of NZ giving
>the W.I. a tough time wound a few people up. Clive Lloyd was a great
>batsman but some other parts of the game were of questionable merit to say
>the least. Sad but true.
>
>Simon
>
Simon...
I`ll advise you to do some research and read up on that series. The
umpiring in that series was so bad that the WI bowlers stopped
appealing at a certain point, and they refused to leave the dressing
room at another until Howarth ageed to walk when they knew they edged
the balls (as the umps werent giving any...the WI keeper Murray
estimated over 24 catches at the wicket werent given)...Howarth and
Lloyd met to agree on this and when WI went out on the field a couple
overs later Howarth edged yet another ball...and stood his ground. Do
you know one of the official explanations given at the time was that
the WI bowlers were so fast that they couldnt detect edges ? Hoho...
That evening the WI team voted to leave NZ in the middle of the Test
Series (in the rest day even), and had packed their bags and they were
backed by the then manager Willie Rodriguez. The only reason they
stayed was because of pleading from the WICBC ...notably Stephen
Camacho, who were more afraid of repercussions.
The umpiring in that series has been described as diabolical, and
incompetent, and to be frank that NZ team was a good one and would
have given WI a tough time, but on even terms they would not have
won...
That is the sad but true part....and not seemingly some character
flaw in Clive Lloyd which you allude to but could not explain.
Subsequently...NZ have been plucky opponents for WI but have rarely
threatened to win, and that result is hopefully forgotten because of
the bad behaviour and poor sportsmanship of certain WI players(namely
Croft and Holding), and the poor umpiring of the NZ officials,
described by Holding as the worst he has experienced in Test
Cricket...
Of course NZ cricket history might describe it as a gloriously fair
win against unsportingly bad losers....
Kenny
Mike Holmans
>In article <01bdd8b4$97c317a0$0100007f@testsamm>,
> Simon Flatman <sfla...@avocet-consulting.co.uk> writes:
>>It wasn't that Boycs didn't
>>have the shots - he had an almost perfect technique - he once scored an
>>amazing hundred in the John Player (remember that ??) shots all around the
>>ground off a strongish bowling side. I think he did it to prove the point
>>that it wasn't that he could not play the shots and score quickly - he
>>chose not too.
>
>You may be thinking of his 146 in the final of the Gillette Cup in 1965.
>Unfortunately, Yorkshire's opponents were Surrey :-(
And the reason he played all those shots is that he'd been blocking away
as usual until Brian Close joined him at the crease. Close then informed
him that if he didn't hurry up, he, Close, would run him out. So he
hurried up.
I seem to recall that Yorkshire beat Surrey again yesterday. :-)))))
simon peters
i would have to agree that the umpiring was bad however not as bad as one
sided opinions may have you believe. From day one of that tour the WI
players showed an attitude of total arrogance- displeasure at having to even
be here almost so that when the expected easy wins didn't automatically come
they seemed unable to handle it- it was not just their behavior on the field
that marred the tour it was their attitude off it as well( as well as the
umpiring :-) )
>>I'm not sure about the umpiring but I think the embarrassment of NZ giving
>>the W.I. a tough time wound a few people up. Clive Lloyd was a great
>>batsman but some other parts of the game were of questionable merit to say
>>the least. Sad but true.
>>
>>Simon
>>
>
>Simon...
>
>I`ll advise you to do some research and read up on that series. The
>umpiring in that series was so bad that the WI bowlers stopped
>appealing at a certain point, and they refused to leave the dressing
>room at another until Howarth ageed to walk when they knew they edged
>the balls (as the umps werent giving any...the WI keeper Murray
>estimated over 24 catches at the wicket werent given)
A wild exageration- if you asked the NZ players they would probably say the
figure was zero- somewhere in between maybe the truth lies.
...Howarth and
>Lloyd met to agree on this and when WI went out on the field a couple
>overs later Howarth edged yet another ball...and stood his ground. Do
>you know one of the official explanations given at the time was that
>the WI bowlers were so fast that they couldnt detect edges ?
This was not an official explanation- it was a comment made by one umpire
some years later
Hoho...
>
>That evening the WI team voted to leave NZ in the middle of the Test
>Series (in the rest day even), and had packed their bags and they were
>backed by the then manager Willie Rodriguez. The only reason they
>stayed was because of pleading from the WICBC ...notably Stephen
>Camacho, who were more afraid of repercussions.
>
>The umpiring in that series has been described as diabolical, and
>incompetent, and to be frank that NZ team was a good one and would
>have given WI a tough time, but on even terms they would not have
>won...
A brave statement for any game of cricket- Nz at the time were not the
bunnies they are today and we were on our pitches with our conditions (i.e.
very cold at some venues :-) )
>
>That is the sad but true part....and not seemingly some character
>flaw in Clive Lloyd which you allude to but could not explain.
>Subsequently...NZ have been plucky opponents for WI but have rarely
>threatened to win, and that result is hopefully forgotten because of
>the bad behaviour and poor sportsmanship of certain WI players(namely
>Croft and Holding), and the poor umpiring of the NZ officials,
>described by Holding as the worst he has experienced in Test
>Cricket...
>Of course NZ cricket history might describe it as a gloriously fair
>win against unsportingly bad losers....
I think most NZ'ers are honest enough to describe it as an dubious win
against the worst sportsmen seen here for some time- certainly a stark
contrast to the other WI indies teams we have had here over the years
Simon (who believe it or not is a great WI fan)
>
>Kenny
Kenny
<pete...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>As someone who saw all of this series , a lot of it live and the rest on tv
>i would have to agree that the umpiring was bad however not as bad as one
>sided opinions may have you believe. From day one of that tour the WI
>players showed an attitude of total arrogance- displeasure at having to even
>be here almost so that when the expected easy wins didn't automatically come
>they seemed unable to handle it- it was not just their behavior on the field
>that marred the tour it was their attitude off it as well( as well as the
>umpiring :-) )
>
Well WI was not a dominant force yet, and this spectre of arrogance
simply did not exist. The fact that they dared question the actual
competence of NZ cricket is the basis of the accusation that they were
an arrogant side.
Looking at this rationally, Richards was injured....Lloyd was the
captain. Lloyd before and after in county and intl cricket never
supported open rebellion to officialdom. Willy Rodriguez who was the
manager at the time, was as establishment WICBC as they could come,
yet he too even voted to leave NZ. The fact is WI players like Holding
and Garner were not known for having persecution complexes before and
after that series (Croft definitely was volatile).
The problem is that we are likely to look at this from a partisan
point of view, but there are common indicators that something was
drastically wrong, and the behaviour of this same WI team on tougher
tours on the subcontinent and Australia suggests that they were not
kidding....by some way.
>...Howarth and
>>Lloyd met to agree on this and when WI went out on the field a couple
>>overs later Howarth edged yet another ball...and stood his ground. Do
>>you know one of the official explanations given at the time was that
>>the WI bowlers were so fast that they couldnt detect edges ?
>
>This was not an official explanation- it was a comment made by one umpire
>some years later
>
It was given as a reason in the absence of any real answers as to why
they were so incompetent. It was...and is...a joke.
Do you think it is ordinary that a visiting captain refuses to return
to the field unless the home captain assures his team that they will
walk ? Has it happened since or before...when WI with roughly the same
characters have made tours where they have been under the kosh ?
I actually think its quite funny that Howarth didnt walk a couple
overs after agreeing to do so in private with Lloyd...It kinda summed
up the situation.
>Hoho...
>>
>>That evening the WI team voted to leave NZ in the middle of the Test
>>Series (in the rest day even), and had packed their bags and they were
>>backed by the then manager Willie Rodriguez. The only reason they
>>stayed was because of pleading from the WICBC ...notably Stephen
>>Camacho, who were more afraid of repercussions.
>>
>>The umpiring in that series has been described as diabolical, and
>>incompetent, and to be frank that NZ team was a good one and would
>>have given WI a tough time, but on even terms they would not have
>>won...
>
>A brave statement for any game of cricket- Nz at the time were not the
>bunnies they are today and we were on our pitches with our conditions (i.e.
>very cold at some venues :-) )
>
So WI had not had overseas tours before ? Most of the players thought
it was cold yes, but the overriding fact was that they thought they
were robbed, and the embarassing silence that has followed this series
over the years (very few NZ test players in that team even deal with
it in length), coupled with the results before and after that series
with NZ teams of comparable strength (well not before ...but certainly
after), shows that there is a lot more to this series than some tough
1-0 victory grinded out by a deserving NZ team. Hell...they`d then get
the credit ala Aus..who whacked WI badly and then became enemy number
1.
To this day..WI-NZ encounters just dont have any bite....
>
>I think most NZ'ers are honest enough to describe it as an dubious win
>against the worst sportsmen seen here for some time- certainly a stark
>contrast to the other WI indies teams we have had here over the years
>
>Simon (who believe it or not is a great WI fan)
>>
Which one followed the other ? The dubious behaviour of the WI
players was never punished...(and never asked for). Lloyd had to write
a letter of apology to smooth things over which he duly did.(whilst
criticising the umpires)..and the ICC didnt even rap their knuckles...
The fact is NZ cricket at the highest level was so ashamed that it was
a phyrric victory, and the acts of bad sportsmanship were glossed over
by a WICBC which is on record, before and since, the toughest of all
the ICC nations in banning its own players for discipline. Basically
if the WICBC or even the ICC had even felt that Croft or Holding were
not even half justified...the WICBC would have banned them for
life...(and Garner too). I can give you a list of people banned for
trivial things by the WICBC..irregardless of their status.
For that one series...the players and the WICBC, who have never been
close..were united. For that, we have NZ cricket to thank...
Kenny...
Shridhar
>
>
>> Shridhar. BTW, i am not a great Kapil fan or whatever, just like it irks
>> any Englander(i guess those supporting the England team and not British
>> inclusive of Scotland, Wales etc :-) no ends when any English player is
>
>Shridhar, is this supposed to be a tribute to your high school geography
>teacher ? U are pretty good at your knowledge of the UK man !!
>
>jagadish
Moron, so what do you want to prove here, you filthy.....Can't you think of
anything better than responding in a stupid manner to my posts ????
Shridhar
Simon Flatman
>
> >Hmm, let me think which world class players England has produced in the
last
> >25 years, off the top of my head: Botham, Gooch, Gatting, Gower,
Boycott
> >(Say 35 for him!), Lamb, Underwood, Willis, Taylor, Knott, Stewart,
Thorpe,
> >Atherton.
I never really thought of Lamb as world class - sure he played some
terrific innings against the West Indies but he could hardly hit spinners
off the square. A shame, only with a bit more technique he could have been
a great player, but, W.I. apart, I feel that he never got enough runs when
it mattered. In the end he only kept his Test place because of his one-day
runs - however much I dislike the statistics wars, an average of twenty odd
over a couple of years is a tad low unless you can field like Gus
Logie.....
And Gatting ??? One of the great county cricketers - there have hardly been
more than a handful better than him in those 25 years on the county circuit
but surely he never got enough runs in Tests to be called world class ?? If
you count Gatt, then you could count Robin Smith, Emburey and Dilley too
;-)
Simon
Simon Flatman
<snip>
> A team for a healthy balance, requires all sorts of players. For every
Gower
> you need a Boycott otherwise you will end up losing far more matches.
Just see
> English batting in many series against top class fast bowling. Pathetic.
> Few Boycott's would have saved them from such disators.
>
> RK-
>
Of course a balance in a team is needed - I was really meaning that if
choosing between the two, at their peak, DIG would be my choice because he
was much more adaptable where as Boycs did sometimes play us away from
possible winning positions because he could not see the need to push the
score on. This was even more the case for Yorkshire - in 3-day cricket if
Boycs got dug in a draw was a cert.
Boycott was a great player - technically right up their with Hobbs etc. and
of course we could do with him now. Atherton has many of his qualities, and
is basically a similar type of opener but he often plays a different way
when conditions demand which GB never did. Gower played in lots of poor
England batting line ups where as Boycs played , by and large, in teams
which were often very strong - he could have played differently but he
chose not to. Also Boycotts attitude was a real problem for his
captains......
Simon
Simon Flatman
<35f13986...@read.news.global.net.uk>...<snip about NZ vs W Indies>
> win against unsportingly bad losers....
>
>
Fair enough about the some of umpiring - I realise that were some poor
decisions but that does not justify some of the actions of some of the
players. As they lost only a handful of games in 20-odd years, I guess many
had never experienced it. I'd imagine there may be players who never
experienced losing a series until then ??
The W.Indies played some magnificent cricket during this era but from time
to time, some of the tactics have been dubious. I mean, Courtney Walsh
should have known better than to bounce Dev Malcolm like that - Walsh is
one of the great bowlers of recent years and you only have to pitch a
couple at the stumps to remove Devon :-)
And I'm afraid some of the more outrageous things players said don't really
bother me. You only have to attend a few club cricket games to realise that
some cricketers talk a load of cobblers, particularly when they lose !!
Simon (Another W.Indies fan, believe it or not :-)
Simon Flatman
<WfzxMUAy...@jhall.demon.co.uk>...
<snip on "Sir Geoffrey">
> You may be thinking of his 146 in the final of the Gillette Cup in 1965.
> Unfortunately, Yorkshire's opponents were Surrey :-(
> John Hall
Hmm....... maybe ? I was originally thinking of something much later in his
career - the story goes that he was fed up with the criticism and flailed a
quick ton to prove a point. I'll have to dig out (what else ?) a Wisden or
two to find the exact innings.
Simon
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Sun, 6 Sep 1998 11:33:30 +1200, "simon peters"
> <pete...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >As someone who saw all of this series , a lot of it live and the rest on tv
> >i would have to agree that the umpiring was bad however not as bad as one
> >sided opinions may have you believe.
>
> >>
> >>The umpiring in that series has been described as diabolical, and
> >>incompetent, and to be frank that NZ team was a good one and would
> >>have given WI a tough time, but on even terms they would not have
> >>won...
> >
> >A brave statement for any game of cricket- Nz at the time were not the
> >bunnies they are today and we were on our pitches with our conditions (i.e.
> >very cold at some venues :-) )
> >
>
> So WI had not had overseas tours before ? Most of the players thought
> it was cold yes, but the overriding fact was that they thought they
> were robbed, and the embarassing silence that has followed this series
> over the years (very few NZ test players in that team even deal with
> it in length),
I'll just mention here that, at two separate festivals in Philadelphia
over the past three years, Richard Hadlee (who also saw all of that
series, quite close up!) alluded several times to the horrible umpiring,
and was clearly embarrassed by it. One reason why we need neutral
umpires -- at least there was no rational grounds for the charges that
Umpire Aktar was deliberately cheating for England.
All this does not change the fact that the actions of the WI players,
however much one might empathize with their frutration and sense of
injury, were totally unacceptable.
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Kenny
<sfla...@avocet-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>Kenny <gre...@mail.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in article
><35f13986...@read.news.global.net.uk>...
>> On 5 Sep 1998 11:36:50 GMT, "Simon Flatman"
>> <sfla...@avocet-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
><snip about NZ vs W Indies>
>> Of course NZ cricket history might describe it as a gloriously fair
>> win against unsportingly bad losers....
>>
>> Kenny
>>
>
>Fair enough about the some of umpiring - I realise that were some poor
>decisions but that does not justify some of the actions of some of the
>players. As they lost only a handful of games in 20-odd years, I guess many
>had never experienced it. I'd imagine there may be players who never
>experienced losing a series until then ??
>
You failed to recognise the point I made. In reality it was seen as
justified. The WI board which was and still is the most picky
disciplinary board of all, did not punish any of the players, not
because WI cricket administration is arrogant or powerful, but because
they agreed with the players. The ICC turned a blind eye as
well....and the NZ authorities kept mum.
The actions of the players were seen as unfortunate but they have
never been put under serious scrutiny, because if they were it would
show how rotten the actual core of the series was...
>The W.Indies played some magnificent cricket during this era but from time
>to time, some of the tactics have been dubious. I mean, Courtney Walsh
>should have known better than to bounce Dev Malcolm like that - Walsh is
>one of the great bowlers of recent years and you only have to pitch a
>couple at the stumps to remove Devon :-)
>
If only that were the case. This logic that suggests that if a
tailender is slogging you for fours that you just keep on pitching up
and hope that the right thing happens is somehow missplaced. Dubious
behaviour is Viv remonstrating with CMJ in the comms area...dubious
behaviour is Viv pointing his finger at Barker before he made his
decision, but Walsh trying his best (or worst) to get rid of a
tailender when he was being extremely difficult to dislodge isnt
dubious.....
Btw when Dominic Cork did the same to Walsh in England it was called
good aggressive bowling at a tailender. WI didnt complain, and the
argument that somehow a ball travelling at 80 mph as against 86 mph is
somehow less a threat is not obvious to the player who feels it....
>And I'm afraid some of the more outrageous things players said don't really
>bother me. You only have to attend a few club cricket games to realise that
>some cricketers talk a load of cobblers, particularly when they lose !!
>
Who cares what players say in this instance. If it were simply
sledging and not incompetent umpiring then this series would have
passed by as many other have as a good result by a good team. It
doesnt though IMO...no matter how good NZ were at that time. And that
is the major pity...
Mark Lyth
Simon Flatman wrote in message <01bdd8cc$738eac60$0100007f@testsamm>...
I believe that Emburey could actually be called world class. The man has
200 test wickets obviously you cannot get all of them cought at deep long on
and so forth. Gatting I included mainly because you knew what you were
going to get from him, and he punnished bad bowling like no English man has
since, with the possible exception of Alec Stewart. Gatting also used to
like to score his runs against Australia, and let's be honest we probably
wouldn't have had to live through that horrible time in the early 90's when
we were terrible if he had still been captain-but Ali Bachers $$ saw to
that.
Tim Hall
<gre...@mail.globalnet.co.uk> writes
>
>You failed to recognise the point I made. In reality it was seen as
>justified. The WI board which was and still is the most picky
>disciplinary board of all, did not punish any of the players, not
>because WI cricket administration is arrogant or powerful, but because
>they agreed with the players. The ICC turned a blind eye as
>well....and the NZ authorities kept mum.
>
Just to verge even further off-topic...
Is it any criterion for judging how bad the umpiring has been in a
series to look at the subsequent actions of the administrators from the
country who felt they got the sh***y end of the stick?
I can't remember many specific examples other than the RSA squad being
awarded their full bonus by their board despite failing to win the Test
series this summer; and the England squad who were involved in the
Shakoor Rana affair, who were given what I think was euphemistically
described as a "hardship bonus" when they returned.
Can anyone remember other occasions where a board of control has tacitly
said to their side, "We know you lost, but it wasn't your fault"?
--
Tim Hall
http://www.indiscreet.com/hornets
"To go to a cricket match for nothing but cricket is as though a man were
to go into an inn for nothing but drink." Neville Cardus
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>Well for 80% of his entire career Botham was playing this silly game called
>Test cricket, you may have heard of it, for most of the county season. Just
>a thought.
Yes. A valid point. Botham is the odd man out in that he was an
English all-rounder and so the country season would have clashed with
Test fixtures.
Point taken.
---
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>The fact is NZ cricket at the highest level was so ashamed that it was
>a phyrric victory, and the acts of bad sportsmanship were glossed over
>by a WICBC which is on record, before and since, the toughest of all
>the ICC nations in banning its own players for discipline. Basically
>if the WICBC or even the ICC had even felt that Croft or Holding were
>not even half justified...the WICBC would have banned them for
>life...(and Garner too). I can give you a list of people banned for
>trivial things by the WICBC..irregardless of their status.
I'm not sure I buy this.
I've heard before this argument that the WICBC are quick to punish
players for indiscretions but I'm unconvinced.
Clarke, for example, was still playing a year after the brick throwing
incident.
Viv Richards once burst into the press room - at about the same time
that he was supposed to be leading his team on to the field - and
threatened a journalist with physical violence. He was retained as
both player and captain. In the same series Richards contrived to
place an umpire under enormous pressure and thus secured a vital
decision.
Perhaps in recent times the WICBC have started to require better
behaviour from their players, but to portray the West Indian team or
the WICBC as cricketing saints is pushing things a little far. They
behave no better and no worse than any other team. And in the late 70s
and early 80s West Indian players were involved in some shocking
incidents.
You might argue about provocation, bad umpiring etc. etc. but there
can be no justification for the "antics" that West Indian players
resorted to in New Zealand.
Kenny Green
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 02:10:29 GMT, gre...@mail.globalnet.co.uk (Kenny)
>wrote:
>
>>The fact is NZ cricket at the highest level was so ashamed that it was
>>a phyrric victory, and the acts of bad sportsmanship were glossed over
>>by a WICBC which is on record, before and since, the toughest of all
>>the ICC nations in banning its own players for discipline. Basically
>>if the WICBC or even the ICC had even felt that Croft or Holding were
>>not even half justified...the WICBC would have banned them for
>>life...(and Garner too). I can give you a list of people banned for
>>trivial things by the WICBC..irregardless of their status.
>
>I'm not sure I buy this.
>
>I've heard before this argument that the WICBC are quick to punish
>players for indiscretions but I'm unconvinced.
>
>Clarke, for example, was still playing a year after the brick throwing
>incident.
>
Do you know where the brick came from ? Had Chanderpaul done the same
recently in Pak the same result would have taken place..nothing. You
throw something at a fielder, he is likely to explode and send it
back. Isnt wise, Isnt right, but it is defensible as a recourse of
reaction.
>Viv Richards once burst into the press room - at about the same time
>that he was supposed to be leading his team on to the field - and
>threatened a journalist with physical violence. He was retained as
>both player and captain. In the same series Richards contrived to
>place an umpire under enormous pressure and thus secured a vital
>decision.
>
The Barker incident happened before the CMJ incident in that series
(One led to another...and CMJ made some private remarks to colleagues
of Viv which took the whole thing to a personal level), and yes Viv
was given terrible leeway ....But it is an exception not the rule. Viv
was lucky....
>Perhaps in recent times the WICBC have started to require better
>behaviour from their players, but to portray the West Indian team or
>the WICBC as cricketing saints is pushing things a little far. They
>behave no better and no worse than any other team. And in the late 70s
>and early 80s West Indian players were involved in some shocking
>incidents.
>
WI fairplay has been generally better than most teams, unless you
construe bowling fast at batsmen unfair. In fact the gist of
mainstream press reporting in the late 70`s and 80`s in Aus and
England was that just being intimidating was bad behaviour from
people who used to laud Lillee and Thompson, and Snow and Botham. I
know where it comes from though it is too problematic to go into its
roots...Pakistan saw the same problems when their W`s and Imran found
reverse swing.
You have an incident where Clarke threw a brick into a crowd after he
himself had almost been killed (and he was constantly pelted), and the
barging incident of Croft and Holdings kicking of the stumps. Of the
incidents neither the Indian or NZ boards made any huge fuss because
of the actual embarassments that surrounded the events, and Crofts
actions alone should have guaranteed a ban for life.
>You might argue about provocation, bad umpiring etc. etc. but there
>can be no justification for the "antics" that West Indian players
>resorted to in New Zealand.
>
There is no 'might' about either part. The umpiring was incompetent
throughout, and it fuelled bad behaviour from the WI team, who were
wrong. That the whole series was such a debacle is exactly why it has
had such a low profile except if you want to see spectacular pics of
Holding kicking the stumps....
What I detest is this attitude that this series was somewhat a few bad
decisions fuelling WI to show themselves. WI had harder tours of AUS
and India and Pak before and after without any circumstance even when
they had faced bad decisions. This was a series in which the
officiating was reported as so endemically bad (As a schoolboy I
remember the musing of Gerry Gomez on radio in those days...) as to
drive players mad...
Unfortunately this will never really be appreciated because it is
easier to point out what Holding and Croft did, what Lloyd did and
said, and how WI refused to take the field and wanted to leave NZ
without examining why a team that never has done anything like that
before or since whether winning or losing would even go to those
lengths.
Simon Flatman
<snip>
> You failed to recognise the point I made. In reality it was seen as
> justified. The WI board which was and still is the most picky
> disciplinary board of all, did not punish any of the players, not
> because WI cricket administration is arrogant or powerful, but because
> they agreed with the players. The ICC turned a blind eye as
> well....and the NZ authorities kept mum.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Poor behaviour is
unacceptable by any player - they represent their country and if they can't
do it well, get someone else in. And I'm not sure about the W.Indies board
argument - I recall lots of incidents which have gone unpunished. As has
been mentioned by another poster, there was Clarke, and he was just one of
the incidents. Hardly any boards in any sport are really serious about
punishing bad conduct. Kids see their heroes do it and think its cool to be
a maniac - and these kids are the cricketers, footballers, tennis players
etc of tomorrow.
<snip intimidation debate>
I'm not just having a go at the W.Indies - there have been lots of
incidents, largely post-Packer, by many countries. I don't agree with
intimidation of tailenders by any country - Malcolm is one of the worst
batsmen in world cricket and Walsh one of the best bowlers and for someone
with as good a sportsmanship record as Walsh to bowl to Malcolm like that
was shameful. Walsh let himself down as much as anyone. This is not about
bowling the odd short one - this is calculated bowling at the body. I'm not
very sure that some of the stuff bowled at Atherton, Robin Smith etc etc in
past series was in the spirit of the game.
It certainly was against the laws but no one ever uses them anyway :-)
This might be heresy to say so in this ng, but it is only a game. Maiming
batsmen is not part of it.
I'm still a fan of W.Indies and of quality fast bowling in general but
someday someone will be seriously hurt and I don't want to be watching when
it happens.
Simon
Kenny Green
<sfla...@avocet-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>Kenny <gre...@mail.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in article
><35f2bca3...@read.news.global.net.uk>...
><snip>
>> You failed to recognise the point I made. In reality it was seen as
>> justified. The WI board which was and still is the most picky
>> disciplinary board of all, did not punish any of the players, not
>> because WI cricket administration is arrogant or powerful, but because
>> they agreed with the players. The ICC turned a blind eye as
>> well....and the NZ authorities kept mum.
>
>I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Poor behaviour is
>unacceptable by any player - they represent their country and if they can't
>do it well, get someone else in. And I'm not sure about the W.Indies board
>argument - I recall lots of incidents which have gone unpunished. As has
>been mentioned by another poster, there was Clarke, and he was just one of
>the incidents. Hardly any boards in any sport are really serious about
>punishing bad conduct. Kids see their heroes do it and think its cool to be
>a maniac - and these kids are the cricketers, footballers, tennis players
>etc of tomorrow.
>
I mentioned the Clarke situation in another thread. Its old ground,
and like so many others what is actually known is pretty superficial
as against what happened.
Reporting Standards or bias in cricket is a more accurate diversion of
this post.
><snip intimidation debate>
>
>I'm not just having a go at the W.Indies - there have been lots of
>incidents, largely post-Packer, by many countries. I don't agree with
>intimidation of tailenders by any country - Malcolm is one of the worst
>batsmen in world cricket and Walsh one of the best bowlers and for someone
>with as good a sportsmanship record as Walsh to bowl to Malcolm like that
>was shameful. Walsh let himself down as much as anyone. This is not about
>bowling the odd short one - this is calculated bowling at the body. I'm not
>very sure that some of the stuff bowled at Atherton, Robin Smith etc etc in
>past series was in the spirit of the game.
>
I have scarcely seen intimidation that warranted such alarm in intl
cricket, and I rank that incident as one of them (The last time I felt
bad for a bat was when Wi played against Bothams England in the WI on
a bad wicket and Patrick Patterson was bowling ). In the WI domestics
I have seen much much more than that, with noone even trying
deliberately to hit someone. The point is that tailenders are
cricketers too...Malcolm could have stayed there and scored runs.
Saying he is a bunny and supposedly that he should be dealt with
differently when he was proving difficult to dislodge on that day is
ridiculously simplistic. Test matches have been won by 'bunnies'
getting comfortable and getting in a few hits...as Malcolm had.
Talking about Post packer...Pre Packer WI were whacked in Australia
and had countless licks from Lillee and Thompson..It wasnt wrong
then...and it isnt wrong now to eliminate tailenders quickly by making
sure that they 'give' their wickets away. There is no law in cricket
that says that AN other bowler shall frustrate himself bowling line
and length or trying to york tailenders because its the fairest way.
It works a great deal of the times, but sometimes when a tailender
gets confident and starts staying there...
Whether you feel this way generally or not, cricket is not a charity
game where you give someone a few hits because someone is supposedly
inept. Look at the footage if you have it...Walsh was basically saying
to Malcolm...get out of there, and he softened him up before he bowled
him. That straight ball would have been slogged for 4 a few overs
before....
>It certainly was against the laws but no one ever uses them anyway :-)
>This might be heresy to say so in this ng, but it is only a game. Maiming
>batsmen is not part of it.
>
The rules are left to interpretation...that is why they are scarcely
used. Malcolm was not maimed or in danger of being so, with helmets,
pads et al (though I`m sure he got scared ). The perception that Walsh
could and tried to maim him is one of the popular throw ups used in
the media which filtered down to the public...Walsh wanted his
wicket...plain and simple.
>I'm still a fan of W.Indies and of quality fast bowling in general but
>someday someone will be seriously hurt and I don't want to be watching when
>it happens.
>
Someday ? With what ? One bouncer an over mean anything ? Cricket is
becoming a game where soon the ICC will issue a standard directive as
to what the 'proper' team should constitute, and how they should bowl.
Kenny
Fergus McKiddie
cheers
Fergus
mph...@biomed.abdn.ac.uk
Mike Holmans
decided to opine:
>I believe that Emburey could actually be called world class. The man has
>200 test wickets obviously you cannot get all of them cought at deep long on
>and so forth.
You are talking about a different Emburey, obviously. JE Emburey of
Middx, England, and the 88 Club took 147 Test wickets in 64 matches at
38.4.
>Gatting I included mainly because you knew what you were
>going to get from him, and he punnished bad bowling like no English man has
>since, with the possible exception of Alec Stewart.
Of course, this depends on which part of his career you are looking
at. Here are his figures from the first six years of his Test career:
M I NO R Ave HS 100 50
30 52 4 1144 23.83 81 0 9
During that period, he adventurously tried to introduce a new shot to
the coaching manual, the high leave. This consisted of lifting his bat
out of the way of the ball so that it could either hit the stumps or
the batsman's legs when plumb in front.
>Gatting also used to
>like to score his runs against Australia,
Didn't he just? Here are his figures against Australia:
27 48 4 1661 37.75 160 4 12
And we all remember how well he dealt with Shane Warne from the moment
he laid eyes on him.
>and let's be honest we probably
>wouldn't have had to live through that horrible time in the early 90's when
>we were terrible if he had still been captain-but Ali Bachers $$ saw to
>that.
Given that Bacher only approached him to captain a rebel side *after*
he had been sacked as England captain (exceedingly unjustly, in my
view, but that's by the by), this is another allegation it is
difficult to substantiate.
Don't get me wrong. I have enormous respect for Mike Gatting. He's the
last player still active who was playing when I started watching the
game on a regular basis, and I shall be sorry for many reasons when he
retires. I've seen him score thousands of runs for Middx (and a fair
few for England). Few I've seen have clumped the ball through the
off-side field with such power. He was a superb county captain,
especially since he was following Brearley's act.
There are many excuses for his poor record at Test level. He spent
years being buggered about, selected at the last minute for many
games, and never having a settled spot in the order until 1985. But he
had more chances than Ramprakash or Hick, with less success than
either, until Gower asked to have him as vice-captain on the 1984-5
tour of India. For a couple of years in the mid-80s, he performed very
well: to those of us who have watched him a lot over 20 years, that
was the period when he actually fulfilled at Test level the promise
we'd always known he had. His figures from Sep 1984 to Sep 1987 were
definitely world class:
28 48 9 2419 62.03 207 9 8
Then he went on the tour of horrors to Pakistan and met up with
Shakoor Rana, after which he was never quite the same player for
England.
But it diminishes the value of accolades if they are to be handed out
to all and sundry, even those who might have deserved them had their
whole career, or at least the majority of it, been of the same
standard as their best year or two.
His overall figures were:
79 138 14 4409 35.56 207 10 21
Those aren't the figures of a Test failure, but you'll note how 90% of
his centuries were during the three-year purple patch, when 55% of his
runs came in 35% of his matches.
His period at a leading world batsman was a bit longer than that of
Chris Broad (International Cricketer of the Year 1986), but he will
not go down in history as a world-class player.
Cheers,
Mike
--
"Yorkshire is a state of mind" - Dave Budd, in alt.folklore.urban
John Hall
Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>On Sun, 6 Sep 1998 23:59:10 +0100, "Mark Lyth" <tow...@easynet.co.uk>
>decided to opine:
>
>
>>I believe that Emburey could actually be called world class. The man has
>>200 test wickets obviously you cannot get all of them cought at deep long on
>>and so forth.
>
>You are talking about a different Emburey, obviously. JE Emburey of
>Middx, England, and the 88 Club took 147 Test wickets in 64 matches at
>38.4.
Yep. Not world class, but that equates to an average of about 11 wickets
in a 5 match series. If either Croft or Such manages 11 wickets at an
average of under 40 this winter, he'll have justified his selection and
I'll be surprised and delighted. It shows what English spin has been
reduced to, when so moderate a performer as Emburey represents a golden
age by comparison.
--
John Hall
"The young ladies entered the room in the full fervour
of sisterly animosity."
From "Mr Sponge's Sporting Tour" by R.S. Surtees (1803-1864)
Bob Dubery
(Kenny Green) wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 06:09:02 GMT, el...@theking.org (Bob Dubery)
>wrote:
>Do you know where the brick came from ? Had Chanderpaul done the same
>recently in Pak the same result would have taken place..nothing. You
>throw something at a fielder, he is likely to explode and send it
>back. Isnt wise, Isnt right, but it is defensible as a recourse of
>reaction.
>>Viv Richards once burst into the press room - at about the same time
>>that he was supposed to be leading his team on to the field - and
>>threatened a journalist with physical violence. He was retained as
>>both player and captain. In the same series Richards contrived to
>>place an umpire under enormous pressure and thus secured a vital
>>decision.
>The Barker incident happened before the CMJ incident in that series
>(One led to another...and CMJ made some private remarks to colleagues
>of Viv which took the whole thing to a personal level), and yes Viv
>was given terrible leeway ....But it is an exception not the rule. Viv
>was lucky....
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, Kenny.
Most flamewars on this group have started with aspersions being cast
against a nation or against a national hero, and I feel we're getting
uncomfortably close to that territory.
And hey, and West Indian supporters who are contemplating visiting SA
for the West Indies/SA series, my advice is to take in the 5th Test at
Centurion Park. It's a very pleasent Test venue, far better than the
Wanderers (and I currently live about 250 metres from the Wanderers) -
especially when it comes to visibility.