Most changes in a side in consecutive Tests in a series
Aslam Siddiqui
two consecutive matches in a Test series. Retained players are listed
in the second line. The results at the end of the lines are from the
perspective of the sides making the changes.
ELEVEN:
Aus v Eng Adelaide/Melbourne(2) 1884-85 L/L
NINE:
WI v Eng Georgetown/Kingston 1929-30 W/D
GA Headley; CA Roach
WI v Aus Bridgetown/Georgetown 1977-78 W/L
AI Kallicharran; DR Parry
EIGHT:
Ind v Pak Lucknow/Bombay 1952-53 L/W
L Amarnath; Ghulam Ahmed; PR Umrigar
SL v BD Colombo(RPS)/Colombo(SSC) 2002 W/W
WRS de Silva; ST Jayasuriya; HAPW Jaywardene
SEVEN:
Aus v Eng Melbourne(2)/Sydney(3) 1884-85 L/W
TP Horan; AH Jarvis; SP Jones; JW Trumble
Eng v Aus Lord's/Leeds 1921 L/L
JWHT Douglas; CH Parkin; LH Tennyson; FE Woolley
Eng v WI Manchester/Leeds 1988 L/L
GR Dilley; GA Gooch; DI Gower; AJ Lamb
Note: The biggest personnel change by a visiting side in two
consecutive Test matches in a series is five players by Bangladesh
against Sri Lanka in 2002.
aslam
Shripathi Kamath
"Aslam Siddiqui" <asid...@iupui.edu> wrote in message
news:25055b16.02073...@posting.google.com...
> Here is a list of sides which made at least seven personnel changes in
> two consecutive matches in a Test series. Retained players are listed
> in the second line. The results at the end of the lines are from the
> perspective of the sides making the changes.
>
> WI v Aus Bridgetown/Georgetown 1977-78 W/L
> AI Kallicharran; DR Parry
did this one come in the midst of the Packer signings of the WI mainstream?
<snip>
John P Darcy
>Here is a list of sides which made at least seven personnel changes in
>two consecutive matches in a Test series. Retained players are listed
>in the second line. The results at the end of the lines are from the
>perspective of the sides making the changes.
An interesting list. The historical context of some of the events is
also interesting.
>ELEVEN:
>Aus v Eng Adelaide/Melbourne(2) 1884-85 L/L
Having recently returned from the 1884 Ashes tour, the Austraian
players ran into a season-long dispute over their management and
payments. The 2nd Test of the series, in Melbourne in January 1885,
was boycotted by the 1884 touring squad when the VCA refused to accede
to their 50% gate money demand ... thus a completely new team was
selected. It was March before the recalcitrant players returned to
the fold, and this helps to explain why this series appears again in
the list, below.
>NINE:
>WI v Eng Georgetown/Kingston 1929-30 W/D
>GA Headley; CA Roach
>WI v Aus Bridgetown/Georgetown 1977-78 W/L
>AI Kallicharran; DR Parry
This calamity for the West Indian team - which was just setting out to
be regarded as the best team in the world - was caused by World Series
Cricket. The WICBC, headed by Jeff Stollmeyer, had been treated
shamefully when Desmond Haynes, Colin Croft and Richard Austin signed
WSC contracts during the Barbados Test, in spite of verbal assurances
from those three (plus Kallicharan and Parry) that they would do no
such thing. The WICBC played its only card, announcing that Test
selection would be confined to those players who by 23 March confirmed
their availability for the 1978-79 tour of India. For the WSC
players, this would be impossible of course. The deadline passed, and
the ham-fisted response of the WI selectors was that Haynes, Austin
and Derryck Murray (who had also contractually shafted the WICBC)
would be dropped. Naturally, Clive Lloyd would not stand for this,
and he led a walkout of most of his team. So, in Georgetown, the Test
was played between two XIs distinctly less than the best of their
breed. Australia chased down 359 to win, thanks to a 251 partnership
between Graham Wood and Craig Serjeant, and it is well to remember the
West Indies' selection issues whenever that dusty old "Highest 4th
Innings Total to Win" list comes up on the fourth day of a Test.
>Eng v WI Manchester/Leeds 1988 L/L
>GR Dilley; GA Gooch; DI Gower; AJ Lamb
What can be said about the 1988 series? It's not just the change of
personnel from week to week which is laughable, but it was also the
season of musical-chairs captaincy. The whole season is summed up for
me by two selection decisions, being the lynching of Gatting and the
dropping of Gower. Removing Gatting from the captaincy was a tabloid
travesty, and later in the season when all had collapsed irretrievably
it seemed nothing less than stupid to leave out a 100-Test 7000-run
man.
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone would like to shed more light on the
other instances in Aslam's list. Sri Lanka's graduation to the list
this week I meely attribute to a complete lack of respect for the
opposition, much in the same way that England once sent "Test" teams
simultaneously to the West Indies and to New Zealand.
--
Cheers
John
.
John P Darcy
>> WI v Aus Bridgetown/Georgetown 1977-78 W/L
>> AI Kallicharran; DR Parry
>
>did this one come in the midst of the Packer signings of the WI mainstream?
More detail is given in my other reply in this thread. The Australian
tour of West Indies in Feb-Apr 1978 occurred *after* the first season
of World Series Cricket. The Australian team (containing zero WSC
players) was led by Bob Simpson and Jeff Thomson, and was coming off
its heartening 3-2 home series win against India. The West Indies
team was selected from all available players, WSC men included, but
the team for Georgetown contained no Packer players after a breakdown
between the WICBC and Clive Lloyd's men.
--
Cheers
John
.
Uday Rajan
>
> NINE:
> WI v Eng Georgetown/Kingston 1929-30 W/D
> GA Headley; CA Roach
ISTR reading someplace that, in those days, the "West
Indies" teams were chosen basically by the local association
staging the match. I'm guessing there were a number of
Guyanese players at Georgetown who all turned into Jamaicans
at Kingston.
> EIGHT:
> Ind v Pak Lucknow/Bombay 1952-53 L/W
> L Amarnath; Ghulam Ahmed; PR Umrigar
Not sure what went on here. Mihir Bose, in his book, merely
says "for some reason" Mankad, Hazare, and Adhikari did not
play. Those 3 came back for the Bombay Test. A couple of
players, Manjrekar and Gul Mohammed, were dropped after
India lost by an innings at Lucknow. The wicket-keeper was
changed (more on this in a minute). Kishenchand, HG Gaikwad,
and Nyalchand played their one Test of the series, and were
gone.
This was a series during which the Indian selectors showed
admirable restraint, and obviously believed in giving
players a long rope. For the first four Tests, the
wicket-keepers were (in order) Sen, Joshi, Rajindernath
(where's Shammi Kapoor when you need him?) and Maka, before
a ridiculous selectorial decision found Sen keeping again in
the 5th Test (200 million people, or whatever, and they
couldn't find a 5th wicket-keeper in the lot). Several
players played only one Test. In addition to the 3 cited,
there were Rusi Modi (scored 32), HT Dani (DNB, 0/10 and
1/9), CD Gopinath (0), RV Divecha (DNB, 2/36) and Deeoak
Shodhan (110).
Michael Seth
Uday Rajan wrote:
> Several
> players played only one Test. In addition to the 3 cited,
> there were Rusi Modi (scored 32), HT Dani (DNB, 0/10 and
> 1/9), CD Gopinath (0), RV Divecha (DNB, 2/36) and Deeoak
> Shodhan (110).
One would assume that the one test that Shodhan played
was the last of the series? Then again, given the selectorial
highjinks that seem to be prevelent in this series
anything may be possible.
Michael
Uday Rajan
It was the last Test, indeed. He batted at 8 (!) and bowled
2 overs in the match. Why he was picked remains a mystery.
His reward for a century on debut was retaining the no. 8
batting spot in India's next Test, in the WI a month later.
He missed most of the series (possibly hurt or sick?),
played only one more Test in the series, and finished with a
Test career average of 60.33.
That WI-Ind series in 1952-53 saw WI lose their last 7
wickets for 33 in the last Test. Unfortunately for India,
those 7 came after Weekes, Worrell, and Walcott had all
scored centuries and taken the score to 543/3 at one stage.
Chan Fonseka
> Anyway, I was wondering if anyone would like to shed more light on the
> other instances in Aslam's list. Sri Lanka's graduation to the list
> this week I meely attribute to a complete lack of respect for the
> opposition,
yes, this seems to be the consensus amongst non-Sri Lankans in rsc. We
will see what these same people have to say when Bangladesh play their
countries and perhaps play against non-optimal teams.
Interestingly, SL also came in for some scathing criticism (by someone
who was part of the above set of critics) when it was suggested that
Murali might play after all in order to get closer to the
wicket-taking record. So in Murali's case, SL were ethically screwed
whether or not he played, according to the aforementioned idiot.
What do you people have to say about previous SL tours to England (and
possibly other countries touring there too), specifically the county
matches. From my recollection when SL played the county sides the
counties rarely played their best players, often playing
second-stringers. Now by your arguments, wasn't this showing
disrespect for the SL team? Or doesn't it count when an English county
side does this to a visiting Test team.
Personally I have no problem with SL doing what they did. I might have
had a problem if the second XI lost the Test. But a 250+ run victory
says it all. And tell me this - if you were planning to introduce some
rookies to Test cricket would you do it against Bangladesh, or South
Africa?
And I object to this "complete lack of respect" idea being bandied
about as if SL had committed some egregious error, when some of the
proponents do not comment as forcefully (or at all?) against the
absolute lack of respect shown by their own countrymen when abusing
the opposition on a cricket field, for example. These double standards
are pathetic, to say the least.
In my book, it is ok to even play a 5th grade team in a test match as
long as you win. What business is it of anybody to criticize the
quality of a winning team?
On the other hand, what would you have said had SL played their
strongest team, scored 1000 in 2 days and won by an innings and 700?
"Oh, they should have declared at 400, it was disrespectful to go
beyond that"?
- Chan
Ken Higgs
Chan Fonseka wrote:
> snipped a good rant.
Chan, I totally agree with you.
Damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Higgsy
John P Darcy
>yes, this seems to be the consensus amongst non-Sri Lankans in rsc. We
>will see what these same people have to say when Bangladesh play their
>countries and perhaps play against non-optimal teams.
Well, putting on my sheepish face, I am still waiting for the ACB to
consider playing BD at all :(
>What do you people have to say about previous SL tours to England (and
>possibly other countries touring there too), specifically the county
>matches. From my recollection when SL played the county sides the
>counties rarely played their best players, often playing
>second-stringers. Now by your arguments, wasn't this showing
>disrespect for the SL team? Or doesn't it count when an English county
>side does this to a visiting Test team.
Not a fair analogy. The counties' practice of "resting" half of their
players for the international match has nothing to do with the
identity of the opposition, and everything to do with a professional
focus on the domestic competitions themselves. In other words, the
counties feel that the Championship race or the one-day tournament is
too important to risk a star player getting injured in a no-stakes
tour match. It happens to every touring team, including Australia and
West Indies.
>And tell me this - if you were planning to introduce some
>rookies to Test cricket would you do it against Bangladesh, or South
>Africa?
I would not like to see Australia playing a team of rookies against
*anyone*. The last Australian team to feature a big group of
inexperienced players was the side which was destroyed by Richard
Hadlee at Brisbane in 1985-86. No matter who the opponent, the only
way to properly introduce new Test players is by putting the new guy
amongst nine or ten experienced colleagues, from whom he can learn.
>In my book, it is ok to even play a 5th grade team in a test match as
>long as you win. What business is it of anybody to criticize the
>quality of a winning team?
Um, perhaps the paying public? How many of the crowd who attended
this match would have been disappointed at the absence of most of
their heroes?
Picture this: The first AUS v BAN Test in Australia, played at
Townsville in May 2005 (hypothetical, of course). The "Australian"
team consists of ten second-stringers plus captain Damien Martyn. The
reaction in the press and from the Townsville public would be an
UPROAR. It would be the subject of every talkback radio show, every
tabloid TV current affairs program, every conversation in a taxi,
every coffee-machine discussion in offices around the country. Every
single person in Australia who cares about sport - and that is most of
us - would consider it MOST CERTAINLY to be his business.
But perhaps not all our fellow cricketing nations are such havens of
free opinion :)
>On the other hand, what would you have said had SL played their
>strongest team, scored 1000 in 2 days and won by an innings and 700?
I probably would have said "What the hell is going on in Bangladesh
that they still can't do any better than that?" Anyway, Sri Lanka
scored 952 against India, hardly the world's worst Test team, so the
score would need to push 1500 to constitute a *real* disgrace :)
--
Cheers
John
.
Larry de Silva
"Chan Fonseka" <chan.f...@oracle.com> wrote in message
news:a20249e0.02073...@posting.google.com...
Bloody BRILLIANT summation Chan. Excellent stuff. It is a real no win
situation. From my point of view (even after the result) I would have made
all the changes except for Murali & let the guy get as many wickets as
possible towards his record breaking efforts. As bloody usual with SL,
politics played yet another role. I have never seen the need for a stupid
Sports Minister to approve or disapprove a test cricket team selection. Can
anyone please tell me if this dumb practice ONLY happens in SL or whether
this is common practice elsewhere as well?
Larrikin
>
> - Chan
Uday Rajan
>
> chan.f...@oracle.com (Chan Fonseka) wrote:
> >In my book, it is ok to even play a 5th grade team in a test match as
> >long as you win. What business is it of anybody to criticize the
> >quality of a winning team?
>
> Um, perhaps the paying public? How many of the crowd who attended
> this match would have been disappointed at the absence of most of
> their heroes?
Just out of curiosity, how large were the crowds for
the SL-Bang match?
> Picture this: The first AUS v BAN Test in Australia, played at
> Townsville in May 2005 (hypothetical, of course). The "Australian"
> team consists of ten second-stringers plus captain Damien Martyn. The
> reaction in the press and from the Townsville public would be an
> UPROAR. It would be the subject of every talkback radio show, every
> tabloid TV current affairs program, every conversation in a taxi,
> every coffee-machine discussion in offices around the country. Every
> single person in Australia who cares about sport - and that is most of
> us - would consider it MOST CERTAINLY to be his business.
>
> But perhaps not all our fellow cricketing nations are such havens of
> free opinion :)
A demonstration of freedom of opinion would appear to
require disagreement with the party line somewhere
along the way...such as a single person (what about the
married people, BTW?) in Australia who cares about the
sport not giving a damn who played against Bangladesh.
It would hardly appear that SL fans are hugely upset
about the team selection, so the SL board did the right
thing there. If Aus fans do care that much, then the
Aus board should play the best available XI in every
Test.
I don't see what the big fuss is about. Bangladesh is a
club-class team, anyway. In fact, I wish other nations
would rest more of their top players when they play
other substandard teams, like India.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>What do you people have to say about previous SL tours to England (and
>possibly other countries touring there too), specifically the county
>matches. From my recollection when SL played the county sides the
>counties rarely played their best players, often playing
>second-stringers. Now by your arguments, wasn't this showing
>disrespect for the SL team? Or doesn't it count when an English county
>side does this to a visiting Test team.
But this is standard, if regrettable, practice not only in England but
also in Australia, and possibly RSA. Rarely do touring teams field
their best XI in a tour game, and it's nowadays rare for a county or
state team to be at absolute full strength for what is effectively a
friendly game. It's nothing to do with it being SL.
Last year, Hampshire made a big song and dance about how they were
fielding their best possible XI so as to give the tourists a real
game, and Australia played all their reserves. So it works both ways.
It seems to me that the counties which field these semi-second XIs are
taking the ECB for a ride, and they're also taking their corporate
sponsors for a ride. The counties would wail and scream if you tried
taking "their" tourist match away from them, because they see it as a
great opportunity to sell corporate hostility packages to local
businesses.
I've long felt that the tourists to England should be playing regional
representative teams outside the Tests as their main practice games. A
Glamorgan/Glos/Somerset team playing the tourists could actually be a
real spectator attraction rather than a waste of time, and it might
actually give us some information about players on the fringes of
being thought about for possible England selection sometime.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>I don't see what the big fuss is about. Bangladesh is a
>club-class team, anyway. In fact, I wish other nations
>would rest more of their top players when they play
>other substandard teams, like India.
Look, Uday, we didn't pick Gough, Caddick, Tudor, or Trescothick for
the last Test. Thorpe's now decided not to bother either. How much
more can we do for you along these lines?
Cheers,
Mike
Uday Rajan
>
> Look, Uday, we didn't pick Gough, Caddick, Tudor, or Trescothick for
> the last Test. Thorpe's now decided not to bother either. How much
> more can we do for you along these lines?
Bah, SL dropped 9 of their regulars. I make that 4 more to
go. Let's say, we get rid of Vaughan, Butcher, Hoggard, and
Giles.
Khare Vivek
Actually, you guys can do one better than SL, and drop Hussain
altogether from the series.
Cheers
Vivek
Michael Seth
Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> But this is standard, if regrettable, practice not only in England but
> also in Australia, and possibly RSA. Rarely do touring teams field
> their best XI in a tour game, and it's nowadays rare for a county or
> state team to be at absolute full strength for what is effectively a
> friendly game.
Is it the case in Australia? On NZ's last tour they had a couple
of games against country XIs and the like but that was because
of the cencellation of the Pakistan tour. The team Queensland
chose looks pretty strong and included Hayden, Bichel, Law,
Love, Maher, Symonds and Kasprowicz (the last admittedly on the injury
comeback trail and possibly not first choice at that point).
The new fast wunderkind Johnson might not have played
in a Pura match but I don't think he replaced anyone too
huge. South Australia played Blewett and Lehmann too.
In the last tour NSW played Taylor, Slater and the Waughs also
IIRC. None of this strikes me as resting all the stars. Giving
one or maybe two youngsters their first go maybe but I would
have no problem with that. Also, if all the propaganda is true
and Australia has an enormous depth of great players then
the states could rest a few players and still give the
touring teams a good warmup which is what is required.
Michael