The Best at their Best

[subshakerz]

Showcasing the best performances (spell or innings) from the greatest cricketers in test cricket. Pick a cricketer and mention his no.1 performance that exemplifies all his skills. In the case of cricketers like Tendulkar or Warne who have many to choose from, mention why this performance stands above all others.

To begin with, I am going with Malcolm Marshall. I am choosing his 5-29 in Sydney in 1988.On a true spinner's paradise in which Border got 11 wickets, he bowled 31 overs of precise cutters and was the only pacer to make any impact. A masterpiece. The only close competitor would be his 7/53 against England with his hand in a cast in 1984, but those were far more helpful conditions and West Indies were already on top.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...th-test-west-indies-tour-of-australia-1988-89

 

[Line and Length]

There will always be attempts to play down, even denigrate, Jim Laker's performance in the 4th Test at Old Trafford in 1956. Claims that the pitch was "doctored" or "cooked" abound but to put Laker's performance into context one needs to consider the performances of other spinners playing in that game. Admittedly England had the advantage of batting first on a wicket that deteriorated as the game progressed making 459 with Peter Richardson and Rev, David Sheppard making centuries. Australia had a couple of handy spinners in Ian Johnson and Richie Benaud.Both bowled 47 overs for 4-151 and 2-123 respectively. When it came to Australia's turn to bat, the openers, Colin McDonald (32) and Jim Burke (22), put on 48 before the wickets began to tumble and Australia were dismissed for 84 with Laker taking 9 for 37. His spin partner, Tony Lock took the other wicket (Burke) to fall. Australia performed better in their second dig. Once again McDonald (89) and Burke (33) provided a solid start while young Ian Craig made 38. However, of the remainder only Benaud (18) made double figures. Australia were all out for 205 with Laker taking 10 for 53. In all he sent down 68 overs he took 19 for 90 while fellow spinner Lock bowled one more over for figures of 1 for 106. Among Laker's victims were luminaries such as Neil Harvey, who made a 'pair' and Keith Miller, out for 6 and 0. Putting Laker's performance into perspective, we should consider that spinners Johnson, Benaud and Lock bowled a total of 163 overs in taking 7 for 380 on an allegedly "cooked" pitch.
At the end of the series, in which Laker took 46 wickets at an average of 9.60, Ian Johnson said, "When the controversy and the side issues are forgotten, Laker's wonderful bowling will remain."

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Maybe so, but I remembered a cricinfo article:

On the eve of the match the newspapers were predicting a "true and lasting" pitch suited to fast bowling. England's selectors were unsure who to leave out, but in the end Fred Trueman was omitted, partially because of doubts about the weather and also because Australia had been all at sea against spin in the previous Test at Headingley where England had won by an innings and Laker and Tony Lock had taken 18 wickets between them. Despite this, the general feeling was that the game would be a draw - no Ashes Test at Old Trafford had produced a result since 1905.

However, Australian suspicions that the pitch had been prepared for the England spinners were confirmed years later when Bert Flack, the Manchester groundsman, said on the day before the start he had been instructed by Gubby Allen, the chairman of England's selectors, to shave the pitch. "That's stupid," Flack replied. "The match won't last three days. The surface is not that well knit." After pondering for a few minutes, Flack did as he had been ordered and immediately covered the pitch to prevent the press from seeing what he had done.

England ended the first day on 307 for 3, with Peter Richardson, who opened with Colin Cowdrey, scoring his maiden Test hundred. But he too was surprised at what greeted him when he walked out to bat. "[The pitch] looked totally different to how it looked the night before," he said. 'When we arrived it looked lush green, perfect for seamers. Next morning, it had been shaved right down. It looked cooked. I don't know if it was deliberately done but it certainly helped our chances of winning. It's still being discussed by the old fuddy-duddies but none of us knew what really happened with it."

Loads of things are a both/and proposition. For example, no-one disputed that Australia batted crummily regardless of the pitch (though the last 8 wickets were taken on a drying pitch after rain).

As for the other bowlers, the opinions of the article (including cricket's Mr Opinion of the 50s):

In his wake trailed a bewildered Lock. He had bowled one over more than Laker and finished with match figures of 1 for 106. The consensus was that he had bowled too fast. "He lacked the power or the patience," noted John Arlott.

Trevor Bailey was to the point. "I don't think they had a price from the word go," he said. "We played on a beach and it became muddy as well because the rain came down. We were well equipped for a beach because we had two great spin bowlers. They had two reasonable spinners but certainly not bowlers who were likely to be really difficult on this type of wicket."

Not all spin bowlers are equal, as we've seen in India and Sri Lanka whether or not they were doctoring their pitches (Certainly, S.Africa couldn't have had too many complains the last time they toured). Johnson only took five wickets in a match 4 times in 45 tests, and Benaud was playing in his 22nd test at that point and had taken five in a match only twice: in his next 41 tests he would do so 22 times (I think he spent a long part of his early career 'finding' his bowling, being somewhat more preferred for batting). So Laker was the only one to exploit the conditions and to amazing effect, but that doesn't mean other aspects are beyond consideration.

Johnson was also known for his diplomacy, part of the reason he was chosen as captain of Australia. In a Jack Fingleton book, he unintentionally comes off as kind of an idiot with regards to the chucking controversy (although he anticipated the 'everyone does it' brigade by about forty years) but his approach fitted in with his character.

Unfortunately, this is the only copy I could find of the picture of the pitch being swept before Australia's 1st innings:

However, Pathe have footage that although showing none of the wickets, does show part of Australia's 2nd inns in a resolution high enough to actually see the ball (although their cameraman could have done with a few tips on appropriate use of the zoom):

This being Pathe, they only show two of the ten wickets in their finished newsreel.

 

[Starfighter]

In a Jack Fingleton book, he unintentionally comes off as kind of an idiot with regards to the chucking controversy (although he anticipated the 'everyone does it' brigade by about forty years)

Now this I want more details of.

 

[honestbharani]

The best thread in recent days.. Keep them coming. I will see if I can find some good stuff on Lara's 153 but I think it is too recent and too easily accessible to be here. Thoughts?

 

[subshakerz]

The best thread in recent days.. Keep them coming. I will see if I can find some good stuff on Lara's 153 but I think it is too recent and too easily accessible to be here. Thoughts?

One thing I find interesting about Lara's 153 is that it completely overshadowed his 213 in the previous test which Lara himself thought was his best innings. That 213 should at least be mentioned in the top two dozen test innings ever but doesnt. He was arguably under even greater pressure then.

 

[Line and Length]

Hi NotMcKenzie

Thanks for a detailed response. However, the same comments are raised to belittle Laker's performance. The pitch was doctored (name me a country that hasn't prepared a pitch to suit their attack). The other spinners were inferior on the day - Lock bowled too fast and lacked patience, Johnson wasn't in the same class and Benaud was relatively inexperienced at the time. This isn't in dispute and winning the toss and the rain interruption, with water leaking under the covers, were also factors.

Regardless of all this, Laker was at his peak in 1956. He took all 10 wickets in an Australian innings while playing for Surrey at The Oval. In the series he took 46 wickets at an average of 9.60 and, if we disregard the Old Trafford test, he still took 27 wickets at 13.03

The thread is called "The Best at Their Best". Was Laker one of the best? Don Bradman ranked Laker 'with the greatest bowlers who ever handled a ball' and 1956 definitely saw him at his best.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think you're both right. It was an exceptional performance despite conditions, but it was likely greatly helped by a doctored wicket. It doesn't mean that it should be discounted though.

 

[stephen]

Thing is, if you prepared the easiest road ever to have roaded, I'd still be lucky to make ten runs. If you prepared the spiciest wicket that was popping and moving about like crazy, I probably still couldn't get out Shaun Marsh. Favourable conditions are just that - favourable. You still need the talent to exploit them.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

And that is exactly what I said; however the tone of the original post is calculated to say, 'anyone who brings up conditions are whingers,' or some such, or that any attempt to bring them up are either alledging conspiracy or churlish distractions.

For example, regardless of Verity's excellence as a bowler, one should mention that he was helped by a damp pitch when he took 15 wickets at Lord's in 1934.

At least we have some good footage of this bowling performance, courtesy of Movietone who unlike Pathe, at least show us some of the wickets:

7/36 in the 1st inns and 8/8 in the second.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If the part about the pitch doctoring after Day 1 is true, though, that's about as close to cheating as you can get tbh.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

No, I think the pitch was prepared at the start, and broke up quite extensively as the match progressed because it could not hold together. If you are referring to Richardson's comments, he is referring to the night before the match and the first day (he was an opener)

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ah that was my misunderstanding.

 

[Line and Length]

And that is exactly what I said; however the tone of the original post is calculated to say, 'anyone who brings up conditions are whingers,' or some such, or that any attempt to bring them up are either alledging conspiracy or churlish distractions.

It wasn't my intention to brand those who brought up conditions as "whingers". However, too often certain critics have been dismissive of Laker's figures simply because of the pitch preparation and weather conditions. Of course it is only natural to bring up conditions when discussing any great performance. My intent was to put the performance into context and perspective. Regardless of Old Trafford, Laker's performances in 1956 were outstanding.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Then one needn't say,

Claim's that the pitch was "doctored" or "cooked" abound but to put Laker's performance into context one needs to consider the performances of other spinners playing in that game.

or, more to the point.

an allegedly "cooked" pitch

if one merely want to note a person's superlative performances solely. For someone to take all wickets possible but one is something that would be very hard to top to put it lightly, particularly as it is not possible to have an equivalent of monopolising the strike when bowling.

However, ignoring the pitch and conditions prevailing that season or pointing to other bowlers to say that Laker couldn't possibly have received some help from such is doing exactly what you said you weren't doing. Stripping out information is not putting things into perspective.

 

[Line and Length]

However, ignoring the pitch and conditions prevailing that season or pointing to other bowlers to say that Laker couldn't possibly have received some help from such is doing exactly what you said you weren't doing. Stripping out information is not putting things into perspective.

Nowhere have I said that Laker didn't receive help from the pitch. Comparing his performance with other spinners operating in the same game and, in the case of Lock, in the same conditions, isn't "stripping out information" but, despite what you say, is putting things into perspective. Attempts to downgrade the credentials of Johnson, Benaud and Lock, as you have done, is simply an effort to detract from Laker's performance.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It wasn't my intention to brand those who brought up conditions as "whingers". However, too often certain critics have been dismissive of Laker's figures simply because of the pitch preparation and weather conditions. Of course it is only natural to bring up conditions when discussing any great performance. My intent was to put the performance into context and perspective. Regardless of Old Trafford, Laker's performances in 1956 were outstanding.

Also it's not like there haven't been pitches like that literally hundreds of times (probably). All the Indian/Sri Lankan/Bangladesh dustbowls over the last few decades, often made even worse when teams tour from outside Asia, and no one has ever taken 19 wickets in a match. They're remarkable figures regardless

 

[stephen]

What's especially remarkable is that there have been so few 10 wicket hauls in history. To get a 10 wicket and a 9 wicket haul in the same match is ridiculous.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Nowhere have I said that Laker didn't receive help from the pitch. Comparing his performance with other spinners operating in the same game and, in the case of Lock, in the same conditions, isn't "stripping out information" but, despite what you say, is putting things into perspective. Attempts to downgrade the credentials of Johnson, Benaud and Lock, as you have done, is simply an effort to detract from Laker's performance.

Nonsense. Johnson's record indicates that he was a steady, unspectacular bowler and I have read that he had lost penetrativeness by 1956, and Benaud had yet to perform as he would later. And furthermore, as others stated, neither was as suited to the conditions presented: Johnson bowled at an extremely slow pace which would probably handicap any ability to get dangerous turn and bounce, and I believe from his accounts of how long it took to work on his bowling that Benaud was still refining his technique at the time, and the 50s was the era when legspinners stopped prospering in England and began struggling instead. A more detailed analysis of bowlers' careers and performances helps to provide context: players are allowed to perform differently over their career. Laker averaged 52 against the Australians in 1948: that doesn't mean he was a hack who got lucky but rather a young bowler against an unusually strong batting side (and he also did well in the 58/59 Ashes); to say that I was implying that of Benaud, Johnson and Lock is to evade any attempt at meaningful analysis. Lock's failure seems to have been of his own doing, which could compound whatever factors also caused Lillee to only take 4 wickets at Lord's in 1972 to Massie's 16.

Laker was the only one with the skill, technique and temperament to be able to exploit already helpful conditions. Just simply comparing match figures does not tell the whole story, there's many factors that go in to which things turn out how they did, including luck.

Furthermore, statements such as:

an allegedly "cooked" pitch

when we know the pitch was doctored by ignoring the curator's advice are attempts to downplay conditions. One is allowed to at least mention these things even though they don't fully explain it; things do not have to be shiningly perfect even if they are unlikely to be replicated in our lifetime or beyond.

What's especially remarkable is that there have been so few 10 wicket hauls in history. To get a 10 wicket and a 9 wicket haul in the same match is ridiculous.

Indeed. Wikiland lists 74 players who have done it at first class level—which I suspect is a small proportion (does anyone know how many first-class players there have been), and Kumble is the only other to do so in tests. To do so twice (he did in a a tour match as well) and also take nine-for (following on from 5/58 and 6/51 in the previous test, too) is a run of form that will be unparalleled.

 

[Line and Length]

"Kumble is the only other to do so in tests. To do so twice (he did in a a tour match as well) and also take nine-for (following on from 5/58 and 6/51 in the previous test, too) is a run of form that will be unparalleled."

A magnificent performance indeed, but "unparalleled"? I've already mentioned Laker's 10 wickets in an innings when Australia played Surrey on the same tour. Prior to Laker's Old Trafford performance he took 5-58 and 6-55 in the previous test. Both Kumble's and Laker's run of form were very similar and outstanding in nature.

To say "Lock's failure seems to have been of his own doing," only tells part of the story. Being a left-arm orthodox spinner he was turning the ball away from the right-handers. Some say he turned too much. Laker's success involved a leg trap - well illustrated in the footage you posted. Ian Johnson said, "... those short legs were the secret of his success. We are never hemmed in by such a cluster at home." He continued, "No matter how much Laker spun the ball and no matter how well he concealed his 'straighty', we might have been able to cope with him but for those short legs." A widely held view is that Australian batsmen of that period played the ball leaving the bat far better than the reverse.

As this thread is about "The Best at Their Best" perhaps we should move on from Jim Laker and examine some other noteworthy performances ... and no, I'm not trying to have the last word on this sub-topic. I accept and appreciate your analysis and comments NotMcKenzie and it is only our occasional wording that might lead to misunderstanding and possible disagreement.