• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

John Emburey

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
A rare example of a faster bowler being recalled in his late 30s was John Lever in 1986 at the age of 37. IIRC he had been suspended from 1982 to 1984 after going to SA and everyone thought that his test career was over.
They were going through their Headingley "horses for courses" period. In 92 they even selected the less than illustrious Neil Mallender. He took a 5-fer, so they couldn't leave him out for the next Test at the Oval, and he was innocuous and never seen again.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
They were going through their Headingley "horses for courses" period. In 92 they even selected the less than illustrious Neil Mallender. He took a 5-fer, so they couldn't leave him out for the next Test at the Oval, and he was innocuous and never seen again.
Mallender was definitely a horses for courses pick, but as I remembered his call up and not Lever's I guessed it must've been a bit later.

On checking it was 1992.

The other HFC Headingley selection I remember is Steve Watkin, which cricinfo informs me was 1991.

Where there any others between 87-90?
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Mallender was definitely a horses for courses pick, but as I remembered his call up and not Lever's I guessed it must've been a bit later.

On checking it was 1992.

The other HFC Headingley selection I remember is Steve Watkin, which cricinfo informs me was 1991.

Where there any others between 87-90?
88 and 89 just about everybody who was English played at some point. In 88 we had four different captains.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
88 and 89 just about everybody who was English played at some point. In 88 we had four different captains.
I vaguely remember Chris Cowdrey being called up and made captain from seemingly nowhere (or "Kent" as the natives call it) after (fittingly for the thread) Embers had a brief go, largely at the behest of his Godfather, Peter May, who happened to be chairman of selectors at the time.

It may've been the first time I'd heard the word "nepotism".
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
88 and 89 just about everybody who was English played at some point. In 88 we had four different captains.
And 29 different players in the '89 Ashes series.

I've always thought it must have been incredibly demoralising to be an English cricketer in the late 1980s who wasn't selected to play for England, given that it seemed literally anyone could get a game.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I vaguely remember Chris Cowdrey being called up and made captain from seemingly nowhere (or "Kent" as the natives call it) after (fittingly for the thread) Embers had a brief go, largely at the behest of his Godfather, Peter May, who happened to be chairman of selectors at the time.

It may've been the first time I'd heard the word "nepotism".
With Cowdrey they were perpetuating the Brearley myth that a good man manager/captain can make up for his limitations as a player. I'm not saying that Brearley didn't have both qualities, but having the second coming of Boycott, prime time Willis and Botham and the emergence of Gooch and Gower was a major factor in his success. As it transpired Cowdrey got injured so the experiment ended after one game anyway.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
I love the story of Cowdrey's one match as captain when he retells being at the toss with Viv Richards swapping team lineups and trying to rattle off his players that day. Viv's reply was something like "It doesn't matter man, play whoever you like..."
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Mallender was definitely a horses for courses pick, but as I remembered his call up and not Lever's I guessed it must've been a bit later.

On checking it was 1992.
The other HFC Headingley selection I remember is Steve Watkin, which cricinfo informs me was 1991.
Where there any others between 87-90?
Not really. There should have been if Pater May, the then chairman of selectors, had been paying attention. Cairns and Chatfield had bowled NZ to victory there in 1983, with Hadlee going wicketless. And Roger Binny was a star performer there for India in the match where Lever was recalled in 1986. As LT said, we did get through a heck of a lot of players in those years, but there was precious little sign of any coherent thought, far less horses for courses. Maybe that was the thinking behind the Lever selection, but it's hard to tell during the May era. Perhaps the other possibility was Phil Newport at the start of the 1989 Ashes. But he had played in our previous test, which was at the Oval at the end of the 1988 summer. And he had done really well for Worcestershire against the Australians before the first test in 1989, so it wasn't just a case of picking him because the match was at Leeds.

I don't remember us specifically picking horses for courses at Headingly until Watkin and Mallender in 1991 and 1992 respectively. Ted Dexter was COS by then, and maybe he was more open to left-field ideas than May had been. We then picked Bicknell in 1993 and Australia scored 600+. I vaguely remember Gooch bemoaning the fact that they had dug up the wicket where Watkin and Mallender had been successful in the previous two years.
 
Last edited:

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
With Cowdrey they were perpetuating the Brearley myth that a good man manager/captain can make up for his limitations as a player. I'm not saying that Brearley didn't have both qualities, but having the second coming of Boycott, prime time Willis and Botham and the emergence of Gooch and Gower was a major factor in his success. As it transpired Cowdrey got injured so the experiment ended after one game anyway.
Gooch wasn't really a major factor - his average under Brearley was 31. The only win where he could claim to have made a major contribution was the 1978 Oval Test against NZ (91* out of 138-3 in the 2nd innings - not a big target, but England had failed to reach a target of 137 against NZ earlier that year!)

Even if Newport wasn't a specific pick for Headingley conditions, picking an all-seam attack was (Australia did the same), and then it turned out to be a new (and flat) wicket.
Checking the Cricketer magazines I have from around that time, they note that in 1988 Pringle was a sensible pick for Headingley (he took 5-95) and that they might have tried picking Radford (as they might have in 1986 and 1987). 1990 didn't have a Headingley Test, and there's no comment about Watkin being a horses-for-courses pick in 1991.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Thinking about it, was Watkin recalled for the Oval test match in 1993? If so, that rather supports your suggestion that he wasn't a horses for courses selection at Leeds in 1991.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Thinking about it, was Watkin recalled for the Oval test match in 1993? If so, that rather supports your suggestion that he wasn't a horses for courses selection at Leeds in 1991.
Lawrence Booth in Wisden describes Watkin as “A classic horses for courses Headingley selection”.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Going back to Pringle, my memory is that he played at all sorts of venues as a bowler who could supposedly bat a bit and not be out of his depth at number 8, or maybe even at number 7.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Pringle was first selected in 1982 when still at university. He was in and out for ten years but just wasn’t very good at anything.
 

Migara

International Coach
I never really saw Pocock, but did admire Emburey's action at least; one of those beautiful, high-armed, classic offie's actions.

I guess Embers being preferred shows, if nothing else, the unwritten law that spinners must bat slightly to make the test XI is far from a recent development.

Embers's batting obviously stood in very stark opposition to his bowling, aesthetically speaking. His preferred MO seemed to be "four prods, then a shovel over midwicket".
Finger spinners should have lower arms. 1 or 2 'O clock positions. That will help to keep the elbow straight while spinning it hard. No wonder Emburey was an average bowler. To bowl with high arm and spin it hard, either you need wrist action or elbow help. Only off spinner I could think of had some success was Suraj Randiv, just because he has very long fingers and could give it a rip. Even Ashwin who had a very high arm, later went a little lower to flight it better and spin it more.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
For someone who talks of himself as a good cricketer, Migara sure loves the chance to show ignorance.

Screen Shot 2021-08-30 at 4.16.31 PM.png Screen Shot 2021-08-30 at 4.17.43 PM.png

I'll be darned if their arms aren't practically identical elevations. That being Ashwin bowling last year, after he'd supposedly lowered his arm.
 
Last edited:

Top