One Test Wonders

[Matt79]

Please don't tell me that if you had all three in the team Hussey is the last you'd open with?

Neither Katich or Watson should EVER open in a Test-match.

Well, a fair few people would have to fall under a bus before that scenario happened, so its very hypothetical.

As we've hashed out on several occasions, I don't consider opening batsmen a separate breed. There are some people who really like doing it, there are others who dislike it, but any batsman with a decent enough technique for dealing with the new ball can do it - regardless of where they've played previously. So I would theoretically not have any objection to Watson or Katich opening while Hussey remained where he was, if I thought the team was better served that way. But I hope and pray that we don't end up with that choice.

 

[wpdavid]

I'm working on an English "One Test Wonders" XI. To date:

1. Andy Sandham (300 vs WI & nothing else)
2. David Lloyd (200 vs India in his 2nd test and an ex-test cricketer 12 months later)
3. Frank Hayes (100 vs WI on debut and nothing else)
4. John Hampshire (as above)
5.
6.
7. Jack Richards (100 vs Aus in his second test and barely played afterwards)
8. Richard Ellison (Ashes winning performance at the end of the 1985 series & nothing else)
9. Neil Mallender (bowled out Pakistan to win us a test in 1992 and only played 1 more game)
10. Norman Cowans (played a big part in England's one win in the 1982/83 Ashes, did nothing of note for a couple of years and then disappeared)
11. Steve Watkin (ripped out WI's middle order to set up a famous win in 1991 but was dropped after the next test)

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm working on an English "One Test Wonders" XI. To date:

1. Andy Sandham (300 vs WI & nothing else)
2. David Lloyd (200 vs India in his 2nd test and an ex-test cricketer 12 months later)
3. Frank Hayes (100 vs WI on debut and nothing else)
4. John Hampshire (as above)
5.
6.
7. Jack Richards (100 vs Aus in his second test and barely played afterwards)
8. Richard Ellison (Ashes winning performance at the end of the 1985 series & nothing else)
9. Neil Mallender (bowled out Pakistan to win us a test in 1992 and only played 1 more game)
10. Norman Cowans (played a big part in England's one win in the 1982/83 Ashes, did nothing of note for a couple of years and then disappeared)
11. Steve Watkin (ripped out WI's middle order to set up a famous win in 1991 but was dropped after the next test)

Glad I'm not the only one who spends his afternoons with his mind on matters other than work!

Sam Vimes mentioned Fat Bob Key earlier who could fill (or squeeze into) one of the middle order slots with his double versus the Windies & at a stretch there's Tony Lewis, 1 ton in 9 tests (albeit a fairly unremarkable one), but possibly gets extra marks for captaining the team on test debut (IIRC).

 

[stumpski]

Well, I'd definitely have old RE Foster in there - if you're going back as far as Sandham, that is - another 30 years won't hurt. He was batting at 5 when he made his 287. And the last place is harder to fill but you could try GB Legge, who made 196 at Auckland in Feb 1930 but only 103 in his other six innings for England.

 

[Engle]

Dangerous Dirk Wellham did well in his debut, then drifted downhill from then on as the runs, well, dried up. Drat !
*** Avg 64, 54, 40, 32, 27, 23....dropped

 

[Richard]

Well, a fair few people would have to fall under a bus before that scenario happened, so its very hypothetical.

As we've hashed out on several occasions, I don't consider opening batsmen a separate breed. There are some people who really like doing it, there are others who dislike it, but any batsman with a decent enough technique for dealing with the new ball can do it - regardless of where they've played previously. So I would theoretically not have any objection to Watson or Katich opening while Hussey remained where he was, if I thought the team was better served that way. But I hope and pray that we don't end up with that choice.

I just don't get how you can prefer someone - two people, heck - who's never been an opener in any way shape or form to someone who always has.

Openers may not be separate breeds to middle-order players. But there's no sense in deliberately trying to swap them around.

 

[neville cardus]

Total crap. Just admit you made a mistake.

I am not given to lying.

Your post makes nothing clear other than Coningham is an interesting example of someone who played one Test. You saw the thread title and posted without seeing what the thread was actually about.

Unless you are a telepathist -- and a very poor one at that --, there is no way that you can say that. There's nothing that I hate more than haughty presumptuousness.

I am being dead-serious, Ms Thomson: I did not stuff up.

Of course had you deemed his first ball feat worthy of mention first time around - a "touch odd" not to do so - you might have got away with it.

I like to assume some intellect and knowledge on the part of fellow posters. Surely it is common knowledge that Coningham took a first-ball wicket?

 

[wpdavid]

Well, I'd definitely have old RE Foster in there - if you're going back as far as Sandham, that is - another 30 years won't hurt. He was batting at 5 when he made his 287. And the last place is harder to fill but you could try GB Legge, who made 196 at Auckland in Feb 1930 but only 103 in his other six innings for England.

OK, Foster it is then. tbh I've never heard of Legge and I don't know whether runs against NZ from that era should really count. Harsh but fair imo.

I did consider David Capel at number 6, who almost made a 100 in Pakistan and once took useful wickets (possibly against WI in the 1st test in 1990). Whether we need an allrounder with my all seam attack is debatable though. Any thoughts on a spinner?

 

[wpdavid]

Glad I'm not the only one who spends his afternoons with his mind on matters other than work!

Sam Vimes mentioned Fat Bob Key earlier who could fill (or squeeze into) one of the middle order slots with his double versus the Windies & at a stretch there's Tony Lewis, 1 ton in 9 tests (albeit a fairly unremarkable one), but possibly gets extra marks for captaining the team on test debut (IIRC).

Yes, BFR could fill several middle order slots. Unfortunately he did make himself unavailable for this particular side by also making a match winning 90* later in the same series.

I'd forgotten that Tony Lewis made a test ton. I suppose if we were looking for a skipper, we could go for Brearley if we could find a game when he actually made some runs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I am not given to lying.



Unless you are a telepathist -- and a very poor one at that --, there is no way that you can say that. There's nothing that I hate more than haughty presumptuousness.

I am being dead-serious, Ms Thomson: I did not stuff up.



I like to assume some intellect and knowledge on the part of fellow posters. Surely it is common knowledge that Coningham took a first-ball wicket?

Nev baby you made a mistake, it doesn't make you a lesser person. However, this pointless facile denial does.

 

[Richard]

OK, Foster it is then. tbh I've never heard of Legge and I don't know whether runs against NZ from that era should really count. Harsh but fair imo.

Agree. New Zealand of the 1930s and 1950s were the Bangladesh of their day. Incidentally, something I noticed the other day and was truly flabbergasted - look at how much Tony Lock benefited from them! I'd never, ever have guessed.

I did consider David Capel at number 6, who almost made a 100 in Pakistan and once took useful wickets (possibly against WI in the 1st test in 1990).

Capel only once took more than 2 wickets in a Test innings (and then he conceded 88, at Bridgetown in 1990). He had pretty much zero in the way of recommendations with the ball. His only noteworthy achievements in Tests were a half-century in his 1st innings and that 98 against the same opponents the following winter.

 

[wpdavid]

Agree. New Zealand of the 1930s and 1950s were the Bangladesh of their day. Incidentally, something I noticed the other day and was truly flabbergasted - look at how much Tony Lock benefited from them! I'd never, ever have guessed.

Me neither. I wonder what Johnny Wardle had to say about that?

Capel only once took more than 2 wickets in a Test innings (and then he conceded 88, at Bridgetown in 1990). He had pretty much zero in the way of recommendations with the ball. His only noteworthy achievements in Tests were a half-century in his 1st innings and that 98 against the same opponents the following winter.

There you go, it's my old memory playing tricks on me again. He did take a couple of early wickets in the first test which were pretty important in putting us on top, but I hadn't realised that it didn't take any more than that. I do recall reading something along the lines of "the unlikely figure of David Capel" doing some damage with the ball, and that's what's stuck all these years. OK, he can go. Any thoughts on a spinner btw?

 

[wpdavid]

Not quite a one test-match wonder, but Gilbert Jessop does come close. One spectacular 100 to set up a highly unlikely win against Aus in 1902, and not much else of any substance. technically an allrounder, I gather, although back problems restricted his bowling by the time he played tests.

 

[Richard]

Any thoughts on a spinner btw?

You know me - bowlers, not seamers+spinners.

Hirwani or Sivaramakrishnan would surely do if you wanted one tho?

 

[wpdavid]

You know me - bowlers, not seamers+spinners.

Hirwani or Sivaramakrishnan would surely do if you wanted one tho?

For my English XI?
(resists temptation to insert roll-eyes)

 

[Magrat Garlick]

For my English XI?
(resists temptation to insert roll-eyes)

how about e e hemmings?

Not quite sure whether six wickets against the New Zealand tail in 1990 counts as "wonder", but it did win a series, and he never took more than three otherwise.

 

[Richard]

For my English XI?
(resists temptation to insert roll-eyes)

Didn't spot it was English TBH.

Umm, how about Nick Cook?

Haakon, how long until that damn line in your sig goes?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Didn't spot it was English TBH.

Umm, how about Nick Cook?

Haakon, how long until that damn line in your sig goes?

April the 20th.

 

[Richard]

FFS, still another 3 months.

Think sp713 can put Umar Gul back in his about then too hactually.

I've flirted several times with turning sigs off again in recent times because of whichever damn nuscience put that bet on with you. Is only worth not doing because of the Dale Brumbys and Zac Gelmans of this World.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

FFS, still another 3 months.

Actually, realised now. It was the end of the Ashes, not the end of the World Cup.