Sajid Mahmood bowls at 92mph ?!

[Richard]

Allott wasn't close to being good enough at test level: his average of >40 isn't lying.
tbf though his FC record was probably superior to Mahmood's.

Allott might've been poor at Test level but sheeysh hardly a horror-story. No worse (quite a bit better maybe indeed?) surely than the likes of McCague, Giddins, Schofield et al?

Not sure when you had in mind for your stated criteria. Must be some point prior to WW2 surely?

Probably sometime in the 1920s or 1930s. Certainly post-Rony Stanyforth.

But then again - you look at the fact Tony Lewis was picked to captain England as late as 1972/73.

 

[wpdavid]

Allott might've been poor at Test level but sheeysh hardly a horror-story. No worse (quite a bit better maybe indeed?) surely than the likes of McCague, Giddins, Schofield et al?

Being generous, we'd call him unpenetrative. In the extreme. Obviously bowled straighter than Mahmood, but rarely looked like taking wickets. As I said, an average of 41 or whatever it was doesn't lie.

Probably sometime in the 1920s or 1930s. Certainly post-Rony Stanyforth.

But then again - you look at the fact Tony Lewis was picked to captain England as late as 1972/73.

They probably viewed that in the same was as picking Brearley as a specialist skipper a few years later.

 

[Richard]

Being generous, we'd call him unpenetrative. In the extreme. Obviously bowled straighter than Mahmood, but rarely looked like taking wickets. As I said, an average of 41 or whatever it was doesn't lie.

Yeah, but I mean, Mahmood doesn't look like taking wickets and he's hopelessly wayward.

A bowler who can keep the scoring-rate down (seem to remember noticing Allott keeping West Indies quiet while others went around the park more than once TBH) is at least of some amount of use, even though obviously any good Test bowler needs to take wickets.

 

[slowfinger]

Sajid Mahmood isn't going to play for England, so be quiet.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Paul Allott was a perfectly acceptable choice at the times when he was chosen. Pigott was a unique selection and the selectors can't be blamed for the fact that he was the only English bowler left in New Zealand who could walk without a stick.

 

[The Masterplan]

.

 

[zaremba]

there truly were some absolute shockers 1984-1989 (Tony Pigott the worst of course).

Who would you have picked instead of Tony Pigott for that match?

 

[Richard]

IIRR, he was about the only option. He wasn't a shocking selection, but he was one of the worst and most undeserving cricketers ever to play for England since MCC passed the motto of always picking the best team available, 1910 or whenever it was.

 

[haroon510]

agerkar sucks

 

[zaremba]

there truly were some absolute shockers 1984-1989 (Tony Pigott the worst of course).

Who would you have picked instead of Tony Pigott for that match?

IIRR, he was about the only option. He wasn't a shocking selection

Well there we have it. Let no-one accuse you again of not admitting when you're wrong Richard!

 

[Richard]

I wasn't trying to call Pigott a shocking selection in the first post, just a shockingly poor player by international standards.

 

[The Masterplan]

yes