richie benaud's greatest 11

[SJS]

Dear C_C,

I eagerly await your information on the sources (totally unimpeachable no doubt), that you said you could quote on the good doctor being the 'inventor' of the modern day stance, cover drive, backfoot drive, pull etc etc.

By the way, you may have noticed that already three web members have commented on the definition of the flipper. Two have given varying definitions and a third has disagreed ! You will no doubt agree that with such a vast difference in understanding what a flipper is, its not surprising that there are more than one 'claimants' of the knowledge of who invented the flipper. Unfortunately, I am not one of those, so I am very keen to know your source of
'There are numerous accoutns that categorically state that Grimmett was the first to bowl the flipper..

I doubt if the term flipper existed when Grimmett played his cricket so it is all the more interesting to know who says he invented this 'flipper' you talk of and what that delivery was called then or at least a description of it, dont you think ?

You have also mentioned in an earlier post...
I forget which one, but one of the googly or flipper was invented by Clarrie Grimmett
Here is a very intersting reference (one of many) to the 'invention' of the googly by a very well known leg break googly bowler.

Now what is a googly ? you may ask. A googly is an off-break with a leg-break action.

The English bowler Bosanquet was one of the first to exploit this kind of delivery. During the visit of the 1903-04 English team to Australia he caused no end of trouble to Australia's leading batsmen with this off-breaking leg-break. ....

The googly is also named after Bosanquet and is often called the "Bosey"

Guess who wrote this. A great Australian leg spinner called Clarrie Grimmett in his delightful little book, Tricking the Batsman (Hodder & Stoughton, London 1934). Not surprisingly, nowhere in this detailed coaching book is there any mention of the term flipper nor (through modesty you may claim) any mention of a new delivery which the author claims to have discovered , invented that may later have become the modern day flipper.

Thats why my keen ness to learn of your sources of the ball that Grimmett 'invented'.

Regards

PS. Just an aside, this book was published in 1934 and Grimmett retired in 1936. Doubtful if he invented it as he contemplated his retirement. But you never know. The South Africans, who are the only test side he played in 1935-36, might know !!

Dear C_C

A wait with baited breath.

 

[Richard]

Still no luck, though.
Predictable, really, isn't it?

 

[SJS]

Still no luck, though.
Predictable, really, isn't it?

Absolutely.

People just come and throw figures and 'quotes' in the air assuming every one to be an idiot. Normally I stay away but when it is so blatant, I feel someone should call their bluff

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Absolutely.

People just come and throw figures and 'quotes' in the air assuming every one to be an idiot. Normally I stay away but when it is so blatant, I feel someone should call their bluff

I feel your pain. I never got a response to my query in the "greatest test side" thread about how exactly his "greatest test side" contained both Andy Roberts and Richie Richardson, who never actually played a test match together. Maybe one day.

 

[SJS]

The other day I was thinking, why wouldnt a complete all rounders XI be the greatest team of all time. I made a very spesial team with ten allrounders plus keeper who had all batted at the positions they were put in OR higher and done well. Then as a concession I put in the Don and I want to know why this shouldnt be considered the greatest possible test side.

1. Vinoo Mankad
2. Trevor Goddard
3. Don Bradman
4. Gary Sobers
5. Walcott
6. Monty Noble
7. Miller
8. Botham
9. Imran Khan
10. Richie Benaud
11. Richard Hadlee

Four right arm pacers,
one left arm fast medium,
one left arm everything bowler,
one left arm orthodox spinner,
one leg break bowler,
one off break bowler

A wicket keeper who averages in the high fifties with the bat, 109 centuries
and 2348 test wickets at about 25-26 runs each between them.

Wouldnt this side beat anyside with ten specialists and one all rounder ??

Maybe, to satisfy a few doubters, some may want to replace Goddard with a pure specialist opener, maybe..

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The other day I was thinking, why wouldnt a complete all rounders XI be the greatest team of all time. I made a very spesial team with ten allrounders plus keeper who had all batted at the positions they were put in OR higher and done well. Then as a concession I put in the Don and I want to know why this shouldnt be considered the greatest possible test side.

1. Vinoo Mankad
2. Trevor Goddard
3. Don Bradman
4. Gary Sobers
5. Walcott
6. Monty Noble
7. Miller
8. Botham
9. Imran Khan
10. Richie Benaud
11. Richard Hadlee

Four right arm pacers,
one left arm fast medium,
one left arm everything bowler,
one left arm orthodox spinner,
one leg break bowler,
one off break bowler

A wicket keeper who averages in the high fifties with the bat, 109 centuries
and 2348 test wickets at about 25-26 runs each between them.

Wouldnt this side beat anyside with ten specialists and one all rounder ??

Maybe, to satisfy a few doubters, some may want to replace Goddard with a pure specialist opener, maybe..

Well one argument you could start with is that the bowling ability of a significant amount of the team would be wasted. The chances of 9 bowlers being needed to take 20 wickets in a match is slim, particularly when you can choose from any bowler in history for your strike power. I'd back a bowling lineup like Khan, Lillee, Barnes, Warne and Sobers to take 20 wickets in a match in just about any situation, and there's no need for 3 or 4 more bowlers. Basically, adding these extra bowlers reduces strength in the batting, and I think dismissing Richie Benaud's side for a minimal score (or any number of other all-time XIs) would be a fair bit more difficult than this team of all-rounders, however good most of them may be as batsmen in their own right.

 

[SJS]

Well one argument you could start with is that the bowling ability of a significant amount of the team would be wasted. The chances of 9 bowlers being needed to take 20 wickets in a match is slim, particularly when you can choose from any bowler in history for your strike power. I'd back a bowling lineup like Khan, Lillee, Barnes, Warne and Sobers to take 20 wickets in a match in just about any situation, and there's no need for 3 or 4 more bowlers. Basically, adding these extra bowlers reduces strength in the batting, and I think dismissing Richie Benaud's side for a minimal score (or any number of other all-time XIs) would be a fair bit more difficult than this team of all-rounders, however good most of them may be as batsmen in their own right.

Sure.

Actually what I started with was an idea of which way test cricket should move. I felt that every one , bowlers included should contribute with the bat since they HAVE to bat. So if instead of pure bowlers, we had really good bowlers who could also bat, the team could perhaps score faster in all situations since there would be no tail. It really got dragged on from there.

If I had stuck to that I would have got something like..
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Hammond
Sobers
Miller
Benaud
Walcott
Mankad
Imran
Hadlee.

This team has three pace bowlers, two spinners plus Sobers which is good enough as you rightly say. And Hammond bowled very competent medium pace.

I think cricket needs its bowlers to bat better and for everyone to field well. All ten fielders in this team were brilliant in different positions in the field.
Hadlee

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sure.

Actually what I started with was an idea of which way test cricket should move. I felt that every one , bowlers included should contribute with the bat since they HAVE to bat. So if instead of pure bowlers, we had really good bowlers who could also bat, the team could perhaps score faster in all situations since there would be no tail. It really got dragged on from there.

If I had stuck to that I would have got something like..
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Hammond
Sobers
Miller
Benaud
Walcott
Mankad
Imran
Hadlee.

This team has three pace bowlers, two spinners plus Sobers which is good enough as you rightly say. And Hammond bowled very competent medium pace.

I think cricket needs its bowlers to bat better and for everyone to field well. All ten fielders in this team were brilliant in different positions in the field.
Hadlee

That is a much more balanced side that is harder to disagree with. Any changes would simply be a matter of opinion between one player and another, although I do think a batsman of Imran Khan's quality would feel a bit unhappy batting at number 10!

 

[Neil Pickup]

You'd consider bouncing less than anticipated "flipping"?
I've always considered to "flip" to be to bounce more than expected.

Just noticed this discussion. Spent some time over Xmas trying to get my head further around the hand/wrist biomechanics of spin, and I settled on the fact that a top spinner rotated forwards, then when it hit the pitch its revolutions accelerated - causing it to bounce higher, and the reverse applied for a flipper (backwards rotation, slows off the pitch, lower bounce).

Couldn't for the life of me work out how to bowl one...

 

[Richard]

How anyone can bowl a back-spinner is amazing enough.

 

[Krishna_j]

I cannot imagine any all-round side in the world without the mercurial springbok Mike Procter

I remember even past his prime Procter devastating a strong Indian batting side in '79 in England with 7-13 with his pace and swing

 

[steds]

Poor quality spadework, imo.

 

[StumpMic]

Ok too lazy to read the whole thread. All I know is that benaud has an anti-sri lankan bias. Why do I say that? Well I believe it was EA Cricket 1997 in which benaud said something to the effect that Sri Lanka only won the world cup in 96 because of their political troubles scaring off the Aussies and Windies. Far as I am concerned Murali is the best because he has a better average and because he is fun to watch. I can barely see the ball spinning with Warne but with Murali its so clear. The variations, the odd straight one, he is definitely more exciting to watch.

 

[nightprowler10]

Ok too lazy to read the whole thread. All I know is that benaud has an anti-sri lankan bias. Why do I say that? Well I believe it was EA Cricket 1997 in which benaud said something to the effect that Sri Lanka only won the world cup in 96 because of their political troubles scaring off the Aussies and Windies.

I believe he said the same thing in EA's Cricket World Cup 99. He also said something of that effect about Pakistan's World Cup victory.

But that doesn't really make him anti-SL or anti-Pakistani. Those are just his views.

 

[someblokedave]

How anyone can bowl a back-spinner is amazing enough.

Easy either using the Flipper technique YouTube - Flipper Variation Bog Standard or the slider technique which is nigh on impossible YouTube - Wrist spin - round the loop - slider & big Leg Break practice technique

 

[Migara]

How anyone can bowl a back-spinner is amazing enough.

It's not at all difficult. That was my slider during playing days. Pitches and innocuously heads towards stumps without breaking if bowled perfectly, or stop on the pitch break appreciably if rotated with an angle.

 

[kingkallis]

It is his Eleven and therefore his choice really.. He obviously has a love for leg spin having bowled it himself and therefore he is entitled to pick Warne

Exactly, its his XI and he can even have Ashley Giles as world's best lefty spinner!

 

[Ikki]

It's not even much to argue over. Whilst people argue either way with Warne and Murali as far as spinners go; as a whole cricketer Warne brings more to the plate than Murali. With his batting, slip fielding and great knowledge of the game; Warne's quite an easy choice TBF.

 

[Himannv]

Marshall seems a slightly more glaring omission IMO..

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Great team chosen by Benaud.Re Warne vs Murali : Murali's fielding is underrated.Pity there are no stats that show direct hits et all.Warne is a better bat but in a batting side that reads Gavaskar,Hobbs,Bradman,Viv,Tendu,Sobers,Imran,Gilchrist;I very much doubt that Warne's extra batting would make a diff.