Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Now many squads contain players who wouldn't be in strong contention to make the first XI and are there to make up the numbers. But what instances can you think of people who were sufficiently passegerish that they didn't play even if there was a strong case for there being a spot in the team.
Now initially I had thought of Bill Copson, who toured Australia in 1936/37 after taking 140 wickets at 13 in the County Championship. Bill Voce suffered a back injury and was hampered after being England's best bowler in the first two tests, but ended up playing all five. I remember reading a newspaper article - I think by Mailey - where it was opined that he was so injured he clearly shouldn't have been playing, I think in either the third or fourth test. Despite this Copson did not play a single test. He may have had a strain at one point (not digging through Trove to check) but seems to have been considered fragile and lacking in endurance. Makes one wonder if Gover (171 at 15) would have been the better choice. However this may not be the best example.
A definite example though is from England's disastrous 1950/51 tour of Australia. Three spinners (Doug Wright, Bob Berry, and Eric Hollies) were selected. Wright was England's first choice despite his inaccuracy generally counting against him when playing Australia. He pulled a muscle while being run out in the third test. Roy Tattersall was flown in as a replacement and went into the test team having being outbowled by Berry in a minor game and playing a not very impressive match against South Australia. So with spare spinners in the squad, when a replacement bowler was needed a third was brought in and selected over them. It seems that Berry and Hollies were considered sufficiently ineffective that they could be passed over for someone who was an injury replacement.
So what other players can you think of who were perhaps unsuitable for a tour and / or were not picked despite having a clear path into the team, where an injured player continued to play instead of them, or even being passed over for someone who was not in the original squad?
Now initially I had thought of Bill Copson, who toured Australia in 1936/37 after taking 140 wickets at 13 in the County Championship. Bill Voce suffered a back injury and was hampered after being England's best bowler in the first two tests, but ended up playing all five. I remember reading a newspaper article - I think by Mailey - where it was opined that he was so injured he clearly shouldn't have been playing, I think in either the third or fourth test. Despite this Copson did not play a single test. He may have had a strain at one point (not digging through Trove to check) but seems to have been considered fragile and lacking in endurance. Makes one wonder if Gover (171 at 15) would have been the better choice. However this may not be the best example.
A definite example though is from England's disastrous 1950/51 tour of Australia. Three spinners (Doug Wright, Bob Berry, and Eric Hollies) were selected. Wright was England's first choice despite his inaccuracy generally counting against him when playing Australia. He pulled a muscle while being run out in the third test. Roy Tattersall was flown in as a replacement and went into the test team having being outbowled by Berry in a minor game and playing a not very impressive match against South Australia. So with spare spinners in the squad, when a replacement bowler was needed a third was brought in and selected over them. It seems that Berry and Hollies were considered sufficiently ineffective that they could be passed over for someone who was an injury replacement.
So what other players can you think of who were perhaps unsuitable for a tour and / or were not picked despite having a clear path into the team, where an injured player continued to play instead of them, or even being passed over for someone who was not in the original squad?
Last edited:
