[Interview] Barry Richards
Harish Chandramouli
I was actually forced into opening (Sharda Ugra, The Sportstar 01/04/95)
------------------------------------
When Barry Richards, grey-haired, bespectacled, with his famous toothy grin
still in place, hit a century at the Brabourne Stadium at the BSI World
Masters Cup on his first-ever trip to India, the words 'lost generation'
took on a whole new meaning. Richards, in one of numerous press
interviews in Bombay, spoke about his country being shut out of Test
cricket for 21 years. "History will look at us as a lost generation."
After a determined and blazing 102 off 100 balls, against England's over
35 team, it was clear that the loss was not only his own but belonged to
everyone who savoured sporting excellence.
Taking time to settle into the over-35s tournament after a long haul,
with two stops, from Brisbane to Bombay, Richards got his hundred off
England, the team considered the most match-fit in the tournament, with
six current first-class players. He also took the South Africans to
victory, ensuring that they finished in third place at the inaugural
Masters tournament. Where his famour contemporary Graeme Pollock ('the
best player I ever saw abd that included people like Viv Richards and
Gary Sobers') was silken movement and timing, Richards's batting was all
about quickness of eyes, feet and hands, the ball struck hard and long to
all corners of the ground.
Richards, 49, the Chief Executive Officer of the Queensland Cricket
Association, plays very little cricket now. Maybe a testimonial or
benefit game once a year. He was at the crease at the Brabourne for two
hours and 18 minutes, time enough to get a glimpse of the utter richness
of his abilities and the utter paucity of opportunities he had to display
it at the very highest level. He played only four Test matches for 508
runs at 72.57 with two centuries, before South Africa was banned from
international cricket in 1971.
He spent the wilderness years opening for Natal, Hampshire and South
Australia. Towards the end he was bored with the repetitiveness of county
cricket and bored with the sheer monotony of his success in first class
cricket - 28,358 runs at 54.74 with 80 centuries and 367 catches,
including a career high of 356 (325 in a day) for South Australia in
1970-71 versus Graham McKenzie, Dennis Lillee and Tony Lock bowling for
Western Australia. All the time he was looking for the ream thing, the
resumption of Test cricket, which never happened. " Personally I try not
to think about it. Because, the more I would have thought about it I
would have got bitter. Consequently it could have upset my game or made
me give up cricket which I didn't want to."
A colourful, controversial professional in the 70s for Hampshire,
Richards was considered aloof and avaricious - a cardinal sin in the
pre-Packer age of the 'noble amateur' - and unapologetic as well. "I
won't ever deny that I want the best financial return for my skill.
What's so immoral about that? I happen to be a professional cricketer,
that's my training, that's my talent, and it's the only way I can make
myself a decent living," he had said in the mid-70s.
In Bombay he was busy, yet relaxed and approachable cramming in hurried
press conferences in between innings, signing 150 commemorative posters
and many more autographs, posing for photographers and making television
appearances. His sport is now golf, ("a humbling experience, because I'm
not good at it!") and his work at the QCA takes up all his time. A $25
million renovation project at the Woollongabba ground reached a crucial
stage during the Masters tournament and Richards missed a match before
flying into Bombay for the final two games. He took one step towards
square leg and played a cover drive to get to his first century in India,
and the few spectators at the Brabourne that evening realised that though
he was here 20 years too late, Barry Richards had been worth waiting for.
Excerpts from an interview:
===========================================================================
Question: What brought you back to the Masters? You've said you don't
play much cricket anymore.
Answer: Just to see the fellows again. I haven't seen them for a long
time. It's not often that you get the calibre of players from all
countries in one place at one time. My last game of cricket was on
December 18, and the last game before that was December the year before.
the game in 1994 was for the Bradman Museum Trust and i opened the
innings with Sunil (Gavaskar). He is a great technician - one of the
great all time players and his results in the West Indies have not been
surpassed by anybody. He has probably the best technique I have seen.
Even though Viv and Graeme Pollock dominated attacks, it was lovely to
watch Sunil get behind the ball.
I don't play much anymore because my job is very demanding. I like to
find time for my sons - one son is very keen on cricket - and my golf. If
I would spend four hours in the sun, I'd rather be on a golf course than
fielding! It's been very good here. We have played three games in eight
days on the trot in Bombay and done very well. I don't think I've played
three games in eight years! Maybe the next time, we will practice a bit
more and get prepared for the Masters.
Q: In your playing days you had said you were not a day-in day-out
cricketer. Would you have liked playing in the 90s when the cricket
calendar lasts practically 12 months of the year ?
A: I wasn't a day in day out player, that's true. Non-stop cricket takes
a lot out of a player. Only now people are getting used to the idea of
how to look after players. Counties have two fast bowlers and spread the
load a bit and I think people are better managed now. They're very aware
of burn out. In our days, I used to play in England till September 16, be
in South African, on September 17 or 18 o play cricket again. We weren't
aware of any sort of burnout. Managing your time in those days was very
difficult. Now there is an awareness among players that they can't play
non-stop for 10 seasons on the trot because you'd rather play for 20
years instead of burn out within five or 10. Managing time better gives
longevity to your game.
I would like to be playing now - tours are shorter. You don't have a
five-month or six-month tour. They last for two or three months or six
weeks and it gives you time to rest and regroup. It's specially necessary
for the fast bowlers. I think South Africa has suffered a little since
they've come back by playing too much. Allan Donald has had a bit of burn
out. I know they were happy to be back and to play against everyone else,
but they've played too much.
Q: Did you naturally take to opening the batting and enjoy it, since it's
one of the more difficult spots in cricket?
A: I was actually forced into opening in my early years. When I played
for Natal I batted at No. 3 and I batted Np. 3 for my club team. One
year, one of our opening batsmen Jackie McGlew retired and there was
nobody to open the batting. They said, "Barry, you had better go and do
it," and I got six hundreds. That's the reason I couldn't go back!
Opening is one of the tougher positions, sure. You always get the new
ball with a hard seam, you can always get one that does something and
you're out. Sometimes you do all the hard work in the hot sun and get out
when you've got 40 or something...Make it nice for Mark Waugh or someone
to come in and they get a 100! You've got a 40 and done the hardest part.
That's one of the things that used to frustrate me - I used to get out a
lot in the 50s after the hard bit and make it easy for the guys coming in
behind. That was part of your job, honestly speaking, and that's what
playing for a team was all about.
Q: Who would you pick as openers for your own XI ?
A: Openers are different in different conditions - if you are opening in
a one-day game you might choose Greenidge or Haynes or Jimmy Cook who is
a very good one-day opener. If you're opening in a five-day Test match,
you know you need to wear the opposition down and you might choose Sunny
or Geoff Boycott - a combination of those. Bill Lawry was a good opening
batsman, very hard to get out. A combination of attack and defence works
best. It's good to have Sunny with someone like Srikkanth because he's a
blitzer! If you get Boycott and Sunny, you can get in a hold because you
aren't turning the strike over enough.
You need to mix and match, depending on what your team is like. If you've
got a Srikkanth at one end you need a Boycott at the other to make sure
everything is right. If you've got two Boycotts then there's no fun in
the game at all. If you have two Srikkanths, the chap at No. 3 is going
to be jumping out of his seat all the time. Personally I'd rather have
two Srikkanths than two Boycotts! But for an ideal partnership a balance
of both is best.
Q: Attacking cricket was always a part of your game. Do you think it gave
you less runs than you deserved? ?
A: I've always believed that scoring big runs and huge scores means
nothing if you don't win the game. If you score 400 and you draw the
game, to me it's a waste of time. It's a waste of four days. Unless you
win the game it's no good getting a big score and I don'[t see any point
in making 200 or 300 unless you're going to win the game. You;d better
make runs quickly. I used to give my wicket away far too much especially
in county cricket because I was looking for a challenge. I'd go for the
slog - try to put one past here or over there and do silly things.
That's the way I always played my cricket, I never built big scores. If
you look through the records of all those fellows who scored 25,000 or
30,000 runs, I've got more 50s than anybody and less 100s than a lot of them.
Because I used to get to 50 and start playing my shots, start the
entertaining.
Q: What do you think county cricket gave your game, even though at the
end of your career you'd expressed great boredom with it ?
A: There's no doubt that county cricket did help me develop as a player
and a person but the sense of frustration that came was because there was
no test cricket. We were playing the same level all the time. You knew
who were going to play. You knew what you were going to do and after so
many years there were no challenges left. It got to a stage where I was
playing all year round and not playing any Test matches - that was hard.
Everyone asks me if I was so bored with county cricket, why I didn't try
to qualify to play for England or Australia. In those days it was a bit
harder to play for another country. You had to qualify for a longer
period of time. You had to live in the country for a specific period and
you couldn't just turn up and say, 'I want to play for Australia.' That
only happened later - there was a four-year qualifying period and you had
to live in the country.
It was a conscious decision by Lamb and the Smiths and Hick to go and
live in England. I didn't want to go and live in England. What I could
have done is that when I played for South Australia in the early 70s, I
could have stayed on and played for Australia. At that point of time you
didn't really think of that because you had played Test cricket for your
country and you wanted to continue playing for your own country. Besides
we were just out of cricket and weren't sure whether we would get back
quickly or stay outside. So you just hang on for a while to see whether
you were going to get back in, but that never happened.
Q: Did the "Dollar A Run" contract you pioneered in Australia come as
some incentive in the 70s ?
A: I may have been the first to be signed on for this dollar-a-run think,
but subsequent to that a lot of fellows in South Africa did it too -
Graeme (Pollock) used to get 15 dollars a run, I think the inflation
caugh up with it! The money wasn't a motivation, no. In Australia you
play every weekend and you play only 10 games. So even if you get 1,500
runs, which I did - 1,500 dollars is not going to break the Bank of
England. It's just handy money. That was good publicity for my sponsors
there, Coca Cola who used to pay me a salary plus this, which was like a
bonus. It got them more publicity than they paid out, I can tell you.
Q: What do you remember of your encounters against Bishen Singh Bedi and
spinners in county cricket ?
A: Bishen was always a challenge. I joined Hampshire when he played for
Northants. He was a terrific bowler and I just enjoyed the contest - he
had very good flight. He's one of the few bowlers I'd go and watch bowl.
There's a lot of cricket you wouldn't go and watch but Bishen was one of
those I would go and watch bow because he had such nice control. It was
like he had the ball on a string, he could just pull it back sometimes
and push it through - he was a real artist.
I remember playing one game against Bishen on a turning wicket - we had
to get about 120 to win the game and it took a very long time and I got
about 40 not out. But I cherish that because it was so difficult. Those
sort of knocks even though the team gets out for 116 and you get 72 -
it's only 72 but it gives you more pleasure than scoring 180 in a drawn
game. Fred Titmus and Phil Edmonds were the other spinners I found
challenging to play. Derek Underwood too, but he was more a containment
bowler who was dependent on conditions.
Q: Playing Shane Warne now would be quite a challenge too...
A: Shane Warne was a genius. It's like Viv Richards is a genius. Graeme
Pollock is a genius. No amount of coaching can make you like them. You
can take a man to a certain level with coaching but when he's got that
sort of quality...Warne can get 500 Test wickets if handled properly.
He's a fantastic bowler - it's great for cricket too because the spinners
are back in the game. I'm involved a lot in junior cricket and all the
little fellers want to bowl leg spin. That's very good for the game
because spin is a very important part of cricket and should remain so.
Q: You had a long and very fruitful opening partnership with Gordon
Greenidge at Hampshire....
A: Greenidge and I helped each other a lot I think. He came to Hampshire
in 1970. He was a very young man, 19 or 200, and I had been playing for
two years. We helped each other and got a lot of runs together. Some of
the biggest sixes I have seen have come off Gordon's bat - he's got very
powerful arms and hits the ball very, very hard. It was very enjoyable
watching from the other end.
Q: You were with the Queensland Cricket Association as CEO until 1992
before deciding to stay on for another three years. Has there been no
desire to return to South Africa and be part of the redevelopment
programme or have there been no moves on the United Cricket Boards part
to ask you to return ?
A: There's no move on their part. I think they've decided they've got
enough qualified people. All the fellows in this team I'm with here -
they're all qualified in their (own) right to provide expertise to South
African cricket.So I don't think there's any need for me to go. There's a
lot of expertise in this team, Clive Rice has just taken over the Cricket
Academy - that's an exciting development. The Australian one has done
pretty well. They've got the young boys playing a very attacking brand of
cricket now and that gets in a lot of spectators.
My wife is an Australian and we made a decision to go to Australia so
that my kids would go through primary school in Australia. They were six
and four and now they're 11 and 13, so they're half-way there. It would
be difficult to move them over...
Q: It's said that you were the right man for cricket but born at the
wrong time, because you had very radical views of player power, the right
of every professional cricketer to command his own price. You took part
in the Newlands walkout...
A: Somebody born 20 years before me could say he had been born at the
wrong time and someone 20 years before him could say the same. I don't
think there's a right time. When I played my cricket, it was an
unfortunate time certainly - we had no Test cricket. We didn't have such
a powerful voice in the early 70s as players have now. At that time we
had no control and were pawns of a political game in which we could not
do much. We believed that sports and politics should not mix but the
politicians controlled everything. I don't know if we could have changed
things, but we did try.
The issues which I felt strongly about, good pay for professional
cricketers and so on, they are non-issues now. Nearly all the players
have managers now and they manage their time well for them - a fellow
like Brian Lara just has to turn up and play. Everything is organised for
him and that's the way it should be - he's a good player and he's getting
rresults. In my days we had to go through all the contracts, sponsorship
deals, travel schedules and interviews, by ourselves. There were no
managers. That's what made it harder for me I think. They've got it right
now, fortunately.
Q: You watched the Indians in 1992 when in Australia and had a few things
to say about their planning and training methods...
A: The Indians have always interested me because they've got such an
array of talent and they do such silly things sometimes. When they should
really be taking the game by the throat and killing the opposition, they
lose wickets for nothing. Or when they've really got somebody on the
rack, they drop a catch. That's the kind of team they are - they can be
frustrating and they can be very exciting.
Now, Sachin Tendulkar is such an exciting batsman and yet I sometimes get
a bit frustrated with him because I think he should be getting better
results than he is - he gets a Test match 100 at 18 and there's nobody
in Australia now who can get a Test match 100 at 17. But I just don't
think he's been consistent enough from then on. I think his time will
come thought because he hits the ball so well and is such a good player.
The Indians are always very difficult to beat, though. You play them in
these sort of conditions here, and they're a tough side. They know the
conditions and they play to them well. Over the years, it's been a
disappointment that I haven't played in Indian because then I would have
become a better player of spin bowling.
You have got to be a good player of spin bowling to succeed here. It's
probably one thing I didn't work as ghard at because we didn't have to
overcome the challenge of having to bat on wickets like that.
Cheeka.
Boden Library
You should read this one!
Cheers
Tim
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
I did Tim, yesterday. John Hall can attest to that.
Thanks for the follow-up!
Although, if you'd *really* wanted me not to miss this article,
you'd have sent me email, not just followed-up Harish's post
(thanks Harish, for this and the other posts).
But I see the point you're making beyond the email!
I may have had more to worry about had it concerned Procter or
van der Bijl. I don't remember objecting to Barry Richards
in my follow-up. Y'see, I've read a lot about him over the
years, and was willing to concede the selection without a
great deal of fuss. A bit perhaps (4 tests), but not much.
John has his rationale: an individual should not be condemned
for his Government's follies, which I don't entirely accept --
so one person can't make a difference in a democracy that was
South Africa! I just didn't care for the generous extrapolation
of their first class records, even if Procter has managed 2
hat-tricks of LBWs in county cricket, and 6 centuries in
succession. Not for the 1st and 2nd teams.
After all, Vijay Merchant with a meager Test record (10 Tests)
and an excellent 1st class record (2nd highest average, below
Bradman's but ahead of Ponsford and Woodfull) didn't make the
1930's FIFTEEN, let alone an XI or a XII (he would have made
Josh Saunders' XV I believe, which is a mystery to me as well,
but no matter; I suspect THAT opinion carries no weight with you,
but it does with me and many others on rsc! Isn't life quirky?)
I accepted the Merchant verdict -- "Had India played more Tests
during his Test career, which spanned the war, he might have
amassed an impressive Test record." -- even though his Test
average was quite good (859 @ 47.72, 3x100) to my eyes.
(Hick is currently 7th on the first class list, believe it or not,
just below Hassett and Hazare, but presumably has less than 2000
runs in Tests. It'll be interesting to see how he fares in the 80's
or 90's team. Sorry John, I realize I'm second-guessing here!)
Enough about the XIs and my previous post...
On to the point at hand, the article about Barry Richards.
I am still ambivalent about Richards. While I'd have loved to have
seen him in his prime, I know I couldn't have, anymore than I could
have seen Graeme or Peter Pollock or Colin Bland. Not my fault either.
(South African Tests in England and Australia would have been
out of the question.) I can be a stubborn Boer too (feel free to
change the pronunciation or the spelling, I don't mind or care!)
As for his thoughts, apart from the first-person account and some
details of his Australian life, there was nothing new for me there,
except perhaps how bored he was with 1st class cricket. He gambled
on reasonably quick reinstatement, and lost.
"He took one step towards square leg and played a cover drive to get to
his first century in India, and the few spectators at the Brabourne
that evening realised that though he was here 20 years too late,
Barry Richards had been worth waiting for."
It makes for excellent reading, but I've to ask myself --
why waiting, what for, why 20 years, why the first century now, why
were the South Africans not in India in the 30's, the 40's, the 50's
and the 60's? What is so special about the 70's and the 80's?
20 years too late? Make that 25 years. Make that 60 years.
I have no regrets about the 'lost generation' Barry Richards mentions.
Only this morning John Hall has brought to my attention an RSA Under-19
team about to tour England, with 6 players from "disadvantaged communities"
selected strictly on merit, including a 19-year old quickie named Walter
Masemola who hadn't heard of cricket in 1987, and is now being talked of as a
possible Wes Hall (by Sobers and Gavaskar at least, as quoted by Mihir Bose
in today's Daily Telegraph). And there's Tulani Ngxoweni, a leg-spinner.
A good beginning, I can hear myself saying.
But I wonder how many 'lost generations' can be counted in the townships
over the years. Oh I know, one tragedy does not diminish the other.
But what came first matters, to me. And I expect there were many.
Things are a-changing, even with me; after all, I went to 2 Tests in
Australia last year just to see what the South Africans were like,
not that they need feel honoured or anything. Just another chap
showing up to see what was what. But it doesn't change my opinion
that the isolation was well deserved.
Ergo, the 'lost generation' had to be so.
Barry Richards' Test career and all.
RSC folks may lament the loss; I accept it as a fact of life.
Had I been born in S. Africa I am pretty sure I wouldn't posting
this response now -- I'd been dead a long time; unlike Steve Biko
I'd be part of the unnamed casualities that were barely statistics.
I am reasonably sure I would have heard about cricket though, unlike
Walter Masemola, but I would NEVER have been an "indian" in the
appropriately designated stands, cheering for the tourists in the
60's and 70's and 80's. I wouldn't have paid money to support the game.
That too would have been a fact of life.
And I would have had no regrets.
-- Ramaswamy
Boden Library
Hello Ramswamy,
first things first. I didn't email the article to you as I had replied to
your email one day and the very next day when I logged on, there was the
Richards interview, which seemed to be backing up some of the points I had
been making. The date at which articles are posted and the date at which I
receive them seems to be increasing.
I had tried to steer clear of the political side of things, I don't really
think it fair to label a person as a supporter of a government purely by
country of birth. Like I said, I'm English by birth, but don't lump me in
with Thatcher and her cronies. I don't know the politics of Richards,
Procter and Co., I guess you'd have to ask them or find an article where
they talk about such things. BTW, I don't think my family would have been
too welcome in SA in the apartheid era either, 'mixed marriages' and all
that.
But surely the point is to pick the best players, regardless of affiliation.
If you exclude Richards and Procter on the basis of too few tests, surely
Goel and Shivalker cannot be considered also. I get the impression that
you are pushing for a few more Indian players. I have to ask who? If we
discount SA, the two best teams of the 70's would have to be WI and Aus,
followed by (to me) England and Pak., I don't think it unreasonable that
the team would comprise largely of players from the first two. If Richards
is out, I would put Boycott in his place- who do you suggest? If Procter
is out, do we go for another allrounder? I would suggest that the only
viable alternative is Greig, tho' I'm not too happy with that. If we
want another bat, my preference would be for Zaheer, who I remember
scoring hatfuls in England, despite someone asserting that he only got
runs in Pak. If we went for another bowler, you might have a case if we
chose another spinner, tho' my preference would be for another quick,
either Roberts, Willis or Thommo (probably Roberts). Or are you proposing
dropping some of the others such as Lloyd or Marsh? Again, if so, who do
you replace them with? And would they be Indian?
However, if we are picking a team of the 70's, Richards and Procter still
sit comfortably in my choice (and Big Vince in the 2nds).
Cheers
Tim
John Hall
> After all, Vijay Merchant with a meager Test record (10 Tests)
> and an excellent 1st class record (2nd highest average, below
> Bradman's but ahead of Ponsford and Woodfull) didn't make the
> 1930's FIFTEEN, let alone an XI or a XII (he would have made
> Josh Saunders' XV I believe, which is a mystery to me as well,
> but no matter; I suspect THAT opinion carries no weight with you,
> but it does with me and many others on rsc! Isn't life quirky?)
> I accepted the Merchant verdict -- "Had India played more Tests
> during his Test career, which spanned the war, he might have
> amassed an impressive Test record." -- even though his Test
> average was quite good (859 @ 47.72, 3x100) to my eyes.
It may have been an error to have omitted Merchant. He was certainly
very unlucky, but was he any more unlucky than Boycott not making the
1970s first team? It's not enough just to look at the quality of the
player omitted; you have also to look at the quality of the players
keeping him out. In the 1930s these included Bradman, Headley,
Jackson, Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Paynter and Duleep (from memory -
I no longer have my 1930s posting, and have asked Ramaswamy to post it
back to me so I can check). Another unlucky 1930s player, BTW, was the
Australian Bill Brown, whom I remember I somehow totally overlooked at
the time (he might not have made it, but certainly merited
consideration). Maurice Leyland, whom I would really have liked to
have included, was another fine player to get forced out.
I must admit that I don't think I was aware at the time just how high
Merchant's first-class average was; I don't think I checked the
relevant Wisden table. However, I must confess to a degree of
scepticism as to what the pitches and bowling were like in India at
this period. If the first-class average of 70 was a true reflection of
merit, I would have expected Merchant's Test average to have been in
the 50s rather than the 40s.
>
> (Hick is currently 7th on the first class list, believe it or not,
> just below Hassett and Hazare, but presumably has less than 2000
> runs in Tests. It'll be interesting to see how he fares in the 80's
> or 90's team. Sorry John, I realize I'm second-guessing here!)
Unlikely to make it, I think. I agree that if he had been unable to
play Test cricket for some reason, I might well have picked him on
his first-class record. We know now that that would have been an
error, but it was almost impossible to predict back in the late 80s
that when he came to Test cricket he wouldn't make a great success of
it. I don't think one should assume from Hick that it's always wrong
to pick players who haven't had a substantial number of Tests, though.
I have done that at least once before Richards and Procter, in the
case of J. Barton King. I don't recall any objections to that
selection.
--
Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
is a symptom of deficicient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
implies a catholic appetite and a strong sense of personal identity.
R.L.Stevenson "An Apology for Idlers" 1876
Amitabha Lahiri
(Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> I must admit that I don't think I was aware at the time just how high
> Merchant's first-class average was; I don't think I checked the
> relevant Wisden table. However, I must confess to a degree of
> scepticism as to what the pitches and bowling were like in India at
> this period. If the first-class average of 70 was a true reflection of
> merit, I would have expected Merchant's Test average to have been in
> the 50s rather than the 40s.
Not to pressure you or anything, but on the 1946 tour of England Merchant
scored over 2000 runs at 70+ (including some very fine innings on sticky
wickets when the rest of the team fell like ninepins). Not many have done
that. (And I suspect all those who have, have appeared in your teams. :-) )
Amitabha
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
No one else is responsible for what I say and vice versa.
Today it's the Bengalis, tomorrow it will be you.
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
John Hall
mp...@central.susx.ac.uk "Amitabha Lahiri" writes:
> In article <803588...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
> (Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> > I must admit that I don't think I was aware at the time just how high
> > Merchant's first-class average was; I don't think I checked the
> > relevant Wisden table. However, I must confess to a degree of
> > scepticism as to what the pitches and bowling were like in India at
> > this period. If the first-class average of 70 was a true reflection of
> > merit, I would have expected Merchant's Test average to have been in
> > the 50s rather than the 40s.
>
> Not to pressure you or anything, but on the 1946 tour of England Merchant
> scored over 2000 runs at 70+ (including some very fine innings on sticky
> wickets when the rest of the team fell like ninepins). Not many have done
> that. (And I suspect all those who have, have appeared in your teams. :-) )
On the other hand, English bowling is generally assessed as very weak
just after the war, because most of the players were either veterans
from pre-war or very inexperienced. Ramaswamy kindly sent me the 1930s
team (which I no longer had) and, after a quick glance at it, I think
the next batsman in line for inclusion would have to be Duleep (whom I
hadn't in fact originally had in the 15 and who, if his career hadn't
been cut short by illness, would I believe have ranked in the top half
dozen or so batsmen of all time), with Merchant second in line.
Dinesh Katiyar
Boden Library <lib...@summer.chem.su.oz.au> wrote:
>
>Hello Ramswamy,
>
>
>But surely the point is to pick the best players, regardless of affiliation.
>If you exclude Richards and Procter on the basis of too few tests, surely
>Goel and Shivalker cannot be considered also. I get the impression that
>you are pushing for a few more Indian players. I have to ask who? If we
I think you are being unfair to Ramaswamy here. All he said was Vijay
Merchant desreves consideration based on his terrific first class and
test record. He was one of the most dominating batsmen of his time.
Checkout the wisden if you don't believe me. Ramaswamy was saying that
if Richards and Procters can make it based on their first class records
then so too must Merchant who also has a very impressive test record.
People may say he didn't play too many tests then again Richards and
procter played even less.
>discount SA, the two best teams of the 70's would have to be WI and Aus,
>followed by (to me) England and Pak., I don't think it unreasonable that
>the team would comprise largely of players from the first two. If Richards
If the strength of the team is the main consideration, then Richard
Hadlee wouldn't make it into many world 11s. So leave that argument
out.
>either Roberts, Willis or Thommo (probably Roberts). Or are you proposing
>dropping some of the others such as Lloyd or Marsh? Again, if so, who do
>you replace them with? And would they be Indian?
>
Again I think you are unfairly implicating Ramaswamy with bias.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
Raja J.
Martin Sneesby
>
> After all, Vijay Merchant with a meager Test record (10 Tests)
> and an excellent 1st class record (2nd highest average, below
> (Hick is currently 7th on the first class list, believe it or not,
> just below Hassett and Hazare...
Ramaswamy,
Could you please fill in the gaps in the following list of top first
class batting averages?
1. Bradman
2. Merchant
3. Ponsford
4. Woodfull
5. Hassett
6. Hazare
7. Hick
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?
I'm actually quite surprised that there are four Australians in the
top 5 as I think the Sheffield Shield is generally recognized as the
toughest first class competition in the world. I guess one factor
in the Australians favour is that they would have played a lot less
FC matches than many Englishmen or overseas county professionals.
Hick looks at a bit out of his class!
Martin
Stephen Devaux
<snee...@paravel.che.curtin.edu.au> writes:
>
>I'm actually quite surprised that there are four Australians in the
>top 5 as I think the Sheffield Shield is generally recognized as the
>toughest first class competition in the world.
Beg pardon? By whom?
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Joshua Saunders
: Rama...@vos.stratus.com wrote:
: >
: > After all, Vijay Merchant with a meager Test record (10 Tests)
: > and an excellent 1st class record (2nd highest average, below
: > (Hick is currently 7th on the first class list, believe it or not,
: > just below Hassett and Hazare...
: Ramaswamy,
: Could you please fill in the gaps in the following list of top first
: class batting averages?
: 1. Bradman
: 2. Merchant
: 3. Ponsford
: 4. Woodfull
: 5. Hassett
: 6. Hazare
: 7. Hick
: 8. ?
: 9. ?
: 10. ?
: I'm actually quite surprised that there are four Australians in the
: top 5 as I think the Sheffield Shield is generally recognized as the
: toughest first class competition in the world. I guess one factor
Hmmm. It is these days. But you've missed something. The Australians
above played more or less all in the same era. As a matter of fact,
Kippax is next (I think), and he also played in that era. Sure the shield
games between Vic, NSW and SA were played at a high level, but the other
first class games (and there were MANY of these in the days before annual
tests) were not. Also Queensland's attack was pretty poor, though they
did play shield. And I believe Shield games of this era were "timeless".
For their states, these 5 Australian batsmen averaged:
Bradman 98.52 (NSW)
104.6 (SA)
Ponsford 86.27 (Vic)
Woodfull 75.12 (Vic)
Hassett 63.19 (Vic)
Kippax 67.25 (NSW)
In tests, these batsmen averaged:
99.94
48.23
46.00
46.56
36.12
Except for Bradman, significant differences...
I think it's clear that the Shield competition in this era was not of the
same standard as it is today. The only Australian batsman who has
significant disparity between first class and Test averages these days is
Mark Waugh. 56 in first class v ~41 in tests. It's worth noting that Mark
Waugh has played more county cricket than any other contemporary
Australian batsman.
Cheers, Josh
--
Joshua Saunders. jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au
Things to do in a lift #1. Say "ding" at each floor.
IRCnick: rogan
Martin Sneesby
>
> >I'm actually quite surprised that there are four Australians in the
> >top 5 as I think the Sheffield Shield is generally recognized as the
> >toughest first class competition in the world.
>
>
OK, I've probably jumped to conclusions here but I still think that the
Sheffield Shield must be one of the strongest, if not the strongest based
on the following:
Sheffield Shield (Aust) - has only six teams which means that there aren't
many positions available for borderline players. Not a true professional
competition so that there are few long term first class players that
obviously aren't good enough to play test cricket. Generally you would
only play for your state if you thought you had a genuine chance of
making it to test level. Otherwise it would be much more profitable to
pursue options outside cricket. Thus most teams have at least 5 or 6 test
players when at full strength (some as many as 10). Fixtures are four day
matches which encourage test standard play rather than three day matches
where there is often the need to go for the slog. Limited number of games
per year so that teams can prepare more fully for individual matches and
take all games seriously.
County Cricket (Eng) - opposite of most of the above arguements. Only need
to look at the success of borderline Aust players in county cricket (McCague,
Moody, Mulally etc) to see the difference in standard. Personally, I think
the English system supports far to many players of below First Class standard
and encourages mediocrity.
Red Stripe (WI) - there is probably a very good case for ranking the Red Stripe
comp at the same level (maybe even higher??) as the Sheffield Shield. Again,
few teams, limited number of games, few players without the potential
to be consider for test cricket. My only doubt would be depth. Although
depth is somewhat transitory, my feeling is that there has generally
been greater depth in Australian cricket than there has in WI. However,
this might just be a reflection on my lack of knowledge of WI cricket.
India - lots of teams; test players seem to dominate indicating that there is a
large number of sub-standard players playing.
Pakistan - similar to India? Again must admit to not knowing a great deal about
Pakistani first class cricket.
NZ - lack of depth and relatively small pool of players to choose from.
South Africa - another strong competition.
My rankings of First Class Competitions (open to debate!):
1. Sheffield Shield (Aust)
2. Red Stripe (WI)
3. (South Africa)
4. (India)
5. (Pakistan)
6. County Championship (England)
7. NZ
Not sure of the names of the SA, Indian or Pakistania comps.
My understanding is that there is no first class criocket in Sri Lanka
or Zimbabwe - is this correct?
Martin
Priyan Weerasinghe
>From: Martin Sneesby <snee...@paravel.che.curtin.edu.au>
>Subject: First Class Comps (was Re: Top First Class Avergages (was [Interview] Barry Richards))
>Date: 26 Jun 1995 03:36:13 GMT
>Martin
You are wrong. There is a first class competition in Sri Lanka, which is the
Inter-provincial Tournament. These matches are played over four days and the
players are selected on their performances during the Club cricket season (
played for the Sara Trophy). But, since this tournament is played at the end
of a very long season and since most of the public interest is centered on
the Sara trophy, these matches are not played with much intensity by the
players involved, hence they tend to be very boring.
Michael Jennings
Martin Sneesby <snee...@paravel.che.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
>
>India - lots of teams; test players seem to dominate indicating that there is a
>large number of sub-standard players playing.
>
What you say is probably true for the Ranji Trophy, which has an
enormous number of teams. It is not true, however, for the Duleep
trophy, which is played on a league basis between five teams representing
different parts of India over matches of five days. I really don't know
enough about it to descibe the standard of cricket. Some of the Indians
on irc have said good things about it, however.
>Pakistan - similar to India? Again must admit to not knowing a great deal about
>Pakistani first class cricket.
>
I don't know enough about this either.
>
>South Africa - another strong competition.
>
More teams than in Australia or the WI though. The impression
I get is that the expansion in the number of teams has weakened it
somewhat, although it is still strong.
>
>Not sure of the names of the SA, Indian or Pakistania comps.
Bear in mind that a number of countries have more than one
'first class' competition. (This is true in South Africa, in India etc).
The fact that first class status is given to a weak competion does not
mean that there is also a strong competition. My belief is that the
strength of the best competition is what counts in the preparation of
test players.
>My understanding is that there is no first class criocket in Sri Lanka
>or Zimbabwe - is this correct?
>
No. The final round of the main club competition in SL
(the P. Saravanamuththu Trophy) is considered first class. Matches
are over three days, and typically around 14 teams play in this
competition. Talent is diluted and the standard isn't that high.
IMHO the Zimbabweans have done better in this regard. Their first
class competion (the Logan Cup) is played between only four teams
(three from Harare, one from Bulwayo). Matches are only three days,
but reports tend to suggest that the cricket is hard fought and
competitive.
Michael.
--
Michael Jennings
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
The University of Cambridge. mj...@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk
All my instincts, they return / And the grand facade, so soon will burn /
Without a noise, without my pride / I reach out from the inside
- Peter Gabriel
Michael Jennings
Priyan Weerasinghe <pcw...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>You are wrong. There is a first class competition in Sri Lanka, which is the
>Inter-provincial Tournament. These matches are played over four days and the
>players are selected on their performances during the Club cricket season (
>played for the Sara Trophy). But, since this tournament is played at the end
>of a very long season and since most of the public interest is centered on
>the Sara trophy, these matches are not played with much intensity by the
>players involved, hence they tend to be very boring.
Is the final round of the Sara trophy still first class?
(This is what I claim in my other posting in this thread, anyway).
It's difficult to find out such things in this part of the world,
unfortunately.
Martin Sneesby
>
> : 1. Bradman
> : 2. Merchant
> : 3. Ponsford
> : 4. Woodfull
> : 5. Hassett
> : 6. Hazare
> : 7. Hick
> : 8. ?
> : 9. ?
> : 10. ?
>
>
> Hmmm. It is these days. But you've missed something. The Australians
> above played more or less all in the same era. As a matter of fact,
> Kippax is next (I think), and he also played in that era. Sure the shield
> games between Vic, NSW and SA were played at a high level, but the other
> first class games (and there were MANY of these in the days before annual
> tests) were not. Also Queensland's attack was pretty poor, though they
> did play shield. And I believe Shield games of this era were "timeless".
>
> For their states, these 5 Australian batsmen averaged:
>
> Bradman 98.52 (NSW)
> 104.6 (SA)
> Ponsford 86.27 (Vic)
> Woodfull 75.12 (Vic)
> Hassett 63.19 (Vic)
> Kippax 67.25 (NSW)
>
> In tests, these batsmen averaged:
>
> 99.94
> 48.23
> 46.00
> 46.56
> 36.12
>
> Except for Bradman, significant differences...
Point well taken. Again interesting stats. Assuming that the averages of
these guys (exc Bradman) were around 45-50 when playing the big states
(Vic, NSW, SA), they must have played a *lot* of matches against weaker
oppositions and scored a *lot* of runs at averages above 80. Apart from
Qld, who exactly took the field against Vic, NSW and SA. Whoever they
were, I hope they enjoyed fielding!
> I think it's clear that the Shield competition in this era was not of the
> same standard as it is today.
I must agree. After all, statistics would never lie! :-)
> The only Australian batsman who has
> significant disparity between first class and Test averages these days is
> Mark Waugh. 56 in first class v ~41 in tests. It's worth noting that Mark
> Waugh has played more county cricket than any other contemporary
> Australian batsman.
Mark Waugh has also played more Shield cricket than most other contemporary
test batsman as he had to wait such a long time to earn a regular test
place. However, I still think Waugh's and Hick;s stats make a pretty
clear comment on the standard of County Cricket.
Martin
John Hall
><snee...@paravel.che.curtin.edu.au> writes:
>
>(Snip)
>
>>Red Stripe (WI) - there is probably a very good case for ranking the
>Red Stripe
>>comp at the same level (maybe even higher??) as the Sheffield Shield.
>
>>
>>1. Sheffield Shield (Aust)
>>2. Red Stripe (WI)
>>3. (South Africa)
>>4. (India)
>>5. (Pakistan)
>>6. County Championship (England)
>>7. NZ
>>
>>
>>or Zimbabwe - is this correct?
I don't think any such ranking can be more than conjecture. I would
suspect that WI and Aus are indeed ahead of the rest, but wouldn't care
to order them after that. As recently as the mid-80s Allan Border
thought the County Championship was ahead of the Sheffield Shield, but
the CC has clearly gone back since then and the SS improved.
I'm not sure about Zimbabwe, but I think there is some domestic first-
class cricket in SL.
--
Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
is a symptom of deficient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
Stephen Devaux
(Snip)
>Red Stripe (WI) - there is probably a very good case for ranking the
Red Stripe
>comp at the same level (maybe even higher??) as the Sheffield Shield.
My point exactly. And as to depth, how many Sheffield Shield teams
have a bowling attack the equal of Leeward Islands' Ambrose, two
Benjamins, and Hamesh Anthony.
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
>My rankings of First Class Competitions (open to debate!):
>
>1. Sheffield Shield (Aust)
>2. Red Stripe (WI)
>3. (South Africa)
>4. (India)
>5. (Pakistan)
>6. County Championship (England)
>7. NZ
>
>
>Not sure of the names of the SA, Indian or Pakistania comps.
>My understanding is that there is no first class criocket in Sri Lanka
>or Zimbabwe - is this correct?
>
>
>Martin
>
>
Dinesh Katiyar
Boden Library <lib...@summer.chem.su.oz.au> wrote:
> OK Raja, see your point to some extent, however, I think we may have our
>wires crossed. I was under the impression that Merchant was brought in by
>someone else, Ram mentioned Goel & Shivalker. These were players who had
>no international career because they were not picked for their national
>team, not because their national team was excluded. The reasons may have
>been personal or political, I am not in a position to judge. If you do
>wish to bring in the Merchant comparison, don't forget that Richards had
>a better TEST average than him.BTW, I think this is getting a little
>confusing, we are talking about the 70's are we not?
It may look confusing a bit, but it is not that confusing if you have
been following the thread (which I am sure you have been doing). The
argument was about how to effectively judge the relative merits of players
mainly based on their first class records due to lack of sufficient
test data. Vijay Merchant in the 30s and Richards in the 70s were taken
as examples. There are many other similar cases but these were the players
that were universally regarded very highly despite their lack of much test
experience. Ram was questioning the Richards being chosen in the
staring 11 for the 70s while Merchant was ingnored for the top 15 for
the 30s. The argument was not on the choice of 70s team, but on the
consistency of the criterion being used. I understand that choosing such
teams is a very difficult task and a lot of personal judgement comes
in choosing one player over the others because most of the players are
highly skilled players. It may be that Richards may be better known
because he played more recently and played in England where one gets
more media exposure. I personally do not have much of a problem with
John hall's 70's team though a case can be made for Boycott in the place
of Richards in the first 11. I OTOH think that Vijay Merchant should be
included in the starting team of the 30s. If I remember correctly John
had trouble picking the starting 11 and therfore picked starting 15
instead. If none of those players can be replaced, in the least Merchant
should have been included in the starting 16.
>
>On the Richard Hadlee allusion, I think you are misunderstanding me. I
>maintain that any composite team of an era will largely comprise of
>players from the best teams of that era, NOT the weaker teams. I did say
>that Sunny should open for the 70's, simply because he was the only (IMHO)
>Indian player of sufficient talent. Let's not forget that only one
>Englishman makes it also (and no Kiwis)
>Not only that, I did explain my reasons
>and put forward alternative players if certain other choices were to be
>excluded. If you do disagree with my choices, at least give your alternat
>ives.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
Again Tim, I don't have too much of a problem with John's or your choice
of 70's team.
Regards,
Raja J.
OO
R. Bharat Rao
>In <3sl9vd$k...@info.curtin.edu.au> Martin Sneesby
><snee...@paravel.che.curtin.edu.au> writes:
>>Red Stripe (WI) - there is probably a very good case for ranking the
>Red Stripe
>>comp at the same level (maybe even higher??) as the Sheffield Shield.
>My point exactly. And as to depth, how many Sheffield Shield teams
>have a bowling attack the equal of Leeward Islands' Ambrose, two
>Benjamins, and Hamesh Anthony.
Not to take sides on this one Stephen, but surely the level
competition is not determined by the best team (or attack), but by how
strong the middle-of-the-pack teams are? I seem to recall a time
(about 4-5 years ago) when a South African province (???) side had a
team that seemed as good if not better than most of the Test sides at
that time (this was before RSA's return to cricket, I recall).
For what it is worth, I would have rated Red Stripe #1 during the 80's
and think Sheffield Shield has slowly caught up, and may even have
surpassed it during the last year or so...
Bharat
PS: Wouldn't it be great to have a competition pitting all the winners
of each countries competitions against one another, like in football
(soccer) in Europe... Maybe a one-day comp for starters...
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao, E-mail:bha...@scr.siemens.com (note the change)
Siemens Corporate Research, 755 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540, Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F)
<Above opinions are exclusively the author's, and don't represent SCR>
Introl Industrial Control Systems
:jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au (Joshua Saunders) wrote:
:> The only Australian batsman who has
:> Mark Waugh. 56 in first class v ~41 in tests. It's worth noting that Mark
:> Waugh has played more county cricket than any other contemporary
:> Australian batsman.
:
:Mark Waugh has also played more Shield cricket than most other contemporary
:test batsman as he had to wait such a long time to earn a regular test
:place. However, I still think Waugh's and Hick;s stats make a pretty
:clear comment on the standard of County Cricket.
I'm not at all adverse to a bit of county cricket bashing but I
draw the line at any such bashing that casts aspersions over Mark
Waugh's batting ability. Before I show you two fellas that Waugh's
first-class average has not been unduly inflated by impressive
performances in "sub-standard" county cricket, let me just say
this: NEVER EVER SLANDER MARK WAUGH AGAIN! :)
Prior to the current county season, Waugh has played 65 games
for Essex, scoring more than 5000 runs at an average of 61.46.
While I don't have precise figures on his overall career, I
know that he has played 200-odd games, scoring well over 15000
runs at an average of around 56 as Josh quoted. So it's already
clear that his county average is only marginally in excess of
his overall average. Furthermore, of these 200 or so games,
roughly 40 have been Tests in which he has scored over 2000 runs
at an average of about 41. If you were to remove his Test figures
from his first-class analysis, his first-class average would
exceed 60 and thus there would be NO significant disparity
between that average and his county average. Therefore it is
simply not true to cunningly suggest that the disparity between
his Test and first-class figures is due to him having knocked up
5000 cheap runs in county cricket. :) Although I don't have
his Shield figures as an isolated case, I think it's also clear
that his figures lend exactly nil statistical support to the
theory that county is weak compared to shield. The only way this
could hold water in Waugh's case would be if his Shield average
is less than 50 and for this to be the case he would have to
have a VERY impressive record in tour matches for his overall
average to be so high.
In reality, the main reason for the disparity between his Test
and overall first-class average is due to a horror run from the
end of 1991 to the middle of 1992. In this period he played 4
Tests against India and 3 against Sri Lanka and scored a mammoth
144 runs at an average of 12. If you remove this from his Test
analysis you will halve the disparity. Of course though this is
not the done thing. :)
Greg Breen
Perth, Western Australia
Boden Library
>
>In article <3s2koh$g...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
>Boden Library <lib...@summer.chem.su.oz.au> wrote:>>
>>Hello Ramswamy,
>>
>>
>>But surely the point is to pick the best players, regardless of affiliation.
>>If you exclude Richards and Procter on the basis of too few tests, surely
>>Goel and Shivalker cannot be considered also. I get the impression that
>>you are pushing for a few more Indian players. I have to ask who? If we
>
>Merchant desreves consideration based on his terrific first class and
>test record. He was one of the most dominating batsmen of his time.
>Checkout the wisden if you don't believe me. Ramaswamy was saying that
>if Richards and Procters can make it based on their first class records
>then so too must Merchant who also has a very impressive test record.
>People may say he didn't play too many tests then again Richards and
>procter played even less.
>
>>followed by (to me) England and Pak., I don't think it unreasonable that
>>the team would comprise largely of players from the first two. If Richards
>
>Hadlee wouldn't make it into many world 11s. So leave that argument
>out.
>
>>dropping some of the others such as Lloyd or Marsh? Again, if so, who do
>>you replace them with? And would they be Indian?
>>
>
>
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Tim
>>
>
>Raja J.
wires crossed. I was under the impression that Merchant was brought in by
someone else, Ram mentioned Goel & Shivalker. These were players who had
no international career because they were not picked for their national
team, not because their national team was excluded. The reasons may have
been personal or political, I am not in a position to judge. If you do
wish to bring in the Merchant comparison, don't forget that Richards had
a better TEST average than him.BTW, I think this is getting a little
confusing, we are talking about the 70's are we not?
On the Richard Hadlee allusion, I think you are misunderstanding me. I
Boden Library
>
>In article <3so49t$e...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
>It may look confusing a bit, but it is not that confusing if you have>been following the thread (which I am sure you have been doing). The
>argument was about how to effectively judge the relative merits of players
>mainly based on their first class records due to lack of sufficient
>test data. Vijay Merchant in the 30s and Richards in the 70s were taken
>as examples. There are many other similar cases but these were the players
>that were universally regarded very highly despite their lack of much test
>experience. Ram was questioning the Richards being chosen in the
>staring 11 for the 70s while Merchant was ingnored for the top 15 for
>the 30s. The argument was not on the choice of 70s team, but on the
>consistency of the criterion being used. I understand that choosing such
>teams is a very difficult task and a lot of personal judgement comes
>in choosing one player over the others because most of the players are
>highly skilled players. It may be that Richards may be better known
>because he played more recently and played in England where one gets
>more media exposure. I personally do not have much of a problem with
>John hall's 70's team though a case can be made for Boycott in the place
>of Richards in the first 11. I OTOH think that Vijay Merchant should be
>included in the starting team of the 30s. If I remember correctly John
>had trouble picking the starting 11 and therfore picked starting 15
>instead. If none of those players can be replaced, in the least Merchant
>should have been included in the starting 16.>
>
>of 70's team.
>
>Regards,
>Raja J.
>OO
>
Raja,
Indeed I have been following the thread, tho' every now and again I seem
to miss a chunk.John Hall always seems to post interesting stuff that
generates stimulating discussion.I'm still not too happy with the Merchant
allusion, tho' I do take your point. I think the point with Barry Richards
was not that he was well known in England, I think he was almost universally
recognised for his talents. Leaving aside his all too brief Test career,
he played 1st class cricket in SA, England & Aus. He was outstandingly
successful in all 3 countries.And he didn't always play against pedestrian
county/state might've beens, due to some rather unusual circumstances he
often found himself facing the best in the world.The same, to a slightly
lesser extent, applies to Procter.
But at the end of the day I guess we are basically quibbling over a couple
of positions in what would be a side to match any from another era.
Cheers
Tim
Malcolm Currie
Speaking on "David Gower's Cricket Weekly" Gary Sobers didn't rate the
current Red Stripe competition highly. He said that many talented
youngsters were turning to American sports such as basketball.
Martin Sneesby
>>My point exactly. And as to depth, how many Sheffield Shield teams
>>have a bowling attack the equal of Leeward Islands' Ambrose, two
>>Benjamins, and Hamesh Anthony.
Although I think its missing the point, how about Victoria's current
attack of Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel, Damien Fleming and Merv Hughes or
the current NSW batting line-up of Taylor & Slater, Waugh twins and
Micheal Bevan. I think there are plenty of examples of this around the
world (cf recent thread on FC teams of test players).
Martin
Stephen Devaux
<snee...@paravel.che.curtin.edu.au> writes:
>
>>sde...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen Devaux ) writes:
>>>My point exactly. And as to depth, how many Sheffield Shield teams
>>>have a bowling attack the equal of Leeward Islands' Ambrose, two
>>>Benjamins, and Hamesh Anthony.
>
>Although I think its missing the point, how about Victoria's current
>attack of Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel, Damien Fleming and Merv Hughes or
Hey, not bad!
>the current NSW batting line-up of Taylor & Slater, Waugh twins and
>Micheal Bevan. I think there are plenty of examples of this around the
>world (cf recent thread on FC teams of test players).
None current. And, although I didn't respond to the previous thread on
FC teams with Test players, I suspect there has never been a stronger
FC team than Barbados in the mid '60s. In the 1966 tour of England,
there were 7 Bajans in each of four of the Tests, 8 in all. A typical
Bajan side of the time (which beat England by 10 wix in 1960 and India
in 1962) was: Conrad Hunte, Robin Bynoe, Peter Lashley, Seymour Nurse,
Garfield Sobers, David Holford, Rawle Brancker, Tony White, David
Allan, Wes Hall, and Charlie Griffith. All but Brancker (a very fine
allrounder who, I believe, toured with Windies) played Tests. In
addition, although they would be left out of the team above, Cammie
Smith and Richard Edwards, both Test players, would fill in when
necessary. And, of course, Hunte, Nurse, Sobers, Hall, and Griffith
all qualified, at one level or another, for the very prestigious John
Hall Teams of the Sixties.
Introl Industrial Control Systems
: PS: Wouldn't it be great to have a competition pitting all the winners
: of each countries competitions against one another, like in football
: (soccer) in Europe... Maybe a one-day comp for starters...
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!! That would be brilliant! I've been wanting
it for a while. Only trouble is that each nation's seasons aren't
run in parallel like Europen soccer. But I'm sure we could workk
around this. :)
Aidan Heerdegen
>In <3t7q86$k...@info.curtin.edu.au> Martin Sneesby
><snee...@paravel.che.curtin.edu.au> writes:
>>
>>>sde...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen Devaux ) writes:
>>>>My point exactly. And as to depth, how many Sheffield Shield teams
>>>>have a bowling attack the equal of Leeward Islands' Ambrose, two
>>>>Benjamins, and Hamesh Anthony.
>>
>>Although I think its missing the point, how about Victoria's current
>>attack of Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel, Damien Fleming and Merv Hughes or
>
>Hey, not bad!
Except I could count on one finger the number of times all those
bowlers were simultaneously available for Vic cricket last season.
It is fallacious to say that the SS is strong and then to quote
those players as the Vic bowling line-up. With all the test and
one day cricket the Aus rep players had committments to, they
hardly go to play any SS at all. I believe (from memory) Boon
only played one game (or maybe none) for Tassie last SS season.
Cheers
Aidan
--
#1 fan of Martin Snedden on r.s.c
#1 fan of Bruce Edgar on r.s.c
Tim Murphy
>>>Although I think its missing the point, how about Victoria's current
>>>attack of Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel, Damien Fleming and Merv Hughes or
>>
>>Hey, not bad!
>Except I could count on one finger the number of times all those
>bowlers were simultaneously available for Vic cricket last season.
>It is fallacious to say that the SS is strong and then to quote
>those players as the Vic bowling line-up. With all the test and
>one day cricket the Aus rep players had committments to, they
>hardly go to play any SS at all. I believe (from memory) Boon
>only played one game (or maybe none) for Tassie last SS season.
True, I'm not sure the Vics did manage to field these four in any one game
last season (although they may have in past seasons). But only Warne missed
regularly because of international commitments (he played two Shield games
last season). Fleming and Hughes were injured for large parts of last season.
Of these two probably only Fleming would have played regularly for Aus. From
memory Reiffel played in 9 of 10 Shield games for Vic. So potentially Victoria
had an opening pair of Hughes and Reiffel, who opened the bowling for
Australia on the last tour of England.
Tim.