Chris Broad

[Brook's side]

We probably wouldn't have beaten WI in 1988, and maybe we wouldn't have beaten Aus in 1989. But the series would have looked very different to what transpired.

Oh come on!!

Probably wouldn't have beaten West Indies

Their side was literally:

Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Hooper
Logie
Dujon
Marshall
Ambrose
Walsh
Patterson

 

[wpdavid]

Oh come on!!

Probably wouldn't have beaten West Indies

Their side was literally:

Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Hooper
Logie
Dujon
Marshall
Ambrose
Walsh
Patterson

I guess that understatement isn't everyone's thing. And there's a bit more to this than listing an XI without considering where they were at that particular stage of their careers. Anyway ......

It's worth looking at WI's results either side of the 1988 series when evaluating England's 4-0 defeat.
Drew 1-1 in NZ, drew 1-1 in India, drew 1-1 at home to Pakistan, drew 1-1 in Pakistan only won 3-1 in Australia, and were lucky to beat us in the Caribbean 18 months later. Of course they were still very good, but 0-4 should not have happened and probably wouldn't have done if the selectors had used their brains.

 

[Brook's side]

Some footage of Broad and Gooch v the west indies here:

 

[Brook's side]

I guess that understatement isn't everyone's thing. And there's a bit more to this than listing an XI without considering where they were at that particular stage of their careers. Anyway ......

It's worth looking at WI's results either side of the 1988 series when evaluating England's 4-0 defeat.
Drew 1-1 in NZ, drew 1-1 in India, drew 1-1 at home to Pakistan, drew 1-1 in Pakistan only won 3-1 in Australia, and were lucky to beat us in the Caribbean 18 months later. Of course they were still very good, but 0-4 should not have happened and probably wouldn't have done if the selectors had used their brains.

Am astonished with those results.

As for the stages of the players' careers, coming into that series:

Greenidge 80 tests ave 48
Haynes 68 tests ave 41
Richardson 29 tests ave 44
Richards 92 tests ave 53
Hooper 2 tests ave 137
Logie 19 tests ave 31
Dujon 47 tests ave 37

Marshall 52 tests ave 21.6 sr 46.9
Ambrose -
Walsh 16 tests ave 22.0 sr 48.4
Patterson 9 tests ave 24.4 sr 39.2

So it wasn't a completely green side by any stretch.

The series in 90/91 series in WI is probably about my favourite series, and it was one of England's finest performances imo.

And as for results, yes they had drawn their previous 4 series, but 3 of those were away, 2 of which in the subcontinent.
They then:
Beat England away 4-0
Beat Australia away 3-1
Beat India at home 3-0
Beat England at home 2-1
drew away in Pakistan 1-1
Beat Australia at home 2-1
drew away in England 2-2!! (Lamb and Smith)
Beat South Africa at home 1-0
Beat Australia away 2-1
Beat Pakistan at home 2-0
drew a test in Sri Lanka
Beat England away 3-1

 

[Coronis]

Am astonished with those results.

As for the stages of the players' careers, coming into that series:

Greenidge 80 tests ave 48
Haynes 68 tests ave 41
Richardson 29 tests ave 44
Richards 92 tests ave 53
Hooper 2 tests ave 137
Logie 19 tests ave 31
Dujon 47 tests ave 37

Marshall 52 tests ave 21.6 sr 46.9
Ambrose -
Walsh 16 tests ave 22.0 sr 48.4
Patterson 9 tests ave 24.4 sr 39.2

So it wasn't a completely green side by any stretch.

The series in 90/91 series in WI is probably about my favourite series, and it was one of England's finest performances imo.

And as for results, yes they had drawn their previous 4 series, but 3 of those were away, 2 of which in the subcontinent.
They then:
Beat England away 4-0
Beat Australia away 3-1
Beat India at home 3-0
Beat England at home 2-1
drew away in Pakistan 1-1
Beat Australia at home 2-1
drew away in England 2-2!! (Lamb and Smith)
Beat South Africa at home 1-0
Beat Australia away 2-1
Beat Pakistan at home 2-0
drew a test in Sri Lanka
Beat England away 3-1

Quoting someone’s career average has nothing to do with the stage of their career.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Oh come on!!

Probably wouldn't have beaten West Indies

Their side was literally:

Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Hooper
Logie
Dujon
Marshall
Ambrose
Walsh
Patterson

Only Pakistan and NZ would've challenged that West Indian side.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Re Gatting - he was captain for the 1st test but lost the job after an incident with a barmaid probably being the straw that broke the camel's back following England's tour of Pakistan.

 

[Brook's side]

Only Pakistan and NZ would've challenged that West Indian side.

Am guessing for the NZ one it rained for 15 days solid.

 

[wpdavid]

Am guessing for the NZ one it rained for 15 days solid.

Probably not, as it was 1-1.

 

[wpdavid]

Snipped to leave space for my tome.

The first thing to say that, for me, this is all about conversation. I really don't gaf about 'winning' any sort of argument or nit-picking over individual words. But I found it interesting looking at those series that the WI played over the two years before they toured England in 1988. Granted the cut-off point is slightly arbitrary, as going back slightly further to include their 5-0 win at home to England in 1985-86 would improve most of their statistics, but I was interested in how they went against opponents other than England. And two years sounds about right if we’re thinking about their form before the 1988 series. So we’re looking at Pakistan, New Zealand and India (all away) and finally Pakistan at home.

The first thing to say is that we need to be careful about making lazy generalisations about matches in Pakistan and India. The obvious assumption is that the former series was dominated by Abdul Qadir being aided and abetted by Pakistani umpires. Obviously those factors were relevant, but the man of the match in the test that the hosts won was actually Wasim Akram (although Qadir did clean up in the second innings). The other thing about the series in Pakistan and India is how well the WI quicks performed in conditions that we wouldn’t expect to suit them. Marshall actually did better in Pakistan than in the New Zealand series that followed it. Make of that what you will. Walsh did very well in both series, which I hadn’t expected.

As for Pakistan, most of the WI batsmen also struggled in the home series that immediately preceded the tour of England. Greenidge averaged 23, Haynes 13, Logie 21 and Hooper 26. The exceptions were Richardson, Richards and Dujon, who all excelled. Again, something that I hadn’t expected was how well Richards’ stats held up in this stage of his career. His overall figures for the whole two year period aren’t so much lower than his career average, and his performances in the home series against Pakistan were outstanding. He had missed the first test, which Pakistan won, and it’s almost as if he came back even more determined than usual to maintain the WI’s unbeaten run. His runs in the second test ensured that Pakistan didn’t establish a 2-0 lead, and, to a slightly lesser extent, he helped set up a narrow win the WI in the final test. If memory serves, the Pakistanis weren’t happy with some of the umpiring in that test, but that’s hardly surprising. It’s a shame that there’s hardly any footage of that series; it really was a classic.

Anyway, moving onto the numbers, which I’ll list in a bit. What you’ll see is that most of the batsmen are a bit below their career average in the two years before the 1988 series. Now obviously people can interpret that however they want, but what I think you see from the older guys is some outstanding innings surrounded by a larger number of relative failures. Once they got in, they tended to go big but, at that stage of their career, there were lots of times when they were dismissed relatively cheaply. Hooper, btw, wasn’t averaging 137. I think you forgot the series at home to Pakistan and only included the tests in India. Maybe you did that with all of them? Perhaps that’s why you had no stats for Ambrose, who debuted during the home series against Pakistan.

As for the bowlers, Marshall was at the peak of his powers and Walsh had done much better at that stage of his career than I had thought. Ambrose was very new, although he found his feet pretty quickly in England and subsequently in Australia a few months later. Patterson was fine but hadn’t maintained his ATG figures from the start of his test career. He only actually played in the first two tests of the 1988 England series before being replaced by Winston Benjamin. Again, a fine bowler, but not really in the same class as the guys who had preceded him.

Anyway, here are the numbers.

Batting
Greenidge = 871 runs at 39.6
Haynes = 585 runs at 25.4
Richardson = 748 runs at 34.0
Richards = 825 runs at 45.8
Logie = 438 runs at 29.2
Hooper = 303 runs at 33.7
Dujon = 453 runs at 28.3


Bowling
Marshall = 40 wickets at 21.0 (only 40 because he missed the India series)
Ambrose = 7 wickets at 52.1
Walsh = 54 wickets at 21.7
Patterson = 24 wickets at 27.4
Benjamin = 14 wickets at 27.6


EDIT
Here are the highlights of the final day's play in the 1988 series when WI beat Pakistan by 2 wickets to level the series. Accompanied by some wonderfully biased hometown commentary.

 

[Brook's side]

Hooper, btw, wasn’t averaging 137. I think you forgot the series at home to Pakistan and only included the tests in India. Maybe you did that with all of them? Perhaps that’s why you had no stats for Ambrose, who debuted during the home series against Pakistan.

I sorted each of the players' match figures by ascending average, and took the figure from their game previous to the 1st test in england.

On the basis though that I can now see that what you say about Ambrose is correct (and he had taken wickets) I seem to have managed to **** it up somehow.

Incidentally, I can see how at the start of the series someone might have reasonably thought the series would be competitive, but I'd suggest that with the benefit of hindsight it's more understandable that that wasn't the case?

 

[wpdavid]

I sorted each of the players' match figures by ascending average, and took the figure from their game previous to the 1st test in england.

On the basis though that I can now see that what you say about Ambrose is correct (and he had taken wickets) I seem to have managed to **** it up somehow.

Incidentally, I can see how at the start of the series someone might have reasonably thought the series would be competitive, but I'd suggest that with the benefit of hindsight it's more understandable that that wasn't the case?

I think that can be interpreted to suit people's own views. Losing Gatting as a captain and also as a batsman after the drawn first test was a series changer. I think that the series that both sides played against Pakistan are instructive. Under Gatting, we lost a 5 match series at home 1-0 (and IIRC the rain played a part in us not being able to enforce wins in the first two tests) whereas WI secured a slightly fortuitous 1-1 draw. In Pakistan we'd only lost 1-0 (MOTS Shakeel Khan) , and WI drew 1-1. In other words, we'd competed well against the side that had given WI their toughest challenge.

So what does all that prove? Whatever each of us wants it to, I suppose. I'll forever believe that it wouldn't have finished 0-4. I'm not pretending that we'd have beaten them overall, but I there's some middle ground here. Listening to some England players of the time, you'll hear that WI beat everyone 4 or 5 to zero (or similar in a 3 match series) but that simply wan't the case.

 

[Brook's side]

I think that can be interpreted to suit people's own views. Losing Gatting as a captain and also as a batsman after the drawn first test was a series changer. I think that the series that both sides played against Pakistan are instructive. Under Gatting, we lost a 5 match series at home 1-0 (and IIRC the rain played a part in us not being able to enforce wins in the first two tests) whereas WI secured a slightly fortuitous 1-1 draw. In Pakistan we'd only lost 1-0 (MOTS Shakeel Khan) , and WI drew 1-1. In other words, we'd competed well against the side that had given WI their toughest challenge.

So what does all that prove? Whatever each of us wants it to, I suppose. I'll forever believe that it wouldn't have finished 0-4. I'm not pretending that we'd have beaten them overall, but I there's some middle ground here. Listening to some England players of the time, you'll hear that WI beat everyone 4 or 5 to zero (or similar in a 3 match series) but that simply wan't the case.

I did have a count up yesterday of their results during that particular peak period actually. Pretty sure I took 1980-1994.
I didn't keep a record unfortunately (not that it would take long to do again), but from memory it was something like:
Played 105
Won 57
Drew 33
Lost 15

I also noticed by the way that they didn't follow the normal minnows' path of being whipping boys for years, but were competitive in test cricket almost from the get go.

 

[wpdavid]

I did have a count up yesterday of their results during that particular peak period actually. Pretty sure I took 1980-1994.
I didn't keep a record unfortunately (not that it would take long to do again), but from memory it was something like:
Played 105
Won 57
Drew 33
Lost 15

Quite possibly, but you're talking about two sets of players across 14 years. In the early 1980s, they still had Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft available as well as Marshall and Lloyd was still in the batting line-up. Another of my pet theories that the 1980 side that won in Australia was stronger than the side that won 5-0 in England four years later. I'm not sure that I cba to go there today, but there you go.

I find it interesting that NZ competed far better against WI than we did. Granted Hadlee was a couple of classes above any bowlers that we had during the 1980s, but their batting held up better too. Maybe that says something about the attitude of the sides and the stability of selection.

 

[Brook's side]

Quite possibly, but you're talking about two sets of players across 14 years. In the early 1980s, they still had Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft available as well as Marshall and Lloyd was still in the batting line-up. Another of my pet theories that the 1980 side that won in Australia was stronger than the side that won 5-0 in England four years later. I'm not sure that I cba to go there today, but there you go.

I find it interesting that NZ competed far better against WI than we did. Granted Hadlee was a couple of classes above any bowlers that we had during the 1980s, but their batting held up better too. Maybe that says something about the attitude of the sides and the stability of selection.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

It's a 15 year period by the way (start of 1980 to end of 94).

Maybe the WIndies weren't as fired up playing NZ as they were England? Perhaps that's unfair, and of course that was NZ's first really good side, but just a possible factor. NZ's first win in England IIRC was 86 (the game at the Oval was I think the first international I went to).

 

[wpdavid]

Maybe the WIndies weren't as fired up playing NZ as they were England? Perhaps that's unfair, and of course that was NZ's first really good side, but just a possible factor. NZ's first win in England IIRC was 86 (the game at the Oval was I think the first international I went to).

Maybe WI slightly took them for granted in the infamous 1980 series, but they wouldn't have done thereafter. If anything, they'd have been fired up to right the wrongs that they experienced at the hands of Fred Goodall.

As for England vs NZ, yes 1986 was their first series win over here. They had won a test in 1983 of course before eventually losing 3-1. And they had beaten us at home in 1983/84, so we knew how good they were. Looking at they went against WI, I think it says more about NZ's approach compared to England's. Some of CW's NZ members might be able to offer more on that matter.

As for The Oval in 1986, was that when Botham took a wicket with his first delivery after his suspension for recreational drugs?

 

[Brook's side]

Maybe WI slightly took them for granted in the infamous 1980 series, but they wouldn't have done thereafter. If anything, they'd have been fired up to right the wrongs that they experienced at the hands of Fred Goodall.

As for England vs NZ, yes 1986 was their first series win over here. They had won a test in 1983 of course before eventually losing 3-1. And they had beaten us at home in 1983/84, so we knew how good they were. Looking at they went against WI, I think it says more about NZ's approach compared to England's. Some of CW's NZ members might be able to offer more on that matter.

As for The Oval in 1986, was that when Botham took a wicket with his first delivery after his suspension for recreational drugs?

Yes it was. Gooch juggled it at slip and then said, "Beefy, who writes your script?"

I think I went the following day though.

 

[Brook's side]

I think it was his 365 wicket actually, to tie....Lillee as the leading wicket taker at the time?

Think it was Jeremy Coney.

 

[wpdavid]

I think it was his 365 wicket actually, to tie....Lillee as the leading wicket taker at the time?

Think it was Jeremy Coney.

From memory, Coney wouldn't have been his first wicket. iirc NZ's openers were going nicely until Beefy turned his arm. Perhaps Coney was later in the same innings.

 

[Brook's side]

From memory, Coney wouldn't have been his first wicket. iirc NZ's openers were going nicely until Beefy turned his arm. Perhaps Coney was later in the same innings.

Yeah it was Bruce Edgar (1st ball back, Gooch juggle).

His 3rd wicket (of 3) was Coney.

He finished the match on 357 v Lillee's 355, so it looks like he tied it with the Edgar wicket, and became the leading wicket taker with his 2nd wicket (Jeff Crowe).