The stats do not do him justice!

[Ikki]

This explains it:

YouTube - History of the Ashes

 

[MrIncredible]

Well he couldnt have because West Indies played just taht many Tests. He wasnt dropped or missed out a single Test match in the perod between his debut and the breakout of WW II. After the war he was a shadow of himself and would have been better of not playing the handful of Tests that he did. :-)

But the war was a great tragedy for him and so it was for many others.

I have focussed on those who were available, Tests were being played and yet didn't.

O ok. Charlie Davis of the West Indies then

 

[SJS]

O ok. Charlie Davis of the West Indies then

Yeah Davis is a good one. I would have included him if I was doing a list for West Indies for sure.

 

[zaremba]

Thought SJS was referring to Jack Russell the wicketkeeper for a second, and thought he'd lost his marbles.

Another fascinating read.

Mind you there's also a strong case for Jack Russell (keeper) playing more Tests than he did.

 

[The Sean]

Mind you there's also a strong case for Jack Russell (keeper) playing more Tests than he did.

Absolutely, fell victim to the "keepers must be good batsmen" philosophy that was becoming more and more prevalent when he came onto the scene.

Steve Waugh rates him, as a gloveman, the equal of Ian Healy.

 

[zaremba]

Absolutely, fell victim to the "keepers must be good batsmen" philosophy that was becoming more and more prevalent when he came onto the scene.

Steve Waugh rates him, as a gloveman, the equal of Ian Healy.

As a non-expert in wicketkeeping matters, I always felt that Russell was pretty much the best keeper in the world during his career, Healy included.

Stumped Dean Jones off the bowling of Gladstone Small in 1990/1 iirc

 

[The Sean]

As a non-expert in wicketkeeping matters, I always felt that Russell was pretty much the best keeper in the world during his career, Healy included.

Stumped Dean Jones off the bowling of Gladstone Small in 1990/1 iirc

I remember watching that live on TV and taking a few moments to pick my jaw up off the floor, it was a stunning piece of work.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It's enough, and no they aren't generalizations, they're opinions.

The funny thing is that you can take Tendulkar's Test and ODI averages and add them together and Tendulkar still doesn't have a higher International average then Bradman.

 

[Manee]

Haha, yes I know. He's done a complete about turn from a lot of his points that I remember arguing with him about on PC. Not necessarily a bad thing.

It is, when you have an overly dogmatic view of affairs.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It is, when you have an overly dogmatic view of affairs.

Hey Manee, hows it going?

 

[Furball]

Mind you there's also a strong case for Jack Russell (keeper) playing more Tests than he did.

It was talking about him being "the obvious choice for the opener's slot" that initially threw me.

 

[MrIncredible]

Yeah Davis is a good one. I would have included him if I was doing a list for West Indies for sure.

u probably would know better than i would but do u have ne explanation y he played so few tests even after averaging a good 54 over a handful of tests??

 

[zaremba]

Yeah Davis is a good one. I would have included him if I was doing a list for West Indies for sure.

For the Windies, Tony Gray and shedloads of other quicks from the 80s.

 

[MrIncredible]

Yep: Sylvester Clarke, Ezra Mosely, Stephenson, Wayne Daniel, Colin Croft, Roy Gilchrist (yes i know he was a dirty SOB), Reon King (compared to what they have now they could have persisted).

 

[zaremba]

Yeah. Although in fairness most of those were self-imposed absentees having taken part in unofficial tours of Apartheid-era South Africa.

 

[MrIncredible]

True could have seen a few of them slotting in for Roberts after he retired (instead of Walsh who wasnt too shabby).

 

[Richard]

u probably would know better than i would but do u have ne explanation y he played so few tests even after averaging a good 54 over a handful of tests??

The way I understand it there is no explanation. From memory he averaged 66 between coming into the side in '69 and the '72 spring. Then for no apparent reason Maurice Foster was preferred (Kanhai and, initially, Lloyd were already absent from the side) was preferred in 1973.

Heard someone once say that Foster was preferred because he was black and Davis was white.

 

[Richard]

Mind you there's also a strong case for Jack Russell (keeper) playing more Tests than he did.

Absolutely, fell victim to the "keepers must be good batsmen" philosophy that was becoming more and more prevalent when he came onto the scene.

Steve Waugh rates him, as a gloveman, the equal of Ian Healy.

As a non-expert in wicketkeeping matters, I always felt that Russell was pretty much the best keeper in the world during his career, Healy included.

Stumped Dean Jones off the bowling of Gladstone Small in 1990/1 iirc

Personally I've always thought Russell should've played less Test cricket than he did. As an all-round package, he was markedly inferior to Alec Stewart from 1993 onwards and none of he, Rhodes, Hegg or Read should ever have kept wicket when Stewart was available.

Yes, Russell was a very good wicketkeeper standing up and a useful lower-order batsman but Stewart ended-up a better wicketkeeper standing back and was a massively superior batsman.

Always thought that had Gooch decided to go to West Indies in 1994 then Russell's Test career might've finished in 1992.

 

[zaremba]

Personally I've always thought Russell should've played less Test cricket than he did. As an all-round package, he was markedly inferior to Alec Stewart from 1993 onwards and none of he, Rhodes, Hegg or Read should ever have kept wicket when Stewart was available.

Yes, Russell was a very good wicketkeeper standing up and a useful lower-order batsman but Stewart ended-up a better wicketkeeper standing back and was a massively superior batsman.

Always thought that had Gooch decided to go to West Indies in 1994 then Russell's Test career might've finished in 1992.

Well this particular debate raged through the 1990s. Even before Russell made his debut in 1988, there was this debate. Then he scored (iirc) 94 on debut and his place was secure until the emergence of Alec Stewart as a serious rival for the gloves in the early 90s.

As for which of the two was the better keeper, I just don't accept that Stewart was Russell's equal in any aspect of his game but I do have to admit once again that I'm no expert in wicketkeeping technique.

When assessing which should have been picked, you need to bear in mind that Stewart's batting record was outstanding as a specialist batsman, but diminished significantly as a keeper/batsman. So by dropping Russell you found yourself with one of your best batsman's batting impaired, and with a weaker wicketkeeper. Two ways in which the team was quite seriously undermined. On the other hand, it did free up space for another specialist batsman or bowler.

As you point out Russell was no mug with the bat. His career average of (?) 27 was perfectly respectable, and comparable with Boucher's 30 in a more batsman-friendly era. He could score runs in tricky situations and annoyed the hell out of the opposition.

 

[morgieb]

I reckon that the reason why England dropped Russell was because they wanted an extra bowler and he was the easiest to drop. That said, you could've dropped a specialist batsman, not your keeper.