Wisden's Greatest Post War England XI

[Richard]

No, because the Keeper's role goes from Stewart to Russell (improving the keeping considerably and losing on average about 5 or 6 runs) then one of Ramprakash or Hick makes way for Stewart the specialist bat (improving the average by about 15 runs)

It is not a direct swap between the 2 because the rest of the team make-up is not remaining constant.

And it's very generalised to suggest these things like they're exact.
It's not just about what might have happened with averages; you can't just add-up averages and say something was definately better than something else.

 

[Richard]

I saw this name and thought who is he, and why didn't Liam take him for the original ALFTA if he's a great all-rounder?

So I looked him up - 27 games - 859 runs @ 30.67 and 33 wickets @ 31.81.

Now, I don't know your definition of great, but figures like that don't suggest greatness to me.

ALFTA?
No, he's not as good as I might have made him look - he's still better than most Caribbean all-rounders, though.
I've got a feeling Bravo might end-up better, all the same.

 

[SJS]

That's an interesting one. How many great spinners have Pakistan produced? I can only think of Abdul Qadir (and even his overseas record was abysmal). Maybe there have been one or two others - Mushtaq Ahmed certainly had his moments, up to 1997, and I've always thought Kaneria has a lot of potential.
Certainly India aren't, at present, as blessed as they were in the Bedi, Chandra, Venkat and Prasanna days. Kumble and Harbhajan are reasonable enough, but that's two compared to four.
.

Pakistan has had the following that I can think of right away.

Intikhab Alam,
Mushtaq Mohammad,
Abdul Qadir,
Iqbal Qasim,
Saqlain Mushtaq(in better days).

India's famous four are well known but India had a huge bench strength, any of whom would be a test player in todays scarce times. But first those that did play.

Bedi,
Chandra,
Prasanna and
Venkat

PLUS

VV Raman (as good a conventional leg spinner as any one in the world today barring Warne),

Padmakar Shivalkar and

Rajinder Goel (both better than any left arm spinner seen in the world in the last ten years but kept out by Bishans presence),

Dilip Doshi (again better than any left arm spinner in the world today) ask anyone who saw him bowling in county cricket in England),

Maninder Singh (again better than any left arm spinner in the world today),

L Sivaramakrishnan (potential great who withered away mysteriously but left an impression in a very short career).

One can name others but people on this forum may not have heard of them.

 

[Richard]

Pakistan has had the following that I can think of right away.

Intikhab Alam,
Mushtaq Mohammad,
Abdul Qadir,
Iqbal Qasim,
Saqlain Mushtaq(in better days).

India's famous four are well known but India had a huge bench strength, any of whom would be a test player in todays scarce times. But first those that did play.

Bedi,
Chandra,
Prasanna and
Venkat

PLUS

VV Raman (as good a conventional leg spinner as any one in the world today barring Warne),

Padmakar Shivalkar and

Rajinder Goel (both better than any left arm spinner seen in the world in the last ten years but kept out by Bishans presence),

Dilip Doshi (again better than any left arm spinner in the world today) ask anyone who saw him bowling in county cricket in England),

Maninder Singh (again better than any left arm spinner in the world today),

L Sivaramakrishnan (potential great who withered away mysteriously but left an impression in a very short career).

One can name others but people on this forum may not have heard of them.

I don't know that Dilip Doshi was better than Ashley Giles, and yes, I have seen footage at least of him bowling.
Never heard of Goel or Shivalkar, myself.
Personally I wouldn't rate Saqlain as especially good, not in Test-matches, anyway. A typical subcontinent spinner - a handful on turners, not so on non-turners.
Like, I hasten to add, the best of the Indian.

 

[aussie_beater]

VV Raman (as good a conventional leg spinner as any one in the world today barring Warne),

Who is VV Raman ?....never heard about him. Are you talking about VV Kumar ? I read an article about VV Kumar long time ago in a magazine in India called "Illustrated Weekly" which doesn't exist anymore.... that he was a prodigious talent only to be pushed out of the test scene because of Chandra's presence after playing only two tests.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't know that Dilip Doshi was better than Ashley Giles, and yes, I have seen footage at least of him bowling.
Never heard of Goel or Shivalkar, myself.
Personally I wouldn't rate Saqlain as especially good, not in Test-matches, anyway. A typical subcontinent spinner - a handful on turners, not so on non-turners.
Like, I hasten to add, the best of the Indian.

I saw quite a lot of Doshi when he was at Notts (local rivalry, that sort of thing) and any comparison with Giles of this summer might well be relevant, but Giles is still quite a way behind, even on his current form - THAT is how highly I rate Dilip Doshi.

In my mind, he is the most accurate left-arm spinner I have seen in my life - more accurate even than Underwood at his immaculate best.

 

[aussie_beater]

I saw quite a lot of Doshi when he was at Notts (local rivalry, that sort of thing) and any comparison with Giles of this summer might well be relevant, but Giles is still quite a way behind, even on his current form - THAT is how highly I rate Dilip Doshi.

In my mind, he is the most accurate left-arm spinner I have seen in my life - more accurate even than Underwood at his immaculate best.

Actually Doshi's career and reputation were shortchanged because of his famous rift with Gavaskar.That pretty much ruined his career after the Pak tour of 1983 and ofcourse being a cotemporary of Bedi didn't help his cause.

 

[luckyeddie]

Actually Doshi's career and reputation were shortchanged because of his famous rift with Gavaskar.That pretty much ruined his career after the Pak tour of 1983 and ofcourse being a cotemporary of Bedi didn't help his cause.

Absolutely. Am I right in assuming that he didn't actually make his international debut until past his 30th birthday?

 

[aussie_beater]

Absolutely. Am I right in assuming that he didn't actually make his international debut until past his 30th birthday?

yeah i think he was 33 or something like that when he played his first test.

 

[Neil Pickup]

However, Dilip's little boy is pretty rubbish.

 

[marc71178]

And it's very generalised to suggest these things like they're exact.
It's not just about what might have happened with averages; you can't just add-up averages and say something was definately better than something else.

Those sorts of numbers provide a pretty conclusive comparison - Stewart the specialits bat was MUCH better than Hick or Ramprakash.
Stewart as keeper was better, but not by much with the bat than Russell.
Russell was far far better a keeper than Stewart.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes, it was, but that's not because it was a poor side.
It had recently beaten a West Indian side 3-0 which was quite conceivably the best of all-time.
Including as it did, the great all-rounder John Goddard; the three Ws; Sobers and Gibbs at the start of their careers; Ramadhin and Valentine; and Wesley Winfield Hall, the great seamer.
The fact that Australia's modest 58\59 side crushed England 4-0 was as bizarre as that England won that series 3-0.

In the 40s we were still suffering from the War; with the like of Hedley Verity tragically killed in battle, and several players (Godfrey Evans, Les Ames, Gubby Allen) having to fit cricket around uniform duties, it wasn't much of a surpise. The only authentic cricket (against sides we wouldn't be expected to beat heavily) was against the '48 Invincibles, whose 4-0 triumph wasn't exactly a surprise - I don't think many would have competed with them.
WRT to '60s, once again, we were good, but so many of the players didn't produce Ashes and Wisden Trophy victories.
I hardly think a side including Dexter, Graveney, Boycott, Barrington, Edrich, Snow, Underwood and the like could be described as shabby. West Indies had some phenomenal players in the '60s and not once did Australia win The Ashes by a large margin (both away series were drawn, and in both home series a crucial Test was lost by a small margin, most famously the Benaud-around-the-wicket match). By 1968 the tide had turned and Underwood and D'Oliveira lit up a dismal summer at the last possible minute.

Personally I don't think Harmison and the like are fit to lace Snow, Willis and co's boots. Yet, anyway.

I find the 1960's an interesting decade. As you say, there were some very fine players in the England side, yet we failed to win a single series against Aus during the whole decade, and not many would say that was an outstanding Aus side (obviously no mugs, but not in same class as late 40's, mid-70's and early 1990's onwards). Even in 1968, we needed the rain to set up Underwood to save the series. We twice lost heavily at home against what was admittedly a very fine WI side and lost a series for the first time at home to SA. By1965-67, we were probably the fourth best side in the world. Yes things improved from 1968 to 1970/71, but that was against transitional WI & Aus sides. Once they settled down, we started losing to them again.

I wouldn't argue about the quality of the players you listed, but I doubt if they played together when they were all somewhere near their peak - not very often, anyway. Beyond that, I can't help thinking our sides of yesteryear (apart from mid-1950's) are rather over-rated. And even with the 1950's I would suggest that the 1958/9 debacle shows a lack of character when the going got tough.

That being said, you won't find me rating Harmison above Snow & Willis yet. We'll see how he goes over the next few years. But I would happily pick him ahead of most of the other guys from the 1960's & 1970's.

 

[Richard]

I saw quite a lot of Doshi when he was at Notts (local rivalry, that sort of thing) and any comparison with Giles of this summer might well be relevant, but Giles is still quite a way behind, even on his current form - THAT is how highly I rate Dilip Doshi.

In my mind, he is the most accurate left-arm spinner I have seen in my life - more accurate even than Underwood at his immaculate best.

Well... I'll take your word for it, but however accurate he is he's not going to be any exception to the fingerspinner's rule - ineffective on normal pitches.
As for Giles this summer - nothing different to three summers ago, he's exactly the same bowler (except he bowls differently when he goes round-the-wicket). Just has had the conditions he needs in England, which has never happened before.
Still, if Doshi was more accurate than Underwood, that's SOME achievement.
Shame about this apparrent spat with Sunny, otherwise he'd presumably have been better than Bedi (if he was more accurate than him).

 

[Richard]

However, Dilip's little boy is pretty rubbish.

Well of course he is, he's tried to make a career in England.
Personally, from the little I've seen of him, I reckon he could be a real handful in typical Indian conditions.

 

[Richard]

Those sorts of numbers provide a pretty conclusive comparison - Stewart the specialits bat was MUCH better than Hick or Ramprakash.
Stewart as keeper was better, but not by much with the bat than Russell.
Russell was far far better a keeper than Stewart.

I don't agree that he was far, far better - better, yes, but he was better than everyone in the country for about 20 years.
Stewart as a wicketkeeper was always very underrated.
And I also think the effect it had on his batting is not borne-out in the averages. Up until as late as 1999 there was still confusion over his role; only for the last 4 years of his career was he settled batting no higher than five and keeping wicket. In that time he had a bad series or two, for reasons that IMO cannot be attributed to keeping wicket (in Pakistan, for instance, he had to come in against spin in all but one of his innings, which he's never been comfortable with).
For mine, Stewart would have had a much higher average as a wicketkeeper had he just been given the gloves in 1992 and left with them, and never had the cake of opening shoved under his nose then pulled away. Yes, I'm perfectly well aware that the famous storming-of-the-fortress in Kensington and various others would never have happened had it been done that way, so don't start that.

 

[Richard]

I find the 1960's an interesting decade. As you say, there were some very fine players in the England side, yet we failed to win a single series against Aus during the whole decade, and not many would say that was an outstanding Aus side (obviously no mugs, but not in same class as late 40's, mid-70's and early 1990's onwards). Even in 1968, we needed the rain to set up Underwood to save the series. We twice lost heavily at home against what was admittedly a very fine WI side and lost a series for the first time at home to SA. By1965-67, we were probably the fourth best side in the world. Yes things improved from 1968 to 1970/71, but that was against transitional WI & Aus sides. Once they settled down, we started losing to them again.

I wouldn't argue about the quality of the players you listed, but I doubt if they played together when they were all somewhere near their peak - not very often, anyway. Beyond that, I can't help thinking our sides of yesteryear (apart from mid-1950's) are rather over-rated. And even with the 1950's I would suggest that the 1958/9 debacle shows a lack of character when the going got tough.

That being said, you won't find me rating Harmison above Snow & Willis yet. We'll see how he goes over the next few years. But I would happily pick him ahead of most of the other guys from the 1960's & 1970's.

I'd not even begin to bracket him above the like of Old, Hendrick, Botham, Dilley yet. Not even close to Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Cork.
I don't think anyone who knows much about much would really call us that great at any point from the 1900s onwards. Very briefly in the 20s and 50s, but other than that, no.
Unless our sides of yesteryear are rated highly, they can't really be overrated.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'd not even begin to bracket him above the like of Old, Hendrick, Botham, Dilley yet. Not even close to Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Cork.
I don't think anyone who knows much about much would really call us that great at any point from the 1900s onwards. Very briefly in the 20s and 50s, but other than that, no.
Unless our sides of yesteryear are rated highly, they can't really be overrated.

Richard, even if Harmison went on to emulate the feats of some of the all-time greats (and I have nothing to say about the likelihood of that happening), to you he will never rank alongside them, because you made up your mind two years ago and, to misquote Thatchler, "The laddie is not for turning".

 

[Swervy]

I'd not even begin to bracket him above the like of Old, Hendrick, Botham, Dilley yet. Not even close to Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Cork.
I don't think anyone who knows much about much would really call us that great at any point from the 1900s onwards. Very briefly in the 20s and 50s, but other than that, no.
Unless our sides of yesteryear are rated highly, they can't really be overrated.

you are making out that all those players you listed were world beaters...Botham at his peak was..Gough and Fraser were good international bowlers, the rest had their days,but ingeneral will be forgotten by most with the passing of time.

Yes harmison needs to continue with his to form..but another year at this rate and he will be remembered for a very long time

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes harmison needs to continue with his to form..but another year at this rate and he will be remembered for a very long time

But Richard will still maintain that it is down to luck - or one of us will have to eat another computer.

Munch, munch, munch. *cough*.
Sorry about that - got a GeForce graphics card stuck in my throat.

 

[Swervy]

But Richard will still maintain that it is down to luck - or one of us will have to eat another computer.

Munch, munch, munch. *cough*.
Sorry about that - got a GeForce graphics card stuck in my throat.

well for me, it is Richard who is missing out...its only once in a very long time that England produce a bowler who performs like Harmison has done recently...these are times to enjoy for an England supporter (hell, even I am enjoying it), but time moves quickly and maybe before you know it, England may well be struggling (this is only a 'maybe')...the key is to soak up the good times whilst they last.

Yes Richard, we know you think Harmison is lucky, but who cares (well i know you do)..as long as he is taking wickets..I mean, thats what he is in the team for..to take wickets,by whatever way he can.

I personally dont think he is a particularly lucky bowler, he is tall fast and get some bite from the pitch and gets the ball to bounce...pretty much all the ingredients you would want from a young fast bowler.

Anyway..as already has been said, Richard enjoys other aspects of the game that most (shut up whoever shouted 'sane') people might not..like continually picking fault in a particular spell of bowling dispite it taking 7 wickets or whatever.

His loss.