Bowling attack for timeless tests

[peterhrt]

Curious, was this much of a significant departure from selections in other tests, or more the style of selection at the time?

It was a bit of a mixture really. For timeless matches English selectors wanted batsmen to occupy the crease. When Leyland was chosen to tour Australia in 1928-29 instead of Woolley, there was a public outcry. Woolley had just scored over 3,300 runs in the season, nearly twice as many as Leyland, and looked in a different class.

All-rounders were valued. Wicket-keepers who could bat weren't. Ames went to Australia in 1928-29 and didn't play a Test. Duckworth appeared in all five matches, totalling 76 runs. It was the opposite philosophy of today.

 

[AndrewB]

The reality of timeless Tests was that selectors stuffed their teams with batting. Taking the last 29 such matches between England and Australia from 1920 to 1938, England picked 82 specialist bowlers (2.8 per match) and Australia 72 (2.5). All-rounders were a common feature but there was no compromise on the wicket-keeping, where the best keeper was always chosen, with the arguable exception of Ames on eleven occasions.

Australia picked four specialist bowlers in five matches and lost four of them. England did so four times, winning three, all in 1928-29. Some of the all-rounders would have been chosen for their bowling anyway, like Jack Gregory, but most would not have been. In five matches Australia picked only one non-batting bowler, winning four. England did so once and lost by nine wickets.

Are you classing Gubby Allen as an all-rounder, but Maurice Tate as a bowler?

 

[The Sean]

It was a bit of a mixture really. For timeless matches English selectors wanted batsmen to occupy the crease. When Leyland was chosen to tour Australia in 1928-29 instead of Woolley, there was a public outcry. Woolley had just scored over 3,300 runs in the season, nearly twice as many as Leyland, and looked in a different class.

I know Woolley was an attacking player, but was Leyland seen as so much of a stonewaller that it was worth the compromise?

It seems all the more a strange selection given that a) it was a high scoring series anyway, and b) Leyland was only chosen for the final Test, albeit performing very well. How much do you think might have been due to Woolley's previous couple of tours to Australia, which had been largely middling?

 

[The Sean]

Reading back, I realise that several of us have just consecutively bombarded @peterhrt with questions. Which I'd be sorry for if he wasn't basically our own personal cricketing historian/chronicler/archivist, so I'm going full exploit.

(Peter, I thank you for all that you do)

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

If you really want it to be a timeless test, you're going to need bowlers with atrocious strike rates. As such, I'm picking:

Harry Cave (34 wickets, SR 120) to open the bowling with
Rubel Hossain (36 wickets, SR 117)
Chud Langton (40 wickets, SR 105) at first change alongside
Farveez Maharoof (25 wickets, SR 118)
Carl Hooper (114 wickets, SR 120) as the obligatory spinning all-rounder

And you're set fair for a long time in the field. Throw in some Angelo Mathews and Sir Viv Richards to make up the necessary 6th and 7th bowlers (SRs of 120 and 161 respectively)

Also, Asoka de Silva with a guaranteed place as umpire. Not only erratic umpiring, but the worst recorded strike rate in Test history - 291 - so no pearls of wisdom to be passed onto the Strike Team.

 

[kyear2]

Attack:

Marshall
Hadlee
Kallis
Sobers
Murali
O'Reilly

Side:
Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman
Lara (can play monster knocks)
Kallis (extra bowling)
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Marshall
O'Reilly
Murali

I like it.

It not so much which bowlers, but how many. Kallis or Hammond would do.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If you really want it to be a timeless test, you're going to need bowlers with atrocious strike rates. As such, I'm picking:

Harry Cave (34 wickets, SR 120) to open the bowling with
Rubel Hossain (36 wickets, SR 117)
Chud Langton (40 wickets, SR 105) at first change alongside
Farveez Maharoof (25 wickets, SR 118)
Carl Hooper (114 wickets, SR 120) as the obligatory spinning all-rounder

And you're set fair for a long time in the field. Throw in some Angelo Mathews and Sir Viv Richards to make up the necessary 6th and 7th bowlers (SRs of 120 and 161 respectively)

Also, Asoka de Silva with a guaranteed place as umpire. Not only erratic umpiring, but the worst recorded strike rate in Test history - 291 - so no pearls of wisdom to be passed onto the Strike Team.

Brilliant.

Also, don't let Ben Stokes make the side as captain for a timeless test. He'd declare 4 down towards the end of day 1!

 

[kyear2]

Reading back, I realise that several of us have just consecutively bombarded @peterhrt with questions. Which I'd be sorry for if he wasn't basically our own personal cricketing historian/chronicler/archivist, so I'm going full exploit.

(Peter, I thank you for all that you do)

Seconded

 

[the big bambino]

I know Woolley was an attacking player, but was Leyland seen as so much of a stonewaller that it was worth the compromise?

It seems all the more a strange selection given that a) it was a high scoring series anyway, and b) Leyland was only chosen for the final Test, albeit performing very well. How much do you think might have been due to Woolley's previous couple of tours to Australia, which had been largely middling?

It needn't have been a choice between Woolley and Leyland as they could've picked both. Either of Mead or Tyldesley were hard to explain choices over Woolley. The latter's SLA would've been useful as fillers. They should've picked another pace bowler like Nichols as well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wouldn't be any different to what the attack would be in a normal Test tbh. Maybe at the most add in an extra all rounder than you normally would if the pitch is looking like a road.

Thinking you want lower strike rate/higher economy bowlers just because it's a timeless test is a logical fallacy. You still have to score runs to win games of cricket and a bowler operating on restricting runs rather than blasting wickets but leaking more runs will be just as useful.

As an aside that would make for awful cricket. A 9 day Test is junk

 

[the big bambino]

As an aside that would make for awful cricket. A 9 day Test is junk

I kind of get why they became a thing, in Aus at least when Tests were about as frequent as Olympic Games. But they encouraged slow, attritional cricket and were hardly attractive.

 

[Coronis]

I kind of get why they became a thing, in Aus at least when Tests were about as frequent as Olympic Games. But they encouraged slow, attritional cricket and were hardly attractive.

I wonder what percentage of the timeless tests actually ended after the 5th day. Presumably it was a thing because often the result wouldn’t be achieved in 5 days in Australia.

And obviously it was used in other series deciding matches for obvious reasons.

 

[the big bambino]

I wonder what percentage of the timeless tests actually ended after the 5th day. Presumably it was a thing because often the result wouldn’t be achieved in 5 days in Australia.

And obviously it was used in other series deciding matches for obvious reasons.

I've just had a look at cricinfo seasons for the 20/21, 24/25 and 28/29 series and I think 13 of the 15 passed the 5th day. I didn't check for rest days but it seems all matches went into day 5 at least and the majority over. The batting appeared grindingly slow, which seems a common attitude of batsmen playing timeless tests. Even Dudley Nourse said timeless matches encouraged him to occupy the crease at all costs. Proof that roads produce the worst kind of cricket.

 

[Starfighter]

I've just had a look at cricinfo seasons for the 20/21, 24/25 and 28/29 series and I think 13 of the 15 passed the 5th day

Might be better to go by six days, as they were playing five hour days compared to the 6-6.5 used today. Though the difference in over rates renders comparisons rather meaningless anyway.

 

[Starfighter]

It needn't have been a choice between Woolley and Leyland as they could've picked both. Either of Mead or Tyldesley were hard to explain choices over Woolley. The latter's SLA would've been useful as fillers. They should've picked another pace bowler like Nichols as well.

Woolley's bowling wasn't very effective in Australia, so wouldn't have been in his favour. The England squad's maybe a bowler light and batsman heavy, but they wouldn't have expected to lose Staples, or for Larwood to get sick. The playing XIs were if anything the other way by modern standards. Once Geary came in they usually batted Larwood seven, though strangely Tate mainly batted nine. Of course if you were to disregard the 'best keeper' thing and pick Ames instead of Duckworth it becomes a very 'normal' looking XI.

The extra pace bowler idea is interesting if you mean someone considered to have genuine pace (closer to Larwood than Tate). I don't see why they'd have thought they needed one, unless they were top quality in top form. Nichols was averaging mid-20s compared to Larwood's mid-high teens. I doubt he'd've been a standout candidate, especially as he had a bad bowling season in 1928.

England's attack looks based on their past experiences. Their quickest bowlers failed badly in 20/21 and 24/25 (though it's mysterious to me why Howell toured a second time). In comparison, their medium pacers (Barnes and Foster before WWI, Tate after) had been more successful, and Kilner's success in 24/25 would've pointed to accurate spin (White and Staples) as a foil. Knowing the pitches would be flat and the batting slow, accuracy and endurance were utmost, to which could be added Larwood's pace. Of course they did take Freeman despite his previous failure.

I'm not sure there's a lot to be learned from a modern perspective. Bowlers of genuine pace by more modern standards were very rare then. Bowling attack composition and batting approach differ dramatically now. I suspect the best overall attack would still be the best in a timeless match, fitness permitting. But supposing that it did involve flat pitches and very cautious batting, they might need a different approach. The fast bowlers couldn't go all out all the time and would have to pace themselves (like Holding did).

 

[shortpitched713]

Wouldn't be any different to what the attack would be in a normal Test tbh. Maybe at the most add in an extra all rounder than you normally would if the pitch is looking like a road.

Thinking you want lower strike rate/higher economy bowlers just because it's a timeless test is a logical fallacy. You still have to score runs to win games of cricket and a bowler operating on restricting runs rather than blasting wickets but leaking more runs will be just as useful.

As an aside that would make for awful cricket. A 9 day Test is junk

Yeah, 98% of games won't even go too far into a 6th day, and the way teams play these days most will end in 4 days anyway.

 

[kyear2]

Wouldn't be any different to what the attack would be in a normal Test tbh. Maybe at the most add in an extra all rounder than you normally would if the pitch is looking like a road.

Thinking you want lower strike rate/higher economy bowlers just because it's a timeless test is a logical fallacy. You still have to score runs to win games of cricket and a bowler operating on restricting runs rather than blasting wickets but leaking more runs will be just as useful.

As an aside that would make for awful cricket. A 9 day Test is junk

Fully agree with all of this.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, 98% of games won't even go too far into a 6th day, and the way teams play these days most will end in 4 days anyway.

I mean the premise of the thread was “assume this test will go at least 6 days, up to 9”

 

[AndrewB]

Number of days play for all the Tests in Australia between 1900 and 1940. (Only one Test in the 19th century went into a 6th day):
1901-2: 3, 4, 6, 4, 4
1903-4: 6, 4, 5, 6*, 3
1907-8: 6*, 6, 6, 4, 6
1910-1: 5*, 4, 6, 4, 4 (South Africa)
1911-2: 6, 4, 5, 4, 7**
1920-1: 5, 4, 6, 5, 4
1924-5: 7, 7, 7, 5, 5
1928-9: 5, 6, 7, 7, 8
1930-1: 4, 4*, 4, 2, 5 (West Indies)
1931-2: 6**, 3, 6, 4, 3* (South Africa)
1932-3: 5, 4, 6, 6, 5
1936-7: 5, 4, 6, 6, 5

* = day rained off. (Ashes Tests unless indicated)

So that's 1x8, 6x7, 17x6, 13x5, 18x4, 4x3, 1x2 ... given that these were 5-hour days, all the really long matches were in the 1924-5 and 1928-9 series (plus the one match in 1911-2 with 2 days rained off).

 

[Johan]

Assuming the test will last that long these stats may be relevant.

Overs per match for some top bowlers

Pacers
Barnes 48.4
Lillee 44.0
Davidson 43.5
Hadlee 42.3
McGrath 39.2
Walsh 38.0
Garner 37.5
Trueman 37.5
Marshall 36.1
Ambrose 37.4
Pollock 37.3
Lindwall 37.2
Imran 36.5
Wasim 36.2
Donald 36.0
Anderson 35.3
Holding 35.1
Cummins 33.5
Steyn 33.1
Bumrah 32.0
Waqar 31.0
Rabada 30.4

Spinners
Grimmett 65.2
O’Reilly 61.5
Tayfield 61.1
Gibbs 57.1
Muralitharan 55.1
Verity 46.3
Warne 46.0
Laker 43.3
Ashwin 42.5
Underwood 42.2
Lyon 41.5

are these meant to be in descending order