Most over-rated England XII
David Lewis
England players whose reputation far exceeds their deeds. Obvious
candidates, for me, are Emburey, Tufnell, Flintoff, Cork, Harmison & Jones.
Batsmen who are far more highly thought of than their record supports must
include Randall & Gatting. And maybe Atherton, which is harsh, but the fact
is he failed far more often than some would have you believe and his final
average doesn't quite support the status he's sometimes afforded. Lamb
springs to mind - did well against WI, but otherwise was a past master at
doing just enough to stay in the side. I'm tempted to have Gooch partner
Atherton on the basis that he was seriously ordinary for most of his test
career, but I suppose it's hard to argue with his final average, so I'll
pick Knight instead. Which only leaves a WK: probably the hardest spot to
fill, as they've either been unquestionably very good or equally
unquestionably out of their depth. I'll setle for Downton, who built up
quite a reputation after dome decent knocks against WI in 1984, but
otherwise did very little. I appreciate that younger members of the ng
won't have heard of him.
So there you have it. None of them poor players, but all of them over-rated
IMHO. Have I forgotten anyone?
Cheers
David
David North
A bit harsh on Jones, who has had little opportunity to justify the optimism. I nominate Neil
Foster.
I don't think that Knight was ever that highly rated.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk
Dean Jarratt
Wayne Larkins (quite highly rated by some)
Chris Tavare
Mark Ramprakash
Derek Randall
Andrew Flintoff
Chris Lewis
Derek Pringle
Jack Russell
Ashley Giles
Steve Harmison
Phil Tufnell
I couldn't let one of these teams get by without having Ashley in it ;)
JP
"Dean Jarratt" <mar...@eidosnet.spamless.co.uk> wrote in message
news:brpe05$ee9$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Wow what an excellent bunch, but no skipper!
Thank goodness David mentioned Atherton, (someone I never rated at anything)
surely a place here for him as capt.
robert.pollard2
"Dean Jarratt" <mar...@eidosnet.spamless.co.uk> wrote in message
news:brpe05$ee9$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Wayne Larkins (quite highly rated by some)
> Chris Tavare
> Mark Ramprakash
> Derek Randall
> Andrew Flintoff
> Chris Lewis
> Derek Pringle
> Jack Russell
> Ashley Giles
> Steve Harmison
> Phil Tufnell
Jack Russell ????????
Are you ill ???????
Cheers
Robt P.
steve.hague
"robert.pollard2" <robert.pollard2@no_spamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wq%Db.5212$526....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
to Alan Knott or Bob Taylor, he made more mistakes than some of the greats,
but he also pulled off some amazing dismisals.
Steve Hague.
David North
news:brpe05$ee9$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Wayne Larkins (quite highly rated by some)
> Chris Tavare
> Mark Ramprakash
> Derek Randall
> Andrew Flintoff
> Chris Lewis
> Derek Pringle
> Jack Russell
> Ashley Giles
> Steve Harmison
> Phil Tufnell
I think only the selectors rated Lewis and Pringle highly. Put them in the Not the Next Botham XI,
along with Capel, Cork, Irani, DeFreitas, the Hollioakes, Reeve, Gough(!) and Blakey (wk). 12th man
Hamilton.
I'm not quite sure what XI I'd put Ramprakash in, but he hasn't been rated for some time, except by
a few raving Surrey and Middlesex supporters and goldfish.
Pete D.
Probably meant Jack Richards, although the two would be difficult to
confuse. Hopefully.
max.it
Nah...... Russell, Tufnell and Ramprakash are lining up for the all
time irritating Xl
Jan Buxton
David Lewis <le...@rmplc.co.uk> wrote:
> Reading through the all-time worst XI's earlier got me wondering about
> England players whose reputation far exceeds their deeds. Obvious
> candidates, for me, are Emburey, Tufnell, Flintoff, Cork, Harmison &
> Jones. Batsmen who are far more highly thought of than their record
> supports must include Randall & Gatting.
OK, only worth noting that Gatt averaged 44 as captain, and 32 when not
captain so he has all the more reason to feel aggrieved at his removal.
> And maybe Atherton, which
> is harsh, but the fact is he failed far more often than some would
> have you believe and his final average doesn't quite support the
> status he's sometimes afforded.
Too harsh IMHO. His average didn't do him justice, and is indicative of
his worsening back and Glenn McGrath's ability as anything else. Some
points to note, he averaged 40.58 as captain (of a poor to mediocre
side), 41.33 against teams not called Australia and he even averaged
over 40 against Australia in the 93 and 94/95 Ashes before McGrath took
hold.
--
Jan
Pete D.
I concede Russell may be irritating but I'd find it difficult to
accept he's over-rated. Speaking as a gloveman myself who'd rather be
standing up to the stumps than acting as a slip with gloves on, I
think he's pure genius.
Did you see the Master Class he did during lunch at one of the tests
last summer? He said if a ball is going down the legside, he watches
it pitch before moving across to take it. Probably 99.9% of us mortal
keepers who see it going down the leg side immediately throw ourselves
across behind the batsman, hope the bounce is favourable and either
look brilliant or stupid depending on the outcome!
I've managed to develop a quick stare that I give to the bowler that
says 'what a crap ball' before I turn round to retrieve the throw
from a rather hacked off fine leg who's just retrieved the ball from
over the boundary.
This used to be called four byes, but now it's more commonly four
wides. League wicketkeepers are actually the true beneficiaries of the
leg-side wide rule!
Tymey
"David North" <dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:brqe5s$68mdv$1...@ID-182826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Dean Jarratt" <mar...@eidosnet.spamless.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:brpe05$ee9$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Overated XI
> >
> > Wayne Larkins (quite highly rated by some)
> > Chris Tavare
> > Mark Ramprakash
> > Derek Randall
> > Andrew Flintoff
> > Chris Lewis
> > Derek Pringle
> > Jack Russell
> > Ashley Giles
> > Steve Harmison
> > Phil Tufnell
>
> I think only the selectors rated Lewis and Pringle highly. Put them in the
Not the Next Botham XI,
> along with Capel, Cork, Irani, DeFreitas, the Hollioakes, Reeve, Gough(!)
and Blakey (wk). 12th man
> Hamilton.
>
> I'm not quite sure what XI I'd put Ramprakash in, but he hasn't been rated
for some time, except by
> a few raving Surrey and Middlesex supporters and goldfish.
>
> --
> David North
Surely Hick would have to go in somewhere. Or was he simply talented but
flawed??
Tymey
Dean Jarratt
"steve.hague" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:At1Eb.394$T_3.3...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
I stand by my selection of Jack Russell....
Dean Jarratt
"Pete D." <peter....@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1pp1uvkeh3c7e0hl8...@4ax.com...
> >>>> Overated XI
> >>>>
> >>>> Wayne Larkins (quite highly rated by some)
> >>>> Chris Tavare
> >>>> Mark Ramprakash
> >>>> Derek Randall
> >>>> Andrew Flintoff
> >>>> Chris Lewis
> >>>> Derek Pringle
> >>>> Jack Russell
> >>>> Ashley Giles
> >>>> Steve Harmison
> >>>> Phil Tufnell
> >>>
> >>>Jack Russell ????????
> >>>
> >>>Are you ill ???????
> >>>
> >>>Cheers
> >>>Robt P.
> >>>
> >>Probably meant Jack Richards, although the two would be difficult to
> >>confuse. Hopefully.
>
> accept he's over-rated. Speaking as a gloveman myself who'd rather be
> standing up to the stumps than acting as a slip with gloves on, I
> think he's pure genius.
> Did you see the Master Class he did during lunch at one of the tests
> last summer? He said if a ball is going down the legside, he watches
> it pitch before moving across to take it. Probably 99.9% of us mortal
> keepers who see it going down the leg side immediately throw ourselves
> across behind the batsman, hope the bounce is favourable and either
> look brilliant or stupid depending on the outcome!
> I've managed to develop a quick stare that I give to the bowler that
> says 'what a crap ball' before I turn round to retrieve the throw
> from a rather hacked off fine leg who's just retrieved the ball from
> over the boundary.
> This used to be called four byes, but now it's more commonly four
> wides. League wicketkeepers are actually the true beneficiaries of the
> leg-side wide rule!
Yes...this is probably why I think of him as overrated...many people call
him a genius, I myself have seen him make awful sloppy mistakes (easy
catches downed as regularly as other keepers). He's pulled off the odd great
stumping (off Gladstone Small), but then again I've seen Blakey pull off the
odd great stumping.
To me he looked like a run of the mill keeper, but with a tendency to look
scruffy and imitate a high class keeper...which is why I thought he was
overrated.
Ed Morris
Indeed, in fact whenever he got a game the media seemed to spend lot's of
time talking about how he wasn't up to it.
Ed Morris
Sean Ayling
You don't happen to live near Canterbury do you - we're looking for a keeper
David North
news:brqqgv$rfl$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "David North" <dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:brqe5s$68mdv$1...@ID-182826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Dean Jarratt" <mar...@eidosnet.spamless.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:brpe05$ee9$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > Overated XI
> > >
> > > Wayne Larkins (quite highly rated by some)
> > > Chris Tavare
> > > Mark Ramprakash
> > > Derek Randall
> > > Andrew Flintoff
> > > Chris Lewis
> > > Derek Pringle
> > > Jack Russell
> > > Ashley Giles
> > > Steve Harmison
> > > Phil Tufnell
> >
> > I think only the selectors rated Lewis and Pringle highly. Put them in the
> Not the Next Botham XI,
> > along with Capel, Cork, Irani, DeFreitas, the Hollioakes, Reeve, Gough(!)
> and Blakey (wk). 12th man
> > Hamilton.
> >
> > I'm not quite sure what XI I'd put Ramprakash in, but he hasn't been rated
> for some time, except by
> > a few raving Surrey and Middlesex supporters and goldfish.
>
> flawed??
Like Ramprakash, I suppose - he couldn't live up to the expectation. They were overrated early on in
their careers, but not in retrospect, unlike Gatting, for instance, who seems to be thought of
generally as a very good player, but doesn't have the record to back it up. I guess that people
remember Gatting's successful period from 1984/5 to 1987, when he averaged 62 and made 9 centuries
in 28 matches, and forget the periods before and after, when he averaged 23.41 and made 1 century in
51 matches.
In fact, the Test careers of Gatting and Hick followed similar patterns. Both started poorly, both
got their averages up to around 40 and both declined steadily thereafter.
Hick never had such a purple patch as Gatting, but from 1992/3 to 1995/6 he averaged 45.54 in 31
matches, averaging over 40 in 6 series out of 8 and never less than 33. Six poor innings after this
period he was dropped, and after his recall two years later, his record was pretty awful.
Chris Henderson
>>I don't think that Knight was ever that highly rated.
>>--
>
>
>
> Indeed, in fact whenever he got a game the media seemed to spend lot's of
> time talking about how he wasn't up to it.
Rightly...
Andrew Bull
>Reading through the all-time worst XI's earlier got me wondering about
>England players whose reputation far exceeds their deeds.
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Botham, whose reputation is "little short
of god", but whose averages (after a fantastic start) declined to (batting)
33.5, (bowling) 28.4.
Godfrey Evans - can't judge his wicket-keeping, but his batting often seems
to be rated very high considering his test average was about 20.
Re Randall: IIRC his average when batting at 6/7 was in the 40s, but for
some reason he kept being picked as an opener/no.3.
David Lewis
Andrew Bull <and...@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:brt941$fac$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> David Lewis wrote in message ...
> >Reading through the all-time worst XI's earlier got me wondering about
> >England players whose reputation far exceeds their deeds.
>
> I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Botham, whose reputation is "little short
> of god", but whose averages (after a fantastic start) declined to
(batting)
> 33.5, (bowling) 28.4.
>
I was seriously tempted, esp when you look at the quality of opposition he
faced when he was breaking records in his first 5 years as a test player. I
suppose I'm still grateful for the pleasure he did give when he was good and
forgave him for what followed.
> Godfrey Evans - can't judge his wicket-keeping, but his batting often
seems
> to be rated very high considering his test average was about 20.
>
> Re Randall: IIRC his average when batting at 6/7 was in the 40s, but for
> some reason he kept being picked as an opener/no.3.
>
It's probably fair to say Randall drew the short straw on occasions. It was
daft that he opened for even one test in Aus in 1979/80 when Brearley &
Gooch were both available to partner Boycott. Maybe Brearley didn't fancy
it. It was also criminal to make him bat at 3 against WI in 1984, when you
felt he just didn't fit with the Gower/Lamb/Botham gang.
But a final average of 33 isn't great, and I don't remember him opening more
than a couple of times, and most of his innings at 3 weren't against great
attacks.
Cheers
David
Dr A. N. Walker
David Lewis <le...@rmplc.co.uk> wrote:
>Andrew Bull <and...@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:brt941$fac$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>seems
>> to be rated very high considering his test average was about 20.
It's always difficult to compare WKs objectively, but he was
good enough to be essentially an automatic choice for over a decade.
I don't recall anyone rating his batting "very high", but it should
be remembered that this was an era in which the batsmen were
supposed to score runs and if the tail wagged that was a bonus.
None of Evans, Laker, Lock, Trueman, Statham, Wardle, ... were
total bunnies, so usually one or two of them scored 17 or 23 or
thereabouts; but half-centuries or better were very rare. The
England "convention" then was 5 batsmen, 1 all-rounder, WK and
4 specialist bowlers. Oz, by contrast, packed their side with
all-rounders -- Miller, Lindwall, Benaud, Archer, Davidson,
Mackay and others, as well as expecting their WK to be useful.
>> Re Randall: [...]
>But a final average of 33 isn't great, [...].
Nor is it a disaster! Not by Ramprakash standards ....
Don't forget that Randall was picked at least partly for his
fielding; if he, as he probably did, saved 20+ runs per
innings, quite apart from the occasional actual run out,
compared with a "merely good" cover, you can count his 33 as
a real 53! In addition, he did actually play the match-winning
innings in two or three Tests, ie was much more use to the team
than someone who scores centuries in high-scoring draws but fails
when the chips are down. Oh, and of course he was deprived of a
certain double century at Trent Bridge in '77, when he was run
out by Boycott .... Not that I'm in any way biassed.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Andrew Bull
>
>Andrew Bull <and...@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:brt941$fac$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> David Lewis wrote in message ...
>> >Reading through the all-time worst XI's earlier got me wondering about
>> >England players whose reputation far exceeds their deeds.
>>
>> I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Botham, whose reputation is "little
short
>> of god", but whose averages (after a fantastic start) declined to
>(batting)
>> 33.5, (bowling) 28.4.
>>
>
>I was seriously tempted, esp when you look at the quality of opposition he
>faced when he was breaking records in his first 5 years as a test player.
I
>suppose I'm still grateful for the pleasure he did give when he was good
and
>forgave him for what followed.
Fair enough.
What really annoys me is when it's suggested (by, for instance, Botham) that
the selectors took against him in later years (as they seemed to with
Gower). In fact, I don't think he was dropped on cricketing grounds (or
hardly ever) before 1989. From then on, he only appeared sporadically, but
as his averages in that time were roughly 14 and 49 this is hardly
surprising!
I've seen a couple of people (including I think Botham) describe Croft as
"England's best finger spinner since the war" - that would make him a
candidate if more people believed it... (not that his record is especially
bad).
David Lewis
Dr A. N. Walker <a...@merlot.uucp> wrote in message
news:brvi7c$je4$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
I wouldn't argue with much of that, and I did like the guy. Actually I'm
surprised it took one of the Notts contingent so long to stand up for him.
Where is Robert when one of his countymen needs him? I'm not sure that
having the same average as Ramps is something to be proud of though ..
Cheers
David
John Hall
Andrew Bull <and...@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>I've seen a couple of people (including I think Botham) describe Croft as
>"England's best finger spinner since the war"
The Gulf War, presumably (though even then it would be arguable).
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)
Luke_Curtis
wrote:
Hussain (cap)
Why on earth has he ever been selected? yes he was a good captain but
as a batsman he stinks, looks terrible for the first 10 overs of every
innings then scratchy at best.
Mark Ramprakash
obviously.
Graham Hick
The next Great White Hope. A good all-rounder but the hype surrounding
him was astonishing at the time of his period in waiting while
qualifying for residency.
Foster (wkt)
looked poor with both glove and bat every time I saw him yet everybody
was crowing on about how he was Stewarts natural successor!
Ashley Giles
why does he get picked above Croft? he has had what, 3?, five wicket
hauls?
James Anderson
Caddick
A genius at times but if he doens`t get a wicket in his first bowling
spell he goes totally missing
--
e-mail to aoxr19[AT]dsl[DOT]pipex[DOT]com
*All e-mail to "reply to" adrress will*
*automatically be deleted*
Jan Buxton
Because his results haven't always been as bad as his style.
> yes he was a good captain but
> as a batsman he stinks, looks terrible for the first 10 overs of every
> innings then scratchy at best.
Well the fact that someone with as modest record as Collingwood was
considered for replacing him, suggests that his time may be running out.
> Graham Hick
> The next Great White Hope. A good all-rounder but the hype surrounding
> him was astonishing at the time of his period in waiting while
> qualifying for residency.
Well that was because his feats were pretty astonishing, at the start of
1991 when Hick qualified his championship record was 10,859 runs @ 65.41
with 38 centuries. All that and he was only 24.
> Ashley Giles
> why does he get picked above Croft?
Because he is better.
> he has had what, 3?, five wicket
> hauls?
3 in 29 tests. Croft 1 in 21 BTW.
--
Jan
Dean Jarratt
"Luke_Curtis" <mfl...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> Ashley Giles
> why does he get picked above Croft? he has had what, 3?, five wicket
> hauls?
Because everyone knows Croft is shite, and therefore not over-rated. Giles
on the other hand, people still believe he's a good player.
Rob
so highly!
David Lewis
Rob <gofy...@wrongaddress.com> wrote in message
news:bsh9cp$21t$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> If you watch Phil Tufnell's DVD, you may find out why Emburey was regarded
> so highly!
Do tell. I'm sure it's quite possible to find some decent performances from
Emburey, but his final average and, especially, his final strike rate tell
their own story.
Cheers
David
Rob
wickets. Get the DVD - it's great.