Hey guys,
A mate and I were having a discussion the other day about our team's better allrounders in recent years and while these two weren't quite up there, we couldn't agree on who was better - Chris Lewis or Phil DeFreitas!
I always believed Lewis was massively talented with both bat and ball, but really failed to fire. He ended up with one Test ton and averaged 23 with the bat, but only took 93 at an average of 37.
DeFreitas, on the other hand, never really had a fair crack at the team, getting dropped something crazy like 13 times! He took a while to get going with the bat, but could be really destructive later in his career. His longevity at first-class level has to be admired as well.
What do you guys reckon?
Funny, I actually looked at this question just a week ago. DeFreitas, in the 1990s at least (didn't do much of note in the 80s), was a hugely undervalued bowler. At home, it was inexplicable that he wasn't a perminant feature, as he did a job few have managed to do all that well, and exploited favourable home conditions. Was genuinely anodyne away, and was never that much more than a pretty good tail-end batsman, but played at least a couple of astonishing knocks that had considerable influence on the outcome of matches.
Lewis, on the other hand, had no more than odd moments. A better batsman almost beyond doubt, but did virtually nothing of note with the ball at home, and had no more than occasional useful bursts away.
I can't shake the feeling, however, that had both been born a decade later and had everything else run parrallell, that they might have been two stalwarts of the side. DeFreitas, as I say, was treated distinctly shabbily, and when you think of the rubbish that's sometimes been persevered with in recent times (Plunkett and Mahmood being the two most obvious cases) you just get the feeling that maybe two players of DeFreitas and Lewis' undoubted potential might have got a better deal than they did. Let's remember, both's Test careers were over by 29-30.