Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[Richard]

Well, myself I don't see any use in sticking around when you've been found-out as badly as ol' Goochie had been by Alderman that summer. Much better to get off for a bit and see if you can come back improved.

It was clearly pretty obvious that England were going down, badly, in 1989. That most chaotic and catastrophic of summers in England cricket history was not going to be salvaged, to any degree, by Gooch continuing to play, IMO.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm actually quite pleased Gooch did what he did and came back as what he came back as, as his scoring when he came back was pretty impressive TSTL.

 

[archie mac]

Well, myself I don't see any use in sticking around when you've been found-out as badly as ol' Goochie had been by Alderman that summer. Much better to get off for a bit and see if you can come back improved.

It was clearly pretty obvious that England were going down, badly, in 1989. That most chaotic and catastrophic of summers in England cricket history was not going to be salvaged, to any degree, by Gooch continuing to play, IMO.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm actually quite pleased Gooch did what he did and came back as what he came back as, as his scoring when he came back was pretty impressive TSTL.

I can't play Alderman, so I am going to take my bat and go home, and leave it to some poor novice to be thrown to the wolfs

Gutless is the word that comes to mind

 

[Richard]

At least the novices weren't going to be anywhere near as good as he ended-up being with the improvements he made.

As I say, in a summer like 1989, resistence is simply futile. By the time the Fifth and Sixth Tests rolled around, I don't blame anyone in the England side (who wasn't a youngster) if they'd thrown in the towel and were simply going through the motions until the wretched thing ended.

There's only so many punches you can take before everything becomes devoid of all meaning.

 

[aussie]

The fact that their bowling arts, as you put it, were a dying breed would make them more of a threat, no?.

Hmm, well i must admit i never reasoned it that way TBH. Your right i'd say such an unknown world-class commodotiy to post-war batsman would make them a threat.

But only in early season English conditions though. So thats why i say no need to pick Barnes and Bedser on a "horses for courses" basis when you got the likes of Snow & Statham who would be more versatilie in all conditions plus bowl MUCH faster.

Certainly Bedser would have figured in my post war XI (he carried the English attack for a good few years) but for the fact that I see Botham as a somewhat similiar bowler, that is medium fast and swing, means that I want my two opening bowlers, Trueman and Snow, as out and out quicks. You seriously underestimate Bedser, and you most certainly underestimate S F Barnes.

Definately not, as i said above don't think they are must picks in an all-time XI bowling attack given there likely effectiveness towards All-time great batting-lineups is only definite in one condition. (Probably traditional NZ conditions, Brisbane on day 1 or some SA conditions as well but its too limited).

 

[aussie]

Stewart may have been test match standard, but he was not all-time (post war XI) standard.



Not sure what you mean by all this. Since neither you or I were selectors, lets stick to what we know happened in the 90s and leave out the ifs, buts, and maybes.

Which leads me to:



Again, we dont know that. What we do know, is that Stewarts overall record as a keeper batsman is only marginally better than Knotts. When Stewart was a set keeper bat and not having to shuffle back and forth (as you and Richard keep saying) from 2000 - 2003 (not 1997 - 2003) he averaged 36, again hardly outstanding, and 31 away from home. This compares well with Knott at an average of close to 33, and 42 away from home, and then you factor in Knott's far superior skills with the glove.

I really dont see what is so hard about this, but I suspect an impasse has been reached.



I have already said that I select my all-time sides with the condition that the players are at their best/in their prime. Botham at his best certainly was good enough to bat at 6, although I have selected him at 7 because I wanted 6 top batsmen, and Botham is good enough to be selected as a bowler too (see my comments re Bedser above). Again simply no need to harp on and on about Stewarts batting ability and supposed virtues with the gloves. He simply was not as good as you and Richard make him out to be, but as I said, I think an impasse has been reached, so I shall leave it at that.

I see your point. But i shall attempt tp clear up my position on Stewart vs Knott & Botham batting position in England's All-time XI.

Firstly this is what i believe England's All-time XI should look like:

Hutton*
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
Stewart
Botham
Rhodes
Trueman
Snow
Statham

Stewart: I don't think its unfare to presume or say that if Stewart had the gloves throughout his career he could have avergaed 40+ as a batsman. In my time of watching cricket & Stewart's career to be specific (AUS 97 TO AUS 03). He combined both facets very well can't see how this is a issue.

Botham: You said I select my all-time sides with the condition that the players are at their best/in their prime. Botham at his best certainly was good enough to bat at 6,

I agree, but with Botham at his short but brilliant peak as a batsman he failed againts the West Indies the only attack of his career that could compare with the potential All-time attacks from all the nations he would face if we where to imagine/simulate matches. So having him higher than 7 is a big NO NO for me.

So you got a situation where:

- Botham bats no higher than 7
- Your top 5 of Hutton, Hobbs, May, Hammond, Compton is set.
- Rhodes as your spin bowling all-rounder (given the lower order much needed strenght)
- Your 3 paceman.

You got to pick Stewart @ 6, if Botham had the solid to 6 batting ability at his peak like a Miller, Sobers, Imran or even SA Rice & Procter i would have no problem picking Knott.

But having Botham 6, Knott 7 makes England's lower-middle order weak compared to other All-time XI's. (Of course two of them for England right now at their peaks would be fantastic).

 

[Goughy]

Stewart: I don't think its unfare to presume or say that if Stewart had the gloves throughout his career he could have avergaed 40+ as a batsman. In my time of watching cricket & Stewart's career to be specific (AUS 97 TO AUS 03). He combined both facets very well can't see how this is a issue.

I think it is fair to assume he wouldnt based on 2 factors a) He didnt do it during the long periods he kept b) He would average lower as batting as a keeper would put him down the order away from the seamers and hard ball that he thrived upon and with him coming into bat often against spinners and the soft ball.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Stewart would average 40+ whilst keeping and batting in the middle order and a massive weight of evidence to suggest he wouldnt.

To think Stewart to score the same keeping and batting middle order as he could when he was not keeping and batting in the top order shows little understanding of him as a player.

 

[fredfertang]

I can't play Alderman, so I am going to take my bat and go home, and leave it to some poor novice to be thrown to the wolfs

Gutless is the word that comes to mind

“…one doesn’t refuse to play for England…”

Cyril Washbrook - 1956

 

[archie mac]

“…one doesn’t refuse to play for England…”

Cyril Washbrook - 1956

Good ol Cyril, I have his bio here, but am yet to read it

 

[fredfertang]

Apparently Cyril may have been lost to cricket had he passed an art exam that would have got him into Birmingham University to study brewing of all things – were it not for the fact that Brian Bearshaw were the source of that little gem I, personally, wouldn’t believe it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Stewart: I don't think its unfare to presume or say that if Stewart had the gloves throughout his career he could have avergaed 40+ as a batsman. In my time of watching cricket & Stewart's career to be specific (AUS 97 TO AUS 03). He combined both facets very well can't see how this is a issue.

If you're select all-time XI's based on spurious illogical presumptions you might as well select Ghandi to open the batting for India on the presumption that he could turn his hand to anything and would have been a great cricketer if he'd chosen that path instead.

 

[Matt79]

At least the novices weren't going to be anywhere near as good as he ended-up being with the improvements he made.

As I say, in a summer like 1989, resistence is simply futile. By the time the Fifth and Sixth Tests rolled around, I don't blame anyone in the England side (who wasn't a youngster) if they'd thrown in the towel and were simply going through the motions until the wretched thing ended.

There's only so many punches you can take before everything becomes devoid of all meaning.

I thought you were Welsh, not French.

Think of it as a test of character.

 

[Richard]

Personally I don't see continuing to try in the face of a lost cause which you know BEYOND QUESTION is lost as a particularly useful character trait myself TBH.

You lose if you try; you lose if you don't. Simple as. So which route you take makes no difference.

You might as well try something to make things better in future. Gooch did that, and he succeeded, averaging 61 for the next 4 years.

 

[Richard]

“…one doesn’t refuse to play for England…”

Cyril Washbrook - 1956

That's the trouble. Too often the thought of another cap is too enticing to resist.

Ideally, you'd prefer a situation where a player accepted the call only if he thought it was best for the team (and, by deduction, himself). The trouble with this, of course, is that the selectors are in charge so therefore they don't take kindly to someone saying to them "we think you've got it wrong", and thus they're likely to treat you with less preference from there on in should you do that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

ESPN Classic in the UK have just started re-showing highlights of the 1989 Ashes Series. They've recently been showing 1997 and 1993 and part of 1977.

 

[Richard]

Having only ever seen relatively brief assorted odds-and-sodds, I'm not sure whether it'd be too depressing to watch some proper highlights or whether it'd be nice to know that things could surely never be quite that bad again.

 

[fredfertang]

Personally I don't see continuing to try in the face of a lost cause which you know BEYOND QUESTION is lost as a particularly useful character trait myself TBH.

You lose if you try; you lose if you don't. Simple as. So which route you take makes no difference.

You might as well try something to make things better in future. Gooch did that, and he succeeded, averaging 61 for the next 4 years.

Have you thought that one through Richard? 1st Test England v New Zealand 1973 and the 4th Test England v India in 1979 are two very obvious examples of chasing a lost cause and coming out of it with enormous credit - that sort of outcome is one of the beauties of the game and something you simply don't get in other team sports

 

[BoyBrumby]

Jesus, Richard's not a bloke you'd want in the trenches with you, is he? If Churchill offered him blood, sweat, toil & tears he'd have doubtless reached for the German phrasebook.

No bigger sin than not being arsed as a sportsman IMHO. Especially when playing for one's country.

 

[wpdavid]

“…one doesn’t refuse to play for England…”

Cyril Washbrook - 1956

Of course, 1989 wasn't the first time Gooch had preferred not to play for his country. Remember him dropping out of the 1986/7 Ashes?

 

[Richard]

Have you thought that one through Richard? 1st Test England v New Zealand 1973 and the 4th Test England v India in 1979 are two very obvious examples of chasing a lost cause and coming out of it with enormous credit - that sort of outcome is one of the beauties of the game and something you simply don't get in other team sports

They weren't lost causes, at all. They were merely extreme unlikelies.

England had already lost midway through in 1989, they'd already lost half their team, they'd already lost pretty well all dignity. There was nothing left to salvage. The best thing was to just get it out of the way and look to the future.

 

[Richard]

Of course, 1989 wasn't the first time Gooch had preferred not to play for his country. Remember him dropping out of the 1986/7 Ashes?

Only a couple of decades earlier, opting-out of subcontinental tours was standard fare.

It's quite incredible that in this day-and-age, when the schedule is so inestimably tougher than in the 1950s and 1960s, dropping-out of a certain tour is inestimably more heavily frowned upon.