The cricket thread

scrumhalf

crunchman said:

Swann over Underwood. I can remember Underwood, but not at his best.  If you look at his home record from 1976 onwards his figures were awful.

I disagree. Give Unders DRS and he would have got a hatful. How many would Swann  have got without DRS?

earwighoney

crunchman said:

Stewart at 3:  England haven't had great number 3s in my lifetime but we have had a lot of good openers.  

Jon Trott was a decent No.3, IMO easily the best no.3 for the England test team in the last 20 years and since he left the team IMO again he's been the reason why the top order has looked a bit fragile and the middle order has been a lot more exposed.  

Alex Stewart's was a superb player and seems to be good guy.  He does a lot of great work behind the scenes for club cricket/youth development. 

crunchman

Stuckfast said:

It's a bit of a daft exercise really. I mean, what grounds do we have for comparing say Broad and Anderson with Tyson and Trueman? Was Jim Laker a better bowler than Swann? Would Jack Hobbs have made runs in this day and age?

I do think Root is a better batsman than Stewart ever was though. Stewart only makes it into my XI if he keeps.

Number 3 is a position where you have to be able to handle the new ball.  If I'm looking for a 5, I would pick Root ahead of Stewart, but not at 3.  You need someone who is capable of handling the new ball.  Number 3 has been a problem for England.  We have had several middle order players who have played there and not done all that well compared to their stats lower down the order.  Root averages 44.6 at 3, much lower than his career average, and also than Stewart's average of 46 when he played as a batsman.

Most people underrate Stewart as a batsman because his stats were dragged down by his keeping.  You also have to think of the pitches and bowlers.  The "chief executive's pitches" that are around these days are a lot flatter, and you don't have many quality fast bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock and  McGrath around at the moment either.  Stewart's average (when playing as a batsman) of 46 would be worth well over 50 in today's game.  Ultimately, what it comes down to is that Root has not (yet) shown himself to be capable of playing innings like Stewart played in Barbados in 1994 against Ambrose and company.  If he plays innings like that at the top of the order against Rabada and company next time England go to South Africa, then I might pick him over Stewart, but not on what he has done so far.

As for Hobbs, he would have made runs in any era.  How you can leave out a cricketer than Wisden named as one of the 5 greatest of the 20th century boggles the mind.

crunchman

scrumhalf said:

crunchman said:

Swann over Underwood. I can remember Underwood, but not at his best.  If you look at his home record from 1976 onwards his figures were awful.

I disagree. Give Unders DRS and he would have got a hatful. How many would Swann  have got without DRS?

I'm talking in my lifetime.  In terms of watching cricket that I can remember that's 1976 onwards.  If you look at his home matches from 1976 onwards, which is what I would have watched on TV, his stats aren't great.  Only 31 wickets at 35.5.  Maybe I cheated a bit by including Knott, but I can remember watching him make a century as a kid.  Underwood did nothing memorable in my cricket watching lifetime.  Swann also has the advantage of being a better batsman and a superb slip fielder as well.

earwighoney said:

crunchman said:

Stewart at 3:  England haven't had great number 3s in my lifetime but we have had a lot of good openers.  

Jon Trott was a decent No.3, IMO easily the best no.3 for the England test team in the last 20 years and since he left the team IMO again he's been the reason why the top order has looked a bit fragile and the middle order has been a lot more exposed.  

Alex Stewart's was a superb player and seems to be good guy.  He does a lot of great work behind the scenes for club cricket/youth development. 

Trott was good but got found out against the short ball later in his career.  How much of that was down to his mental health issues I don't know, but I wouldn't rate him ahead of Stewart.  He was also a bit one paced.  If I've got Boycott opening, someone with a more expansive game like Stewart would be better.

Heartfeltdawn

The ECB poll was a hilarious waste of time. Over 6,000 fans voted: so effin' what? No Barnes, no Hobbs... and the poll reinforced the notion that Ken Barrington might be the most underrated England batsman of all time. 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/9014.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

earwighoney

crunchman said:

Trott was good but got found out against the short ball later in his career.  How much of that was down to his mental health issues I don't know, but I wouldn't rate him ahead of Stewart.  

My point was to highlight after AS, JT did a great job at no.3 and instead of writing in the last 20 years as I originally did, I'd amend the statement to over the last 10 years or so, definitely after AS stopped playing test cricket. 

AS with Graham Thorpe were my two favourite English batsmen of that era.  The latter seemed to be great at grinding things out when things weren't going well. 

Something I believe the modern game is missing are tough draws being ground in test cricket.  I can't remember exactly but I am fairly sure more test matches than before end in results than a few years back. 

Heartfeltdawn

earwighoney said:

crunchman said:

Trott was good but got found out against the short ball later in his career.  How much of that was down to his mental health issues I don't know, but I wouldn't rate him ahead of Stewart.  

My point was to highlight after AS, JT did a great job at no.3 and instead of writing in the last 20 years as I originally did, I'd amend the statement to over the last 10 years or so, definitely after AS stopped playing test cricket. 

AS with Graham Thorpe were my two favourite English batsmen of that era.  The latter seemed to be great at grinding things out when things weren't going well. 

Something I believe the modern game is missing are tough draws being ground in test cricket.  I can't remember exactly but I am fairly sure more test matches than before end in results than a few years back. 

 http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/629608.html

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

The ECB poll was a hilarious waste of time. Over 6,000 fans voted: so effin' what? No Barnes, no Hobbs... and the poll reinforced the notion that Ken Barrington might be the most underrated England batsman of all time. 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/9014.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

Agree, Hobbs and Barnes are automatic no brainer choices.  Probably the first two names on the team sheet.  Barrington has a very strong case.  Definitely better than Gower or Root.

Hammond has to be in as well.  He played most of his tests in an era of inflated batting averages before the lbw law was changed around 1936/37, but even allowing for that he was a great player.  By all accounts he was a good fielder, and  he was a decent bowler as well.  He was good enough to open the bowling on the tour of South Africa in 1927/28.  Got Bradman out 2 or 3 times.  He would be good enough to be the fourth seamer on the right kind of pitch, and allow 2 spinners to be played.

For me the automatic choices are Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Botham and Barnes

After that, Knott as keeper, probably Trueman as the other fast bowler, although you would consider Larwood and Anderson.  Laker as the off spinner.  Toss up between Underwood and Verity as the left armer.  The last two batting places between Grace, Barrington, Compton and maybe Pietersen.  You could make arguments for any of those four.

Interesting that there isn't a left handed batsman anywhere near.

Stuckfast

John Snow must be in with a shout also?

crunchman

Stuckfast said:

John Snow must be in with a shout also?

Very good player, but probably a bit below Trueman.  202 wickets at 26.7 is good in anyone's book, but for Trueman to take 307 at 21.6 puts him up with the best ever.

Bedser and Statham deserve a mention as well.  Another more recent bowler who is very underrated is pre-injury Gus Fraser.

If you are picking an all time England team, then SF Barnes is one of the first names on the team sheet.  Botham is the all rounder.  Depending on team balance there is room for one more fast bowler, or two if you play one spinner.  Trueman is the obvious one.  If you want another after that, I'd probably go for Larwood or Tyson as the extreme pace would give you some variation.  Anderson is a good bowler, and backs it up with great fielding, but in a lot of ways he's a similar bowler to Botham.

Heartfeltdawn

There are so many you could put in. Take Herbert Sutcliffe: more Test centuries than Hobbs, higher average, some 600 runs less than Hobbs, played 7 fewer Tests than Hobbs... yet he's regularly missed off of these lists. Hammond is another. So many players to choose from...

And yes left handed batsmen are very thin on the ground. It's why Gower tends to end up on lists. His southpaw nature means he stands out in a sea of righthanders. It's the same with left arm seamers

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Stuckfast said:

John Snow must be in with a shout also?

Very good player, but probably a bit below Trueman.  202 wickets at 26.7 is good in anyone's book, but for Trueman to take 307 at 21.6 puts him up with the best ever.

Bedser and Statham deserve a mention as well.  Another more recent bowler who is very underrated is pre-injury Gus Fraser.

If you are picking an all time England team, then SF Barnes is one of the first names on the team sheet.  Botham is the all rounder.  Depending on team balance there is room for one more fast bowler, or two if you play one spinner.  Trueman is the obvious one.  If you want another after that, I'd probably go for Larwood or Tyson as the extreme pace would give you some variation.  Anderson is a good bowler, and backs it up with great fielding, but in a lot of ways he's a similar bowler to Botham.

Freddie was one hell of a bowler. His record is superb. When you consider that some of those Tests were played on matting in the West Indies and that he missed a number of Tests thanks to intransigent snobbery on the part of MCC, he stands up with any quick bowler who has played the game. Bedser, Snow, and Statham were all excellent bowlers but Fred was that real top drawer quality for me. 

I wouldn't have Larwood or Tyson. The latter didn't play enough Tests to be classed as a great and the former suffered through the same snobbery as Trueman to my mind. When you read as to how shittily Larwood was treated by hierarchy after Bodyline, you understand why he left this country. 

Anderson on the other hand.. I would include him. There have been eras when batsmen reigned supreme (Australia went through a spell of having docile pitches fit for run scoring) but this is the only period where good batting pitches have come along with far superior bats. For Jimmy to get the wickets he has done says a lot about his ability.

Swann versus Laker: very very hard to separate them. 

I suppose I should do an all-time team then!

Hobbs
Sutcliffe or Hutton
Hammond 
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Knott or Ames (this is so bloody hard to sort out. The leg spinner in me plumps for Ames
Swann or Laker
Trueman
Anderson
Barnes (swing and spin supreme)

crunchman

I think Sutcliffe suffers in these comparisons because of the era he played in.  He played between 1924 and 1935 in an era where quite a few batsman racked up imposing stats.  They changed the LBW law in favour of the bowler a year or so after his last test.

Hobbs played a lot of his cricket before WWI when the pitches were a lot spicier.  He missed several prime years to WWI as well.  From what I've read, most judges at the time would have rated Hobbs the better of the two.

Good as Sutcliffe was, it's hard to argue with Hobbs and Hutton as our two best openers though.

scrumhalf

Very interesting second session today. Stokes and Curran bowling well but not matched by our fielding. Catches win matches.

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

I suppose I should do an all-time team then!

Hobbs
Sutcliffe or Hutton
Hammond 
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Knott or Ames (this is so bloody hard to sort out. The leg spinner in me plumps for Ames
Swann or Laker
Trueman
Anderson
Barnes (swing and spin supreme)

After all my pontification, I'd better put a team up.  A lot of the same players, but there would be a few differences from yours:

Hobbs

Hutton

Grace

Hammond

Pietersen (even though I don't like him I think he deserves to be here)

Botham

Knott

Rhodes

Swann

Trueman

Barnes

Grace is another one who gets overlooked in this kind of exercise.  He was absolutely dominant in his prime.  When you look at his test record it doesn't look great, but by 19th century standards it's very good.  You also have to remember that he never really played tests in his prime.  He only played 2 tests before he turned 36.  He was a very good athlete - national champion at 440 yards hurdles in 1866, and played football for Wanderers FC, who were one of the top teams in the country.  With that kind of sporting pedigree, he would have adapted to any era.  He also took 2600 or so first class wickets.  If you credit dodgy 19th century pitches with those wickets, then it makes his batting on those same pitches even more impressive.

I'd use Hammond as the fourth seamer so I can play 2 spinners.  Like I said above, he was good enough to open the bowling on a tour of South Africa, and to get the likes of Bradman and Ponsford out against Australia.  83 test wickets is a bit more than a part timer.

The left arm spinner was a difficult one.  Rhodes was a great bowler, but as pure bowlers you might be able to argue that Verity or Underwood were better.   Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Rhodes was a genuine allrounder.  He was good enough as a batsman to play test cricket as an opener so having him at 7 or 8 would give a nice deep batting line up, and he wouldn't be a passenger on a greentop.  Frank Woolley would have been another option, but probably not in Rhodes' class as a bowler.

Swan versus Laker is very difficult.  Swann has benefited massively from DRS but Laker had uncovered pitches.  Laker's stats benefited a lot from 19 for 90 on a sticky dog at Old Trafford in 1956 but Swann never had that kind of pitch to bowl on. It is difficult to choose between them.  I've gone for Swann on the basis that he is a superb slip fielder, and probably a slightly better batsman, but if I'm doing this again tomorrow I might change my mind.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

I think Sutcliffe suffers in these comparisons because of the era he played in.  He played between 1924 and 1935 in an era where quite a few batsman racked up imposing stats.  They changed the LBW law in favour of the bowler a year or so after his last test.

Hobbs played a lot of his cricket before WWI when the pitches were a lot spicier.  He missed several prime years to WWI as well.  From what I've read, most judges at the time would have rated Hobbs the better of the two.

Good as Sutcliffe was, it's hard to argue with Hobbs and Hutton as our two best openers though.

Sutcliffe actually improved statistically when the LBW change came in. So I think the fairest comparison of his ability is to take the dates he played Test cricket and compare his record to that of Hobbs (ie. from 1924 and Sutcliffe's debut to 1930 and Hobb's final Test)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/14225.html?class=1;spanmax1=02+Jul+1935;spanmin1=14+Jun+1924;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/20413.html

Some mighty figures when batting together as well...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/CI/content/records/283514.html

So it's a very hard case between Hutton and Sutcliffe for me. 

Grace: I wouldn't pick him. I'd have him as Chairman of Selectors

Botham: he has to be at six. Any other position is sacrilege. 

Swann versus Laker: very hard. Coin toss again like Sutcliffe-Hutton. 

Heartfeltdawn

And those wanting to see some of the past... a chap I follow on Youtube who has some nice cricket bits just put up some of the Tests from the 1962-63 Ashes. 

crunchman

Heartfeltdawn said:

Sutcliffe actually improved statistically when the LBW change came in. So I think the fairest comparison of his ability is to take the dates he played Test cricket and compare his record to that of Hobbs (ie. from 1924 and Sutcliffe's debut to 1930 and Hobb's final Test)

Thought the LBW change was around 1936/37, which was after Sutcliffe's last test.

Just checked.  It came in earlier in county cricket, but was adopted as a law of the game in 1937.

Ultimately, that change has to reduce batting averages, because it makes it easier to get a batsman out LBW.  It would also mean they have to play with the bat at balls outside off stump they would have thrust their pads at previously, making caught behind more likely.

Heartfeltdawn

Yes, after the  end of his Test career but one would have thought that an old Sutcliffe faced with such a change would have been more likely to suffer a drop in performance. And unlike now you'd actually be facing some Test bowlers playing first class cricket. 

But hey! Cricketers from the past versus today... Kohli laid down a superb marker. That's why he's up there with Williamson and Smith. Root is a fine batsman but he isn't at their level yet. Some horrible shots played by the rest of the Indian batsmen. 

Kudos to Ashwin. That really is an absolutely ripper to get Cook tonight. 

scrumhalf

Cook got a snorter, and it doesn't bode well for tomorrow if Ashwin is on his game. I fear we will live to regret those dropped catches.

I've never liked Kohli, there's just something about him. And it's worse after his innings today.