....bowlers who cannot pitch two balls in the same area consecutively 
and batsmen so inept at playing the swinging ball that they constantly 
aim for one side of the pitch and play the ball to the other side? God 
alone knows what the likes of How would have done if they had faced 
bowlers such as Len Coldwell.  RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On 8 Jun, 05:31, Robert Henderson  wrote:
> ....bowlers who cannot pitch two balls in the same area consecutively
> and batsmen so inept at playing the swinging ball that they constantly
> aim for one side of the pitch and play the ball to the other side? God
> alone knows what the likes of How would have done if they had faced
> bowlers such as Len Coldwell.  RH

Out of interest, when *was* the last time you enjoyed watching an
England Test? Grumpy now, grumpy when we won the Ashes, come on
Robert, chip chip, look for the positives!

Richard

"Richard Dixon"  wrote in message 
news:a7c1419e-771e-40ce-83d9-1f6d840e0a8d@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 8 Jun, 05:31, Robert Henderson  wrote:
> ....bowlers who cannot pitch two balls in the same area consecutively
> and batsmen so inept at playing the swinging ball that they constantly
> aim for one side of the pitch and play the ball to the other side? God
> alone knows what the likes of How would have done if they had faced
> bowlers such as Len Coldwell. RH

Out of interest, when *was* the last time you enjoyed watching an
England Test? Grumpy now, grumpy when we won the Ashes, come on
Robert, chip chip, look for the positives!

Richard

I tend to agree though. Even being a curmudgeon, I still believe players 
(batsmen) of today do not have the skills of say 30 years ago. Not that they 
were better players- they had more to learn. And weren't so assisted by 
smaller boundaries etc.

I enjoy Test cricket (is there another variety? ) but frankly believe the 
standards are not the same.

"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
news:KyMF5WFVC2SIFwoR@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> ....bowlers who cannot pitch two balls in the same area consecutively and 
> batsmen so inept at playing the swinging ball that they constantly aim for 
> one side of the pitch and play the ball to the other side? God alone knows 
> what the likes of How would have done if they had faced bowlers such as 
> Len Coldwell.  RH

Just because one team is rubbish doesn't stop it from being Test cricket. 
Teams from piddly colonies in the nether regions of the world got beaten by 
larger margins in the 'old days'.  Take for example the New Zealand touring 
team who pitched up in England in 1958 aka The Golden Age.  NZ's scores in 
that series were 94, 137, 47, 74, 67, 129, 267, 85, 161 and 91/3.  Yes, 
those are all out totals except the final innings.
Tony Lock took 34 wickets at seven runs apiece: was that Test cricket?

Pointless comparing eras because the players can only be expected to respond 
to what is put in front of them, not that I disagree on the subject of 
batting technique.

Andrew

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:12:52 GMT, "Cicero" 
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:


>I tend to agree though. Even being a curmudgeon, I still believe players 
>(batsmen) of today do not have the skills of say 30 years ago. Not that they 
>were better players- they had more to learn. And weren't so assisted by 
>smaller boundaries etc.
>
>I enjoy Test cricket (is there another variety? ) but frankly believe the 
>standards are not the same.

No, they aren't the same. But I question whether you can specifically
say they are better or worse. The game played at the top level is a
very different one from the one thirty years ago, and which skills are
in most demand has changed in response to that.

Thirty years ago, bowlers didn't exploit reverse swing. Thirty years
ago, Test sides thought that 2.5 runs an over was a fairly decent
scoring rate. Thirty years ago, there was far more use of fill-in
bowlers because the front-liners weren't as fit and couldn't sustain
as many overs of top pace per day as they can now. Thirty years ago,
batsmen treated fast bowling with due respect and didn't try to crash
fours off it before the game was three overs old. Thirty (well, maybe
more like forty) years ago, the general approach of most Test teams
was to play not to lose rather than start out intending to win.

Lloyd's WI and Taylor's Aus teams turned conventional wisdom about
safety first on its head; and unlike previous attacking teams they
didn't lose many matches but dominated the scene, so their paradigm
became the new norm.

Batsmen whose natural pace is a strike rate of 30 are no longer
selected for Test teams in great numbers. Most teams have one because
an anchorman is sometimes pretty useful, but they don't usually have
the three, four or five you'd find in a typical England team of the
1970s. Batsmen who don't score at 45+ are generally held to be not up
to the job whereas thirty years ago, the bloke who scored at 45+ was
the attractive strokeplayer in the team.

Since "technique" in this context is code for "solid defence", it
follows almost inevitably that if batsmen are now picked with more of
an eye to how fast they score than to how long they can block for, it
is more likely that batsmen with loose defensive techniques are going
to get into the teams.

That change in outlook has only partly happened in county cricket.
Plenty of championship games resemble arm-wrestling far more than
swashbuckling combat because no-one wants to let their rivals get the
points for winning, but the money available for doing well in one-day
competitions means that there is less room for the four-day-only
player on a county's staff, and the batsmen with superb defensive
techniques are far more likely to be f-d-os than any other player
(Matthew Hoggard excepted, naturally). The pool of batsmen with the
best defences is therefore smaller than it used to be - but when I see
one nowadays, I don't automatically think "potential England opener"
the way I did thirty years ago. My reaction these days is much more
along the lines of how that bloke is going to have to learn to play
some shots if he wants to progress.

A lot of people around uksc/rsc seem to be convinced that standards
are dropping dramatically, but then I go to Lord's and talk to people
who were adults and seasoned cricket watchers in the 1950s and 1960s
and they keep saying how much better today's cricketers are than the
ones in the old days.

Bemoaning that today's Test batsmen don't have the impeccable defences
of their fathers and grandfathers is all very well, but only if you
are advocating a return to safety-first cricket and want teams to
embark on Test matches with a view to securing the draw and going for
the win only when the barn door is gaping open.

Thirty years ago, 39.5% of the previous ten years' Test matches had
ended in draws, England's Test grounds were two-thirds full and it was
easy to turn up on the day and walk in. In the last ten years, 23.8%
of Tests have ended in draws and it is impossible to get a ticket for
the first three days of an Test in England less than two months in
advance. That we are getting a much higher proportion of definite
results is partly because of a more constructive approach to time lost
through light and rain, but mostly because teams now play
result-oriented cricket rather than safety-first cricket.

Although the 1977 Ashes has England winning 3-0 and Ian Botham making
his debut in its favour, the highlight of the series was that Boycott
came back and started scoring Test centuries in his own inimitable
style again. The 1968 Ashes featured Bill Lawry as the Australian
captain and was incredibly boring.

The last two Ashes series have been far more enjoyable than the dross
which was served up 30 and 40 years ago - at least when Aus won in the
last series, they did so with considerable elan rather than boring us
all to death as England did in 1977 - and I have no doubt that next
year's will be in line with recent trends and will be much the better
for it despite the fact that some of the batsmen won't have superb
defensive technique.

Cheers,

Mike



--

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:50:49 +0100, Mike Holmans
 wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:12:52 GMT, "Cicero" 
>tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>>I tend to agree though. Even being a curmudgeon, I still believe players 
>>(batsmen) of today do not have the skills of say 30 years ago. Not that they 
>>were better players- they had more to learn. And weren't so assisted by 
>>smaller boundaries etc.
>>
>>I enjoy Test cricket (is there another variety? ) but frankly believe the 
>>standards are not the same.
>
>No, they aren't the same. But I question whether you can specifically
>say they are better or worse. The game played at the top level is a
>very different one from the one thirty years ago, and which skills are
>in most demand has changed in response to that.
>
>Thirty years ago, bowlers didn't exploit reverse swing. Thirty years
>ago, Test sides thought that 2.5 runs an over was a fairly decent
>scoring rate. Thirty years ago, there was far more use of fill-in
>bowlers because the front-liners weren't as fit and couldn't sustain
>as many overs of top pace per day as they can now. Thirty years ago,
>batsmen treated fast bowling with due respect and didn't try to crash
>fours off it before the game was three overs old. Thirty (well, maybe
>more like forty) years ago, the general approach of most Test teams
>was to play not to lose rather than start out intending to win.
>
>Lloyd's WI and Taylor's Aus teams turned conventional wisdom about
>safety first on its head; and unlike previous attacking teams they
>didn't lose many matches but dominated the scene, so their paradigm
>became the new norm.
>
>Batsmen whose natural pace is a strike rate of 30 are no longer
>selected for Test teams in great numbers. Most teams have one because
>an anchorman is sometimes pretty useful, but they don't usually have
>the three, four or five you'd find in a typical England team of the
>1970s. Batsmen who don't score at 45+ are generally held to be not up
>to the job whereas thirty years ago, the bloke who scored at 45+ was
>the attractive strokeplayer in the team.
>
>Since "technique" in this context is code for "solid defence", it
>follows almost inevitably that if batsmen are now picked with more of
>an eye to how fast they score than to how long they can block for, it
>is more likely that batsmen with loose defensive techniques are going
>to get into the teams.
>
>That change in outlook has only partly happened in county cricket.
>Plenty of championship games resemble arm-wrestling far more than
>swashbuckling combat because no-one wants to let their rivals get the
>points for winning, but the money available for doing well in one-day
>competitions means that there is less room for the four-day-only
>player on a county's staff, and the batsmen with superb defensive
>techniques are far more likely to be f-d-os than any other player
>(Matthew Hoggard excepted, naturally). The pool of batsmen with the
>best defences is therefore smaller than it used to be - but when I see
>one nowadays, I don't automatically think "potential England opener"
>the way I did thirty years ago. My reaction these days is much more
>along the lines of how that bloke is going to have to learn to play
>some shots if he wants to progress.
>
>A lot of people around uksc/rsc seem to be convinced that standards
>are dropping dramatically, but then I go to Lord's and talk to people
>who were adults and seasoned cricket watchers in the 1950s and 1960s
>and they keep saying how much better today's cricketers are than the
>ones in the old days.
>
>Bemoaning that today's Test batsmen don't have the impeccable defences
>of their fathers and grandfathers is all very well, but only if you
>are advocating a return to safety-first cricket and want teams to
>embark on Test matches with a view to securing the draw and going for
>the win only when the barn door is gaping open.
>
>Thirty years ago, 39.5% of the previous ten years' Test matches had
>ended in draws, England's Test grounds were two-thirds full and it was
>easy to turn up on the day and walk in. In the last ten years, 23.8%
>of Tests have ended in draws and it is impossible to get a ticket for
>the first three days of an Test in England less than two months in
>advance. That we are getting a much higher proportion of definite
>results is partly because of a more constructive approach to time lost
>through light and rain, but mostly because teams now play
>result-oriented cricket rather than safety-first cricket.
>
>Although the 1977 Ashes has England winning 3-0 and Ian Botham making
>his debut in its favour, the highlight of the series was that Boycott
>came back and started scoring Test centuries in his own inimitable
>style again. The 1968 Ashes featured Bill Lawry as the Australian
>captain and was incredibly boring.
>
>The last two Ashes series have been far more enjoyable than the dross
>which was served up 30 and 40 years ago - at least when Aus won in the
>last series, they did so with considerable elan rather than boring us
>all to death as England did in 1977 - and I have no doubt that next
>year's will be in line with recent trends and will be much the better
>for it despite the fact that some of the batsmen won't have superb
>defensive technique.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

Nobody has mentioned the condition of the pitches and outfields.
Surely the standard of the pitch and outfield has some comparison to
the then and now of technique?

max.it

In message , Andrew Dunford 
 writes
>
>
>"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
>news:KyMF5WFVC2SIFwoR@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> ....bowlers who cannot pitch two balls in the same area consecutively 
>>and  batsmen so inept at playing the swinging ball that they 
>>constantly aim for  one side of the pitch and play the ball to the 
>>other side? God alone knows  what the likes of How would have done if 
>>they had faced bowlers such as  Len Coldwell.  RH
>
>Just because one team is rubbish doesn't stop it from being Test 
>cricket. Teams from piddly colonies in the nether regions of the world 
>got beaten by larger margins in the 'old days'.  Take for example the 
>New Zealand touring team who pitched up in England in 1958 aka The 
>Golden Age. NZ's scores in that series were 94, 137, 47, 74, 67, 129, 
>267, 85, 161 and 91/3.  Yes, those are all out totals except the final 
>innings.
>Tony Lock took 34 wickets at seven runs apiece: was that Test cricket?


On uncovered pitches with a bowling attack of Trueman, Statham, Bailey, 
Laker, Lock.....RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message , Andrew Dunford 
>  writes
>>
>>
>> "Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
>> news:KyMF5WFVC2SIFwoR@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>> ....bowlers who cannot pitch two balls in the same area consecutively 
>>> and  batsmen so inept at playing the swinging ball that they 
>>> constantly aim for  one side of the pitch and play the ball to the 
>>> other side? God alone knows  what the likes of How would have done if 
>>> they had faced bowlers such as  Len Coldwell.  RH
>>
>> Just because one team is rubbish doesn't stop it from being Test 
>> cricket. Teams from piddly colonies in the nether regions of the world 
>> got beaten by larger margins in the 'old days'.  Take for example the 
>> New Zealand touring team who pitched up in England in 1958 aka The 
>> Golden Age. NZ's scores in that series were 94, 137, 47, 74, 67, 129, 
>> 267, 85, 161 and 91/3.  Yes, those are all out totals except the final 
>> innings.
>> Tony Lock took 34 wickets at seven runs apiece: was that Test cricket?
> 
> 
> On uncovered pitches with a bowling attack of Trueman, Statham, Bailey, 
> Laker, Lock.....RH

And am sure on uncovered pitches, today's attack of Anderson, 
Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar would cause a handful as well.

Would Laker and Lock be as potent as they were then on the covered 
pitches of today, and the rule of no more than two behind square on the 
leg side?

In message , Toby 
 writes
>>> Tony Lock took 34 wickets at seven runs apiece: was that Test cricket?
>>   On uncovered pitches with a bowling attack of Trueman, Statham, 
>>Bailey,  Laker, Lock.....RH
>
>And am sure on uncovered pitches, today's attack of Anderson, 
>Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar would cause a handful as well.
>

"...would cause a handful"?????? Is the is Loughborough English? RH

>Would Laker and Lock be as potent as they were then on the covered 
>pitches of today, and the rule of no more than two behind square on the 
>leg side?


Irrelevant to the question as we are discussing performance within each 
period. However, it is worth pointing out that all the bowlers I 
mentioned had far lower averages than those today even in summers such 
as 1959 when uncovered pitches was not that important. Except for  Lock 
, all of the five I mentioned had good records in Tests overseas. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message , ?@?.?.invalid writes
>>defensive technique.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Mike
>
>Nobody has mentioned the condition of the pitches and outfields. Surely 
>the standard of the pitch and outfield has some comparison to the then 
>and now of technique?
>
>max.it

Of course it does, Max. The pitches of the 1950s meant that batsmen had 
to be much more proficient players because they met more varied and 
generally more demanding pitches throughout their careers.

As for bowlers, they still  had every incentive to be accurate because 
(1) they knew the batsmen would thrash them otherwise  and (2) the 
county committees would not tolerate them bowling erratically.

Of course, pitches generally gave more help,  but there is much more to 
bowling than simply getting a helpful pitch, for example, the ability to 
swing the ball.

It is also noteworthy that spinners who were successful under one set of 
laws continued to be successful after a law change, The classic examples 
of this are leg spinners who were established before the 1935 LBW law 
change and off spinners who were established before the restriction on 
legside fielders.  In other words, good bowlers succeed regardless of 
conditions.  RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message , Toby 
>  writes
>>>> Tony Lock took 34 wickets at seven runs apiece: was that Test cricket?
>>>   On uncovered pitches with a bowling attack of Trueman, Statham, 
>>> Bailey,  Laker, Lock.....RH
>>
>> And am sure on uncovered pitches, today's attack of Anderson, 
>> Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar would cause a handful as well.
>>
> 
> "...would cause a handful"?????? Is the is Loughborough English? RH
> 

Pretty much like Keele English - "Is the is.."

>> Would Laker and Lock be as potent as they were then on the covered 
>> pitches of today, and the rule of no more than two behind square on 
>> the leg side?
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the question as we are discussing performance within each 
> period. However, it is worth pointing out that all the bowlers I 
> mentioned had far lower averages than those today even in summers such 
> as 1959 when uncovered pitches was not that important. Except for  Lock 
> , all of the five I mentioned had good records in Tests overseas. RH

Trueman's average overseas average is helped by 19 wickets at 14 against 
   a still learning NZ nation.

Same with Statham (13 @ 10) and even Lock's average is helped with 13 @ 
8.69 - both against the Kiwis!

Just looking at their economy rates too abroad - they averaged 2.23 runs 
an over! Must have been enthralling to watch!

In message , Toby 
 writes
>>> And am sure on uncovered pitches, today's attack of Anderson, 
>>>Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar would cause a handful as well.
>>>
>>  "...would cause a handful"?????? Is the is Loughborough English? RH
>>
>
>Pretty much like Keele English - "Is the is.."

That is  an obvious typo: your attempt at written English was not a 
typo. RH
>
>>> Would Laker and Lock be as potent as they were then on the covered 
>>>pitches of today, and the rule of no more than two behind square on 
>>>the leg side?
>>   Irrelevant to the question as we are discussing performance within 
>>each  period. However, it is worth pointing out that all the bowlers I 
>>mentioned had far lower averages than those today even in summers such 
>>as 1959 when uncovered pitches was not that important. Except for 
>>Lock  , all of the five I mentioned had good records in Tests overseas. RH
>
>Trueman's average overseas average is helped by 19 wickets at 14 
>against   a still learning NZ nation.
>

You make the error of assuming the 1958 Kiwis were weaker than the 
current team. That was far from the case. They had Sutcliffe, Reid, 
McGibbon, Alabaster, Blair, Cameron, Hayes who varied from the first 
rate to the decent as Test cricketers. RH

>Same with Statham (13 @ 10) and even Lock's average is helped with 13 @ 
>8.69 - both against the Kiwis!
>
>Just looking at their economy rates too abroad - they averaged 2.23 
>runs an over! Must have been enthralling to watch!


Bowled at around  20 overs an hour = 45 run per hour. You mistake hard 
fought for runs with boring. That is the tragedy of your  generation. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message , Toby 
>  writes
>>>> And am sure on uncovered pitches, today's attack of Anderson, 
>>>> Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar would cause a handful as well.
>>>>
>>>  "...would cause a handful"?????? Is the is Loughborough English? RH
>>>
>>
>> Pretty much like Keele English - "Is the is.."
> 
> That is  an obvious typo: your attempt at written English was not a 
> typo. RH

Ah yes - the "obvious typo".

Anyway - what's actually wrong with "to cause a handful"

In article ,
Robert Henderson   wrote:
[Toby:]
>You make the error of assuming the 1958 Kiwis were weaker than the
>current team. That was far from the case.

	Not an error, but manifestly the case.

>					   They had Sutcliffe, Reid,
>McGibbon, Alabaster, Blair, Cameron, Hayes who varied from the first
>rate to the decent as Test cricketers. RH

	Sutcliffe would probably have made most Test teams of the
period, though he was badly out of form in '58.  Reid was decent
Test class, about the same standard as Bailey, but also not in form
in the '58 Tests.  Cameron wasn't on the '58 tour.  McGibbon was
their leading batsman *and* bowler in the '58 Tests, but his Test
figures aren't startling in either discipline, and he would barely
have deserved consideration for England/Oz/WIndies/SA.  Alabaster,
Blair and Hayes, with bowling averages around 40, would not have
come near consideration for a decent side.  Several of their Test
side would have struggled to get into a county side.

	So their Test side had two decent players who happened to
be out of form, another player of marginal Test standard, four or
five of decent f-c standard, and the rest not even that good.  They
were unlucky to run up against a very strong England side [although
the wheels were about to come off against Oz that winter];  but I
can't imagine the present NZ side being *that* outclassed even by
Oz.

	Toby's description of the '58 side as "still learning" is
about right.  Many of them had played only a handful of f-c matches
prior to the tour;  an average of 20 or so in two or three seasons
of weak domestic cricket was no preparation for batting against
Statham/Loader/Trueman/Laker/Lock/Bailey.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

In message , Toby 
 writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>> In message , Toby 
>> writes
>>>>> And am sure on uncovered pitches, today's attack of Anderson, 
>>>>>Sidebottom, Broad and Panesar would cause a handful as well.
>>>>>
>>>>  "...would cause a handful"?????? Is the is Loughborough English? RH
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty much like Keele English - "Is the is.."
>>  That is  an obvious typo: your attempt at written English was not a 
>>typo. RH
>
>Ah yes - the "obvious typo".
>
>Anyway - what's actually wrong with "to cause a handful"

It is an unforgivable onslaught on the English language. RH

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message <g2oq0k$irk$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy Walker 
 writes
>>                                         They had Sutcliffe, Reid,
>>McGibbon, Alabaster, Blair, Cameron, Hayes who varied from the first
>>rate to the decent as Test cricketers. RH
>
>       Sutcliffe would probably have made most Test teams of the
>period, though he was badly out of form in '58.  Reid was decent Test 
>class, about the same standard as Bailey, but also not in form in the 
>'58 Tests.  Cameron wasn't on the '58 tour.  McGibbon was their leading 
>batsman *and* bowler in the '58 Tests, but his Test figures aren't 
>startling in either discipline, and he would barely have deserved 
>consideration for England/Oz/WIndies/SA.  Alabaster, Blair and Hayes, 
>with bowling averages around 40, would not have come near consideration 
>for a decent side.  Several of their Test side would have struggled to 
>get into a county side.
>
>       So their Test side had two decent players who happened to
>be out of form, another player of marginal Test standard, four or five 
>of decent f-c standard, and the rest not even that good.


A Test attack of Hayes (genuinely fast), McGibbbon (upper end of Fast 
Medium), Blair (upper end of fast medium), Cave( MF),  Reid (MF or Off 
Breaks, Alabaster  or Moir  (LBG) , Sparling (off breaks)  was superior 
to the current attack.

The 1958 batting had the same depth as this one with the likes of 
McGibbon ,  Petrie, Sparling at 7, 8, 9 plus players such as Alabaster 
and Moir  who could both bat.  Sutcliffe and Reid were a better and more 
experienced  pair than the present side can muster in their top six. 
Petrie was a far superior wicket keeper to either  McCullum or Hopkins.

The 1958 side were doubly unfortunate in meeting a very strong England 
side, especially in strong in bowling and one of the rainiest seasons on 
record.

Compare the 1958 England attack of Trueman, Staham, Bailey, Laker, Lock 
with  Sidebottom, Anderson, Broad, Panesar, Collingwood and weep.  RH

>  They were unlucky to run up against a very strong England side 
>[although the wheels were about to come off against Oz that winter]; 
>but I can't imagine the present NZ side being *that* outclassed even by 
>Oz.

Ah, the cruel lack of imaginative powers of the bounded mind..... I 
suggest you examine what Oz have been regularly doing to all other 
nations in recent years. RH

>
>       Toby's description of the '58 side as "still learning" is
>about right.  Many of them had played only a handful of f-c matches 
>prior to the tour;


So, just like the present crew. RH

> an average of 20 or so in two or three seasons of weak domestic 
>cricket was no preparation for batting against
>Statham/Loader/Trueman/Laker/Lock/Bailey.
>
>--

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In article ,
Robert Henderson   wrote:
>A Test attack of Hayes (genuinely fast), McGibbbon (upper end of Fast
>Medium), Blair (upper end of fast medium), Cave( MF),  Reid (MF or Off
>Breaks, Alabaster  or Moir  (LBG) , Sparling (off breaks)  was superior
>to the current attack.

	I'm not a great fan of quoting figures [tho' even less of
mere name-dropping];  but here it seems necessary.  Career Test
averages:

  Hayes 40, MacGibbon 30, Blair 35, Cave 43, Reid 33, Alabaster 38,
    Moir 50, Sparling 65.

NZ attack in the recent 3rd Test:
  Oram 30, Vettori 34, Mills 27, O'Brien 34, Martin 33.

Even you would be hard pushed to claim that anyone beyond Reid and
MacGibbon of the 1958 attack would deserve a place today, esp given
the much lower scoring in general in the '50s.

>The 1958 batting had the same depth as this one with the likes of
>McGibbon ,  Petrie, Sparling at 7, 8, 9 plus players such as Alabaster
>and Moir  who could both bat.

	So you're planning to play Reid at 5, MacGibbon, Petrie
and Sparling at 7, 8, 9, followed by Alabaster or Moir at 10, then
Hayes, Blair and Cave at 11, 12, 13?  Back in the real world, the
'58 side had to drop two of Hayes, Blair and Cave, which makes the
attack you were vaunting above look even thinner.

>				Sutcliffe and Reid were a better and more
>experienced  pair than the present side can muster in their top six.

	Indeed.  But *apart* from S&R, the '58 side had Miller, D'Arcy,
Meale and Playle in their top 6, career averages 13, 13, 5 and 10 resp.
S&R were the only two players in the '58 side with career averages over
20 -- and they were badly out of form in the Tests.  By contrast, the
current NZ squad have McCullum, Taylor, Flynn and Oram with averages
over 30, plus How and Vettori over 25, and only the novices Redmond
and Hopkins [of the team for the 3rd Test] currently [and on very slim
evidence] in the Miller/D'Arcy/Meale/Harford/Playle class.

>Petrie was a far superior wicket keeper to either  McCullum or Hopkins.

	Possibly;  but in the modern era, he's not going to keep his
place unless he can double his batting average.

	IOW, Sutcliffe, Reid and MacGibbon, perhaps plus Petrie, would
make the modern side;  whereas at least How, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn,
Oram, Vettori and Mills from the present squad, perhaps also Martin or
O'Brien, would have been grabbed for the '58 side.

>The 1958 side were doubly unfortunate in meeting a very strong England
>side, especially in strong in bowling and one of the rainiest seasons on
>record.

	Also in not having Donnelly and Rabone available.  OTOH, the
present team is missing Fleming and Bond, perhaps even Cairns.

	But there's really no doubt at all that the current NZ side,
for all its problems, is much stronger than that of 1958.

>Compare the 1958 England attack of Trueman, Staham, Bailey, Laker, Lock
>with  Sidebottom, Anderson, Broad, Panesar, Collingwood and weep.  RH

	Weeping seems rather exaggerated.  Our attack from 1953 to 1959
was surely the best and best-balanced we have ever had, given that you
have listed four of the all-time greats and that several others of quite
similar quality also played more-or-less regularly in that period.  It's
not surprising that today's rather inexperienced attack is not of the
same standard.  But they're doing OK.  Let's see how they get on against
SA, and then we can start thinking about the next Ashes side.  If Jones
and Flintoff can stay off the injury list, it could be "interesting".

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker) wrote in news:g2ruj9$9fp$1$8300dec7
@news.demon.co.uk:

>      Weeping seems rather exaggerated.  Our attack from 1953 to 1959
> was surely the best and best-balanced we have ever had, given that you
> have listed four of the all-time greats and that several others of quite
> similar quality also played more-or-less regularly in that period.

Andy - I'm sure you know this already but bear in mind that Robert, the 
renowned polymath and omniscient being, suffers from the same failings as 
us mere mortals and liberal bigots in having selective memory about the 
best aspects of the past.

There's no evidence to suggest that the players of today wouldn't have 
adapted to uncovered pitches and the like just as those of yesteryear did. 
It's just all part of Robert's yearning for the 1950s (the majority of said 
decade when Robert was still in single digits so goodness knows about his 
wonderful memory of cricket in that era) when England was nearly absent of 
the those blessed darkies with their dodgy food, nicking all our jobs and 
infiltrating our cricket team.

Richard

"Andy Walker"  wrote in message 
news:g2ruj9$9fp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
> Robert Henderson   wrote:
>>A Test attack of Hayes (genuinely fast), McGibbbon (upper end of Fast
>>Medium), Blair (upper end of fast medium), Cave( MF),  Reid (MF or Off
>>Breaks, Alabaster  or Moir  (LBG) , Sparling (off breaks)  was superior
>>to the current attack.
>
> I'm not a great fan of quoting figures [tho' even less of
> mere name-dropping];  but here it seems necessary.  Career Test
> averages:
>
>  Hayes 40, MacGibbon 30, Blair 35, Cave 43, Reid 33, Alabaster 38,
>    Moir 50, Sparling 65.
>
> NZ attack in the recent 3rd Test:
>  Oram 30, Vettori 34, Mills 27, O'Brien 34, Martin 33.
>
> Even you would be hard pushed to claim that anyone beyond Reid and
> MacGibbon of the 1958 attack would deserve a place today, esp given
> the much lower scoring in general in the '50s.
>
>>The 1958 batting had the same depth as this one with the likes of
>>McGibbon ,  Petrie, Sparling at 7, 8, 9 plus players such as Alabaster
>>and Moir  who could both bat.
>
> So you're planning to play Reid at 5, MacGibbon, Petrie
> and Sparling at 7, 8, 9, followed by Alabaster or Moir at 10, then
> Hayes, Blair and Cave at 11, 12, 13?  Back in the real world, the
> '58 side had to drop two of Hayes, Blair and Cave, which makes the
> attack you were vaunting above look even thinner.
>
>> Sutcliffe and Reid were a better and more
>>experienced  pair than the present side can muster in their top six.
>
> Indeed.  But *apart* from S&R, the '58 side had Miller, D'Arcy,
> Meale and Playle in their top 6, career averages 13, 13, 5 and 10 resp.
> S&R were the only two players in the '58 side with career averages over
> 20 -- and they were badly out of form in the Tests.  By contrast, the
> current NZ squad have McCullum, Taylor, Flynn and Oram with averages
> over 30, plus How and Vettori over 25, and only the novices Redmond
> and Hopkins [of the team for the 3rd Test] currently [and on very slim
> evidence] in the Miller/D'Arcy/Meale/Harford/Playle class.
>
>>Petrie was a far superior wicket keeper to either  McCullum or Hopkins.
>
> Possibly;  but in the modern era, he's not going to keep his
> place unless he can double his batting average.
>
> IOW, Sutcliffe, Reid and MacGibbon, perhaps plus Petrie, would
> make the modern side;  whereas at least How, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn,
> Oram, Vettori and Mills from the present squad, perhaps also Martin or
> O'Brien, would have been grabbed for the '58 side.
>
>>The 1958 side were doubly unfortunate in meeting a very strong England
>>side, especially in strong in bowling and one of the rainiest seasons on
>>record.
>
> Also in not having Donnelly and Rabone available.  OTOH, the
> present team is missing Fleming and Bond, perhaps even Cairns.

Given that Donnelly didn't play first-class cricket after 1950 and wouldhave 
been 40 years old in 1958, I don't think there's much point bemoaning his 
absence.

> But there's really no doubt at all that the current NZ side,
> for all its problems, is much stronger than that of 1958.

I tend to agree, although there are similarities.

As RH says, Petrie was regarded as a fine 'keeper, but such an animal has 
relatively little influence unless he can bat as well.  Petrie was not 
strong in that department.

The 1958 bowling attack was decent enough, MacGibbon in particular a solid 
performer.  However the fact that Hayes was "genuinely fast" should not 
disguise the equal fact that he never really performed at Test level. 
Indeed his career ended shortly thereafter.

However the batting was very short of Test class after Reid and Sutcliffe. 
The latter - although still a good player - was past his best by 1958.  The 
tour party was top-heavy with bowlers, which contributed to the shortage of 
batting options.

All of that said, the 1958 touring party actually did rather well in the 
first month of the season before the weather packed up, with the obvious 
exception of the Surrey fixture.

<snip>

Andrew

In article ,
Andrew Dunford  wrote:
>Given that Donnelly didn't play first-class cricket after 1950 and wouldhave
>been 40 years old in 1958, I don't think there's much point bemoaning his
>absence.

	Donnelly was a class player who made runs, despite being
out of practice, against the touring side in a "farewell" match
just before they sailed;  a few years later, again out of practice,
he played a f-c match against MCC and again made runs.  Despite
his age, he would surely have added some depth to the batting.
As an "elder statesman" of the side, and with much experience of
English conditions, he would also have been useful to help the
youngsters adapt.

[...]
>The 1958 bowling attack was decent enough, MacGibbon in particular a solid
>performer. [...]

	Um.  No-one broke 20 in f-c matches on the tour, in a
season when over 40 English bowlers did so.  You would be hard
pushed to claim it was a better attack that of an average county.
But I agree that that wasn't their real weakness.  Nor, BTW, was
their fielding, which was widely praised.

>However the batting was very short of Test class after Reid and Sutcliffe.

	Yep;  indeed, short of *county* class.  This would have
mattered less if R&S had carried their f-c form into the Tests.
But they didn't.  The result was that May alone averaged virtually
the same as the total of NZ's six specialist batsmen.

[...]
>All of that said, the 1958 touring party actually did rather well in the
>first month of the season before the weather packed up, with the obvious
>exception of the Surrey fixture.

	Yes, they did much better than expected;  and they weren't
the first touring side to get a mauling at the hands of Surrey.  But
the wheels came off in the Tests, and the demoralisation carried
through into later matches against the counties.  I don't think the
weather can really be blamed;  the other Test-playing countries
might be unused to wet English summers, but NZ gets its share of
bad weather.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

"Andy Walker"  wrote in message 
news:g2uvlj$1p4$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
> Andrew Dunford  wrote:
>>Given that Donnelly didn't play first-class cricket after 1950 and 
>>wouldhave
>>been 40 years old in 1958, I don't think there's much point bemoaning his
>>absence.
>
> Donnelly was a class player who made runs, despite being
> out of practice, against the touring side in a "farewell" match
> just before they sailed;

What was this match? I can't find any record of it.

> a few years later, again out of practice,
> he played a f-c match against MCC and again made runs.

The nature of that match should be evident from the runs made by the 
51-year-old Governor General.  And the runs Donnelly made were innings of 15 
& 25.

> Despite
> his age, he would surely have added some depth to the batting.
> As an "elder statesman" of the side, and with much experience of
> English conditions, he would also have been useful to help the
> youngsters adapt.

Possibly, although the evidence you have provided to support this claim is 
slim to the point of almost total absence.  However your point with which I 
really wished to take issue was in describing Donnelly as "unavailable".  He 
had been retired from serious cricket for a very long time, which is hardly 
the same thing.

<snip>

Andrew

In message , Andrew Dunford 
 writes
> & 25.
>
>> Despite
>> his age, he would surely have added some depth to the batting.
>> As an "elder statesman" of the side, and with much experience of
>> English conditions, he would also have been useful to help the
>> youngsters adapt.
>
>Possibly, although the evidence you have provided to support this claim 
>is slim to the point of almost total absence.

I am afraid you have hit on one of the most telling limitations of the 
extreme bounded mind such as Dr B-M's, namely, the inability to 
understand the nature of proof needed fro unbounded judgements. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message <g2ruj9$9fp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy Walker 
 writes
>In article ,
>Robert Henderson   wrote:
>>A Test attack of Hayes (genuinely fast), McGibbbon (upper end of Fast
>>Medium), Blair (upper end of fast medium), Cave( MF),  Reid (MF or Off
>>Breaks, Alabaster  or Moir  (LBG) , Sparling (off breaks)  was superior
>>to the current attack.
>
>       I'm not a great fan of quoting figures [tho' even less of
>mere name-dropping];  but here it seems necessary.  Career Test
>averages:
>
>  Hayes 40, MacGibbon 30, Blair 35, Cave 43, Reid 33, Alabaster 38,
>    Moir 50, Sparling 65.
>
>NZ attack in the recent 3rd Test:
>  Oram 30, Vettori 34, Mills 27, O'Brien 34, Martin 33.

Sigh. You ignore the quality of the teams NZ played against then and 
now. Now they play against the likes of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the 
presently feeble Windies, while of the other sides only Oz of today 
compare with England in the fifties. RH
>
>Even you would be hard pushed to claim that anyone beyond Reid and
>MacGibbon of the 1958 attack would deserve a place today, esp given
>the much lower scoring in general in the '50s.
>

An attack of Hayes, McGibbon, Blair, Reid, Alabaster and Sparling  has 
more depth and balance than that of today.   RH

>>The 1958 batting had the same depth as this one with the likes of
>>McGibbon ,  Petrie, Sparling at 7, 8, 9 plus players such as Alabaster
>>and Moir  who could both bat.
>
>       So you're planning to play Reid at 5, MacGibbon, Petrie
>and Sparling at 7, 8, 9, followed by Alabaster or Moir at 10, then
>Hayes, Blair and Cave at 11, 12, 13?  Back in the real world, the
>'58 side had to drop two of Hayes, Blair and Cave, which makes the
>attack you were vaunting above look even thinner.
>

The best side from the 1958 touring party would be:

Sutcliffe, D'Arcy, Harford  Reid , Playle, Sparling, McGibbon, Petrie, 
Alabaster, Blair, Hayes.

Care to explain how the present NZ side is stronger in batting? Where 
are the two to match Reid and Sutcliffe?  RH

>>                              Sutcliffe and Reid were a better and more
>>experienced  pair than the present side can muster in their top six.
>
>       Indeed.  But *apart* from S&R, the '58 side had Miller, D'Arcy,
>Meale and Playle in their top 6, career averages 13, 13, 5 and 10 resp.
>S&R were the only two players in the '58 side with career averages over
>20 -- and they were badly out of form in the Tests.  By contrast, the
>current NZ squad have McCullum, Taylor, Flynn and Oram with averages
>over 30, plus How and Vettori over 25, and only the novices Redmond
>and Hopkins [of the team for the 3rd Test] currently [and on very slim
>evidence] in the Miller/D'Arcy/Meale/Harford/Playle class.
>
>>Petrie was a far superior wicket keeper to either  McCullum or Hopkins.
>
>       Possibly;  but in the modern era, he's not going to keep his
>place unless he can double his batting average.
>
>       IOW, Sutcliffe, Reid and MacGibbon, perhaps plus Petrie, would
>make the modern side;  whereas at least How, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn,

Why would you imagine that any of those would have scored runs in a very 
wet English summer such as 1958? RH

>Oram,

Yes. RH

> Vettori

Yes. RH

> and Mills f

Better than whom of the 1958 side? RH

>rom the present squad, perhaps also Martin or
>O'Brien, would have been grabbed for the '58 side.

Better than who in the 1958 side? RH

>
>>The 1958 side were doubly unfortunate in meeting a very strong England
>>side, especially in strong in bowling and one of the rainiest seasons on
>>record.
>
>       Also in not having Donnelly


Academic as  another poster  has pointed out because he had been out of 
FC cricket for so long. RH

>and Rabone available

Would not have made a great difference. RH

>.  OTOH, the
>present team is missing Fleming and Bond,

That is not relevant to the question of th respective strengths of the 
1958 and 2008 sides. RH

> perhaps even Cairns.

At the age of 38? RH
>
>       But there's really no doubt at all that the current NZ side,

Only in the narrow confines of the extreme bounded mind. RH

>for all its problems, is much stronger than that of 1958.
>
>>Compare the 1958 England attack of Trueman, Staham, Bailey, Laker, Lock
>>with  Sidebottom, Anderson, Broad, Panesar, Collingwood and weep.  RH
>
>       Weeping seems rather exaggerated.  Our attack from 1953 to 1959
>was surely the best and best-balanced we have ever had, given that you
>have listed four of the all-time greats and that several others of quite
>similar quality also played more-or-less regularly in that period.  It's
>not surprising that today's rather inexperienced attack is not of the
>same standard.  But they're doing OK.

OK is not good enough when it is against NZ. It should be overwhelming 
this side. RH

> Let's see how they get on against
>SA, and then we can start thinking about the next Ashes side.  If Jones
>and Flintoff can stay off the injury list, it could be "interesting".
>

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In article ,
Andrew Dunford  wrote:
>> Donnelly was a class player who made runs, despite being
>> out of practice, against the touring side in a "farewell" match
>> just before they sailed;
>What was this match? I can't find any record of it.

	It's mentioned in the 1959 "Playfair", and no doubt in the
newspaper archives of the period.

>> a few years later, again out of practice,
>> he played a f-c match against MCC and again made runs.
>The nature of that match should be evident from the runs made by the
>51-year-old Governor General.

	I was at a school re-union yesterday, and we were reminded
that the former headmaster, frail and in his 70s, had still insisted
on having his net against the First XI bowlers -- who had to be told
in no uncertain terms of the consequences if there was any injury.  I
expect MCC were told something similar.  Doesn't tell you much about
the rest of the match.

>				And the runs Donnelly made were innings of 15
>& 25.

	True;  but that's a better average than *any* of NZ's
specialist batsmen managed in the 1958 Tests, and 25 is more
than three of them [Playle, Meale and Harford] managed between
them in 21 innings -- Miller at least managed a 26.

>> Despite
>> his age, he would surely have added some depth to the batting.
>> As an "elder statesman" of the side, and with much experience of
>> English conditions, he would also have been useful to help the
>> youngsters adapt.
>Possibly, although the evidence you have provided to support this claim is
>slim to the point of almost total absence.

	"Class is permanent."

>					     However your point with which I
>really wished to take issue was in describing Donnelly as "unavailable".  He
>had been retired from serious cricket for a very long time, which is hardly
>the same thing.

	Complain to John Arlott.  According to his article in the
1959 "Playfair", neither Donnelly nor Rabone were available for
selection "for business reasons", and "Wallace, even at the age of
41, probably would have been an asset".  Donnelly wasn't exactly a
Bradman, but he was a very high-class batsman who had scored very
heavily in English conditions and had many friends over here;
there was certainly talk of his selection.

	40 or 41 may seem quite ancient these days, but it was not
an unusual age for a batsman to play up to then, even at Test level,
and with so few f-c teams and matches in NZ [and WI], it was also
not unusual for amateurs to play very little over several seasons.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

In article <g33scb$inl$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>,
 Andy Walker  writes:
<snip>
>       40 or 41 may seem quite ancient these days, but it was not
>an unusual age for a batsman to play up to then, even at Test level,
>and with so few f-c teams and matches in NZ [and WI], it was also
>not unusual for amateurs to play very little over several seasons.

I haven't checked, but I suspect that Donnelly in 1958 would have been
younger than Reid and Sutcliffe were by the time that they went on the
next tour in 1965. Of course, an important difference is that they,
unlike Donnelly, hadn't been out of serious cricket for a number of
years.
-- 
John Hall      "George the Third
                Ought never to have occurred.
                One can only wonder
                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

In article ,
Robert Henderson   wrote:
>Sigh. You ignore the quality of the teams NZ played against then and
>now. Now they play against the likes of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the
>presently feeble Windies, while of the other sides only Oz of today
>compare with England in the fifties. RH

	Feel free to strip out figures against B&Z, and even WI if
you like.  Don't forget to factor in the general increase in scores.

>An attack of Hayes, McGibbon, Blair, Reid, Alabaster and Sparling  has
>more depth and balance than that of today.   RH

	Why not play Cave and Moir as well, and have even more
depth and balance in the bowling, without weakening the batting?
The trouble is, of course, that after McGibbon and Reid, neither
of whom would have made any of the better sides of the era as
specialist bowlers, they just weren't very *good*.  Their present
bowlers aren't marvellous either, esp without Bond, but at least
Vettori, Oram and Mills would easily make the '58 team.

>The best side from the 1958 touring party would be:
>Sutcliffe, D'Arcy, Harford  Reid , Playle, Sparling, McGibbon, Petrie,
>Alabaster, Blair, Hayes.
>Care to explain how the present NZ side is stronger in batting? Where
>are the two to match Reid and Sutcliffe?  RH

	So what happened to your claimed "strength in depth" in the
batting?  Noting that Reid and Sutcliffe were in dreadful form in
the Tests, you've dropped a batsman to play your deeply balanced
attack and have a tail that starts at six.  Or three if we were to
promote Reid to open and were being unkind.  Of course, scoring is
heavier these days, but even in the '50s career averages of 5 to 13
were not normal for Test-class specialist batsmen, not even when
blighted by a wet English summer.  The current side may not have
Reid and Sutcliffe, but they do have at least six batsmen with a
proven ability to score runs, and a couple more on whom we have to
suspend judgement until they've played a few more Tests.

>>       IOW, Sutcliffe, Reid and MacGibbon, perhaps plus Petrie, would
>>make the modern side;  whereas at least How, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn,
>Why would you imagine that any of those would have scored runs in a very
>wet English summer such as 1958? RH

	They have at least scored runs in *other* circumstances,
which gives them an advantage over most of your side.

>>Oram,
>Yes. RH
>> Vettori
>Yes. RH
>> and Mills f
>Better than whom of the 1958 side? RH

	Well, all of them except MacGibbon ....  Don't forget
to allow for the increased general scores.

>>rom the present squad, perhaps also Martin or
>>O'Brien, would have been grabbed for the '58 side.
>Better than who in the 1958 side? RH

	Ditto, really;  though it's getting more debatable.

>> perhaps even Cairns.
>At the age of 38? RH

	Still good enough to be snapped up by Notts when he
became available as a Kolpak.  If a team loses several of its
best and most experienced players, as NZ have both recently
and in 1958, then it's more important to hang on to those you
still have, even if they're no longer of the same quality they
used to be.

[England:]
>> [...] It's
>>not surprising that today's rather inexperienced attack is not of the
>>same standard.  But they're doing OK.
>OK is not good enough when it is against NZ. It should be overwhelming
>this side. RH

	Since we dropped Harmison and Hoggard, we've scored four
heavy wins and had much the better of a rain-affected draw.  That
seems OK to me.  We haven't overwhelmed them as one-sidedly as in
'58, but that's not surprising given that NZ are much better than
then.  Perhaps you should have continued and read ...

>> Let's see how they get on against
>>SA, and then we can start thinking about the next Ashes side.  If Jones
>>and Flintoff can stay off the injury list, it could be "interesting".

	... before replying.  Don't be such a misery-guts.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

In message <g33scb$inl$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy Walker 
 writes
> match.
>
>>                              And the runs Donnelly made were innings of 15
>>& 25.
>
>       True;  but that's a better average than *any* of NZ's
>specialist batsmen managed in the 1958 Tests, and 25 is more than three 
>of them [Playle, Meale and Harford] managed between them in 21 innings 
>-- Miller at least managed a 26.

ROTFL! The bounded mind at full stretch when dealing with unbounded 
problems. Effing hilarious! RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message <g341u0$q4n$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy Walker 
 writes
>In article ,
>Robert Henderson   wrote:
>>Sigh. You ignore the quality of the teams NZ played against then and
>>now. Now they play against the likes of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the
>>presently feeble Windies, while of the other sides only Oz of today
>>compare with England in the fifties. RH
>
>       Feel free to strip out figures against B&Z, and even WI if
>you like.

I shall not pander to your idleness. RH

>  Don't forget to factor in the general increase in scores.
>

Oh dear, the limitations of the bounded mind cruelly exposed once again. 
The important thing to concentrate on is the difference in quality of 
the players in both periods. Merely looking at stats  is inadequate. RH

>>An attack of Hayes, McGibbon, Blair, Reid, Alabaster and Sparling  has
>>more depth and balance than that of today.   RH
>
>       Why not play Cave and Moir as well, and have even more
>depth and balance in the bowling, without weakening the batting?
>The trouble is, of course, that after McGibbon and Reid, neither
>of whom would have made any of the better sides of the era as
>specialist bowlers, they just weren't very *good*.  Their present
>bowlers aren't marvellous either, esp without Bond, but at least
>Vettori, Oram and Mills would easily make the '58 team.

Your evidence for this is? RH
>
>>The best side from the 1958 touring party would be:
>>Sutcliffe, D'Arcy, Harford  Reid , Playle, Sparling, McGibbon, Petrie,
>>Alabaster, Blair, Hayes.
>>Care to explain how the present NZ side is stronger in batting? Where
>>are the two to match Reid and Sutcliffe?  RH
>
>       So what happened to your claimed "strength in depth" in the
>batting?


Sigh. That was not the side which played in most of the Tests. RH

>Noting that Reid and Sutcliffe were in dreadful form in
>the Tests, you've dropped a batsman to play your deeply balanced
>attack and have a tail that starts at six.  Or three if we were to
>promote Reid to open and were being unkind.  Of course, scoring is
>heavier these days, but even in the '50s career averages of 5 to 13
>were not normal for Test-class specialist batsmen, not even when
>blighted by a wet English summer.


Simply a reflection of the strength of the English attack and the very 
wet summer. RH

> The current side may not have
>Reid and Sutcliffe, but they do have at least six batsmen with a
>proven ability to score runs,


Name them.. Of the top six only McCullum has made  significant Test runs 
and most of those have been made batting at seven or eight. His average 
is also mediocre for a specialist batsman. RH

> and a couple more on whom we have to
>suspend judgement until they've played a few more Tests.
>
>>>       IOW, Sutcliffe, Reid and MacGibbon, perhaps plus Petrie, would
>>>make the modern side;  whereas at least How, McCullum, Taylor, Flynn,
>>Why would you imagine that any of those would have scored runs in a very
>>wet English summer such as 1958? RH
>
>       They have at least scored runs in *other* circumstances,
>which gives them an advantage over most of your side.
>
Only McCullum has played any significant amount of Test cricket and that 
as a wicket keeper batsman.The ineptitude of the NZ batsman in the last 
Test against the swinging ball tells you all you need to known about 
tjheri chances against the 1958 England attack: nil. RH



>>>Oram,
>>Yes. RH
>>> Vettori
>>Yes. RH
>>> and Mills f
>>Better than whom of the 1958 side? RH
>
>       Well, all of them except MacGibbon ....


By what criteria? RH

> Don't forget
>to allow for the increased general scores.
>
>>>rom the present squad, perhaps also Martin or
>>>O'Brien, would have been grabbed for the '58 side.
>>Better than who in the 1958 side? RH
>
>       Ditto, really;  though it's getting more debatable.

Not debatable, these are very ordinary bowlers. RH
>
>>> perhaps even Cairns.
>>At the age of 38? RH
>
>       Still good enough to be snapped up by Notts when he
>became available as a Kolpak.

For a 20.twenty game. It takes much more physically to play Test 
cricket. RH

> If a team loses several of its
>best and most experienced players, as NZ have both recently
>and in 1958, then it's more important to hang on to those you
>still have, even if they're no longer of the same quality they
>used to be.
>
>[England:]
>>> [...] It's
>>>not surprising that today's rather inexperienced attack is not of the
>>>same standard.  But they're doing OK.
>>OK is not good enough when it is against NZ. It should be overwhelming
>>this side. RH
>
>       Since we dropped Harmison and Hoggard, we've scored four
>heavy wins and had much the better of a rain-affected draw.  That
>seems OK to me.

Against a feeble NZ side. Get real. RH #


>  We haven't overwhelmed them as one-sidedly as in
>'58, but that's not surprising given that NZ are much better than
>then.  Perhaps you should have continued and read ...
>
>>> Let's see how they get on against
>>>SA, and then we can start thinking about the next Ashes side.  If Jones
>>>and Flintoff can stay off the injury list, it could be "interesting".
>
>       ... before replying.  Don't be such a misery-guts.
>

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
news:OQOkRSFDH0VIFwSF@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message <g341u0$q4n$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy Walker 
>  writes
>>In article ,
>>Robert Henderson   wrote:

>>>The best side from the 1958 touring party would be:
>>>Sutcliffe, D'Arcy, Harford  Reid , Playle, Sparling, McGibbon, Petrie,
>>>Alabaster, Blair, Hayes.
>>>Care to explain how the present NZ side is stronger in batting? Where
>>>are the two to match Reid and Sutcliffe?  RH
>>
>>       So what happened to your claimed "strength in depth" in the
>>batting?
>
>
> Sigh. That was not the side which played in most of the Tests. RH
>
>>Noting that Reid and Sutcliffe were in dreadful form in
>>the Tests, you've dropped a batsman to play your deeply balanced
>>attack and have a tail that starts at six.  Or three if we were to
>>promote Reid to open and were being unkind.  Of course, scoring is
>>heavier these days, but even in the '50s career averages of 5 to 13
>>were not normal for Test-class specialist batsmen, not even when
>>blighted by a wet English summer.
>
>
> Simply a reflection of the strength of the English attack and the very wet 
> summer. RH

England's bowlers averaged 12.65 in that series, compared to 24.93, 18.51 
and 22.33 in the three previous years (earliest first), when their attack 
was very similar. Do you really think the conditions were bad enough to 
reduce the opposition scoring by 30-50%, or did this have something to do 
with NZ's batting being rubbish? When answering this, bear in mind that 
England averaged 33.82 with the bat in 1958, higher than in 1955 (25.41) and 
1956 (30.85), although well short of the 50.33 they averaged in 1957. If 
NZ's low scoring was not largely due to poor batting, then their bowling 
must have been hopeless compared to the SA and Australia attacks.
-- 
David North

In article ,
Robert Henderson   wrote:
[...]
>>	Feel free to strip out figures against B&Z, and even WI if
>>you like.
>I shall not pander to your idleness. RH

	Translation:  RH has discovered that omitting B/Z/WI makes
little difference ....

>The important thing to concentrate on is the difference in quality of
>the players in both periods. Merely looking at stats  is inadequate. RH

	Well, in general I agree, of course.  But the stats of the
1958 NZ team, esp in Tests, are woeful.  The trouble is that we have
no actual measure of "quality".  But unlike you, I actually remember
the 1958 tour, and watched some of their cricket "live" [at an age
when I was old enough to appreciate the skills on display].

[...]
>Simply a reflection of the strength of the English attack and the very
>wet summer. RH

	This sort of argument would be more convincing had the same
attack either crunched Oz the following winter or not shown exactly
the same dominance over NZ again in the following Tests.  Over the
'50s as a whole, we were broadly level with Oz and WI, somewhat better
than SA, but utterly dominant over NZ [and India].  The conclusion is
inescapable:  in the '50s, NZ were a very weak side -- it was not
until the very end of the '60s that they became competitive.

> [...].The ineptitude of the NZ batsman in the last
>Test against the swinging ball tells you all you need to known about
>tjheri chances against the 1958 England attack: nil. RH [...]

	Um.  I hadn't previously regarded Lock as a swing bowler?
No surprise at all if the current side lost to the England side of
1958, or even lost heavily;  but if you think they would have been
dismissed again and again and again for scores below 100, I think
your rose-coloured spectacles are showing.

	As above, in the end we don't have an adequate measure of
"quality".  We just have opinions.  But it does strain credulity
that anyone should think that the NZ batting of '58, esp in the
Tests [where Reid and Sutcliffe were badly out of form], was of a
decent quality by the standards of any era, or that the bowling
was any better than that of the average county.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:15:51 +0000 (UTC), anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker)
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:


>	As above, in the end we don't have an adequate measure of
>"quality".  We just have opinions.  But it does strain credulity
>that anyone should think that the NZ batting of '58, esp in the
>Tests [where Reid and Sutcliffe were badly out of form], was of a
>decent quality by the standards of any era, or that the bowling
>was any better than that of the average county.

Sutcliffe laboured for half the tour under the handicap of a wrist
broken when he fell after treading on the ball in the MCC match at
Lord's.

Perhaps a few comments from John Reid would be helpful.

Here's some of hat he says about the 1958 tour in his autobiography,
"Sword of Willow".

"... we would have been beaten, and well beaten, if the conditions had
been fine.

"A touring captain shyould, to my mind, be consulted on the team he is
to lead. This privilege was not afforded me on this occasion....

"One looks for expereince to burn in an international touring team.
This one had inexperience to burn. Away back in 1956 ... I said that
Merv Wallace ... should be encouraged to make this tour to England in
any capacity he liked. ...  My suggestion was ignored.

"Don Taylor, who looked the only complete New Zealand batsman in the
third test against the West Indies, was another whose experience of
English conditions and whose technique would have been a wonderful
prop for the youngsters to lean on. ... A quiet word on tour prospects
would surely have moved Don to get himself completely fit. But there
was no quiet word - not even a whisper.   

"It was left to Bill PLayle, a nineteen-year-old playing in his first
series of big matches, to be the side's Tom Graveney.

"The three other players who appealed to me more than some of those
chosen were Noel McGregor, Murray Chapple abd John Guy. Here were men
who had been on tour, who had some cricket behind them - performance
as against potential.

"I am quite happy about a policy of taking one youngster on tour -
that is catering for the present *and* the future. But to cater for
the future as we did in 1958 is carrying the art of the seer to
extremes."

Reid reckoned his team was extremely weak. No doubt RH will wish to
contradict him too.

The NZ selectors realised their mistake, no doubt after a meeting with
an irate Reid on the team's return. Most of the teenagers and
22-year-olds were dropped, Sparling being the only one who survived,
and people like Guy and McGregor reinstated in the 1958-59 series
against England. Playle eventually got a recall in 1962-3.

>> [...].The ineptitude of the NZ batsman in the last
>>Test against the swinging ball tells you all you need to known about
>>tjheri chances against the 1958 England attack: nil. RH [...]

>	Um.  I hadn't previously regarded Lock as a swing bowler?
>No surprise at all if the current side lost to the England side of
>1958, or even lost heavily;  but if you think they would have been
>dismissed again and again and again for scores below 100, I think
>your rose-coloured spectacles are showing.

If he's basing it on swing, then he has his rose-coloured spectacles
are affixed to his posterior.

However, I would point out that in 1957, West Indies struggled to 72/7
in 60 overs of the second innings of the First Test, a successful
rearguard action, and were dismissed for under 100 in both innings at
The Oval, all three of these innings involving Laker and Lock very
heavily. During that Oval Test, Peter May remarked to Everton Weekes
fairly casually that there was probably not much answer to Lock and
Laker on pitches like that, and Weekes agreed emphatically but with
little of May's apparently cheerful acceptance.

Given the conditions which obtained in the 1958 Tests, especially at
those times when New Zealand had to bat against Laker and Lock, I
would confidently expect the 2008 New Zealanders to be dismissed for
under 100 on several occasions. I would expect the same of the 1984
West Indies, the 2001 Australians, and indeed almost any team of any
era. The 1948 Australians might have reached 130 a few times in such
circumstances, but Bradman's series average of 23.45 would have been
the wonder of the ages.

As Reid himself said, the 1958 side were too young and too
inexperienced to have had any chance of actual success because they
simply weren't good enough; that the condtions were so appalling and
so favourable to Laker and Lock just made it much worse than it need
have been.

Cheers,

Mike
--

"Andy Walker"  wrote in message 
news:g3esrn$745$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
> Robert Henderson   wrote:
> [...]
>>> Feel free to strip out figures against B&Z, and even WI if
>>>you like.
>>I shall not pander to your idleness. RH
>
> Translation:  RH has discovered that omitting B/Z/WI makes
> little difference ....
>
>>The important thing to concentrate on is the difference in quality of
>>the players in both periods. Merely looking at stats  is inadequate. RH
>
> Well, in general I agree, of course.  But the stats of the
> 1958 NZ team, esp in Tests, are woeful.  The trouble is that we have
> no actual measure of "quality".  But unlike you, I actually remember
> the 1958 tour, and watched some of their cricket "live" [at an age
> when I was old enough to appreciate the skills on display].
>
> [...]
>>Simply a reflection of the strength of the English attack and the very
>>wet summer. RH
>
> This sort of argument would be more convincing had the same
> attack either crunched Oz the following winter or not shown exactly
> the same dominance over NZ again in the following Tests.  Over the
> '50s as a whole, we were broadly level with Oz and WI, somewhat better
> than SA, but utterly dominant over NZ [and India].  The conclusion is
> inescapable:  in the '50s, NZ were a very weak side -- it was not
> until the very end of the '60s that they became competitive.

Consistently competitive, yes.  There were isolated occasions on which they 
did rather better, for example 1949 in England and especially 1961/62 in 
South Africa.

<snip>

Andrew

"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
news:411m549m2g0oh5lf7avbf1bjc2v3gljcbr@4ax.com...

> Given the conditions which obtained in the 1958 Tests, especially at
> those times when New Zealand had to bat against Laker and Lock, I
> would confidently expect the 2008 New Zealanders to be dismissed for
> under 100 on several occasions. I would expect the same of the 1984
> West Indies, the 2001 Australians, and indeed almost any team of any
> era. The 1948 Australians might have reached 130 a few times in such
> circumstances, but Bradman's series average of 23.45 would have been
> the wonder of the ages.
>
> As Reid himself said, the 1958 side were too young and too
> inexperienced to have had any chance of actual success because they
> simply weren't good enough; that the condtions were so appalling and
> so favourable to Laker and Lock just made it much worse than it need
> have been.

That doesn't say much for the bowling of Sparling, who averaged 62 compared 
to Lock's 7.47 and Laker's 10.17.
-- 
David North

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:01:54 +0100, "David North"
 tapped the keyboard and brought
forth:

>"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
>news:411m549m2g0oh5lf7avbf1bjc2v3gljcbr@4ax.com...
>
>> Given the conditions which obtained in the 1958 Tests, especially at
>> those times when New Zealand had to bat against Laker and Lock, I
>> would confidently expect the 2008 New Zealanders to be dismissed for
>> under 100 on several occasions. I would expect the same of the 1984
>> West Indies, the 2001 Australians, and indeed almost any team of any
>> era. The 1948 Australians might have reached 130 a few times in such
>> circumstances, but Bradman's series average of 23.45 would have been
>> the wonder of the ages.
>>
>> As Reid himself said, the 1958 side were too young and too
>> inexperienced to have had any chance of actual success because they
>> simply weren't good enough; that the condtions were so appalling and
>> so favourable to Laker and Lock just made it much worse than it need
>> have been.
>
>That doesn't say much for the bowling of Sparling, who averaged 62 compared 
>to Lock's 7.47 and Laker's 10.17.

He had his 20th birthday on the tour, on the day I was born in fact.
Before arriving in England, he had played 9 first-class matches. It
seems fairly likely that he really wasn't very good in 1958.

Cheers,

Mike
--

In article ,
Mike Holmans   wrote:
>Perhaps a few comments from John Reid would be helpful. [...]

	Indeed;  very interesting.

>However, I would point out that in 1957, West Indies struggled to 72/7
>in 60 overs of the second innings of the First Test, a successful
>rearguard action,

	That was the turning point of the whole series.  For the
first three days, WI had controlled the match;  but then May, in
probably his finest hour(s), and Cowdrey put on their magnificent
411 stand, destroying Ramadhin in the process.  There was a
widespread view that May should have declared when Cowdrey was
out, which would have set WI 237 to win in just over 3 hours;
but he, probably correctly, first made the match absolutely safe.
WI were then faced with just over 2 1/2 hours to bat out the
match;  this turned out to be a task for which they were ill-
equipped [like Oz the year before].  Laker and Lock thrived on
batsmen who got bogged down -- they rattled through maiden after
maiden, at around 25 overs/hour --, and gradually worked through
the WI batting until time ran out.  Another half hour might have
done it;  OTOH, if WI had had a realistic, if stiff, target, they
might have taken the fight to the spinners, and drawn much more
comfortably.

>		   and were dismissed for under 100 in both innings at
>The Oval, all three of these innings involving Laker and Lock very
>heavily. [...]

	By then, they were completely demoralised.  Ian Peebles,
in "Playfair", criticised the captaincy, the fielding, the WK,
the batting and the bowling.  But at least, unlike the tourists
of 1958, 1959 and 1960, there was no doubt about the individual
talents on display.

>Given the conditions which obtained in the 1958 Tests, [...]
>     The 1948 Australians might have reached 130 a few times in such
>circumstances, but Bradman's series average of 23.45 would have been
>the wonder of the ages.

	OK, nice one, but not entirely fair.  Laker, Lock and co
were taking wickets at between 12 and 17 over the season as a
whole, suggesting that the typical county side would have scored
around 140-150 against them.  NZ averaged 127.  Are you claiming
that the 1948 Australians were no better than the typical county
side?

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:08:36 +0000 (UTC), anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker)
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>In article ,
>Mike Holmans   wrote:

>>Given the conditions which obtained in the 1958 Tests, [...]
>>     The 1948 Australians might have reached 130 a few times in such
>>circumstances, but Bradman's series average of 23.45 would have been
>>the wonder of the ages.
>
>	OK, nice one, but not entirely fair.  Laker, Lock and co
>were taking wickets at between 12 and 17 over the season as a
>whole, suggesting that the typical county side would have scored
>around 140-150 against them.  NZ averaged 127.  Are you claiming
>that the 1948 Australians were no better than the typical county
>side?

Not exactly.

The point I'm getting at is that from Reid's account, the Test
pitches, by the time NZ batted on them against L&L, were just about
the worst for batting they encountered on the tour. Though NZ were
abysmal, Reid does not believe that any other team would have done a
great deal better, given that no other team mastered Laker and Lock in
the years before and after 1958.

Reid's book is not full of excuses; he's suitably proud of 1949 and
1961-62 and equally suitably apologetic about failing to make England
bat again after they'd achieved a lead of a mere 46 in 1954-55. He was
also a highly-experienced cricketer by 1958. If he says that the
conditions were hellish, I'm inclined to believe him.

The 1956 Australians and 1957 Windies both managed to succumb to L&L
in dramatic fashions on occasion. If, as Reid suggests, the conditions
in 1958 were even worse, it seems unlikely that anyone would have had
much success.

Wet wickets were a great leveller; Bradman famously hated them and the
rest of his side played on them very rarely, since they had played all
their cricket at home on convered wickets except for the very few
who'd encountered a sticky in a Test.

1958 county sides were full of people who were accustomed to wet
wickets. Most had a bad wicket specialist or two. It's not too much of
a leap to hypothetise that they would have done relatively better than
the inexperienced Australians, ie that they would have scored 50% of
their normal expectation, say, but the Australians would only reach
40% of their par, thus closing the gap in class appreciably. I may
well have exaggerated, but you might concede that it's not entirely
flim-flam.

Cheers,

Mike

--

In article ,
Mike Holmans   wrote:
>The point I'm getting at is that from Reid's account, the Test
>pitches, by the time NZ batted on them against L&L, were just about
>the worst for batting they encountered on the tour. Though NZ were
>abysmal, Reid does not believe that any other team would have done a
>great deal better, given that no other team mastered Laker and Lock in
>the years before and after 1958.

	To an extent.  But over the L&L period, no-one "mastered"
Trueman and Statham, or Appleyard and Wardle either.  They were
great bowlers, and May had the luxury that if conditions didn't
suit the fast bowlers, he could turn to the spinners and vv.  You
still might expect a Test side, despite the occasional calamity,
to do better over a series than typical county sides, esp as the
bottom end of the CC was pretty dire -- as Surrey began their run
of CC wins, Somerset were beginning a run of CC wooden spoons,
from which they were rescued by their overseas players, and in
1958, Notts were so bad that I'd be amazed if they could have
beaten the current Notts 2nd XI [suitably time-travelled!].

[...]
>The 1956 Australians and 1957 Windies both managed to succumb to L&L
>in dramatic fashions on occasion. [...]

	Both [as indeed NZ in '58] when in a state of utter
demoralisation.  SA in '55, with a weaker team than Oz or WI,
lost with their heads held high.  It was *easy* to succumb to
L&L -- I watched Notts do it enough!  You just had to stand
there leaden-footed and, oblivious to which way or how much
the ball was going to turn, play from some random part of bat
or pad.  There may not have been the same physical terror as
when we faced the WIPQ, but the effect was the same;  the ball
came at only 2/3 the speed, but it did so more than twice as
frequently, and with the same drama.

>1958 county sides were full of people who were accustomed to wet
>wickets. Most had a bad wicket specialist or two.

	Not so much wet or bad wicket specialists as batsmen, of
greater or lesser talent, who at least were used to playing top
class spin.  India had that too;  but they were unused to playing
against fast bowlers.  Otherwise, there was a dearth of spin in
overseas cricket, at a time when there was a glut here.  WI had
Ramadhin and Valentine, but played too little domestic cricket.
SA had Tayfield, but he was pretty much on his own by and after
1955.  Oz were between Johnson and Benaud.  So they all came to
England, and suddenly found themselves facing an intensity of spin
that they were quite unused to.  [Somewhat ironically, many of the
spinners on the county circuit were overseas players.]

>						   It's not too much of
>a leap to hypothetise that they would have done relatively better than
>the inexperienced Australians, ie that they would have scored 50% of
>their normal expectation, say, but the Australians would only reach
>40% of their par, thus closing the gap in class appreciably. I may
>well have exaggerated, but you might concede that it's not entirely
>flim-flam.

	Oh, it's not entirely flim-flam.  But 80% of the '48 Oz
side would still have beaten most, if not all, counties;  and I
suspect that Bradman, Barnes, Hassett and the 1948, more care-free,
versions of Harvey and Miller would not have stood in their creases
waiting for the end but would have taken the fight to L&L.  They
might still have perished, but they would have scored a few runs
in the meantime.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:24:57 +0000 (UTC), anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker)
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>In article ,
>Mike Holmans   wrote:

>>						   It's not too much of
>>a leap to hypothetise that they would have done relatively better than
>>the inexperienced Australians, ie that they would have scored 50% of
>>their normal expectation, say, but the Australians would only reach
>>40% of their par, thus closing the gap in class appreciably. I may
>>well have exaggerated, but you might concede that it's not entirely
>>flim-flam.
>
>	Oh, it's not entirely flim-flam.  But 80% of the '48 Oz
>side would still have beaten most, if not all, counties;  and I
>suspect that Bradman, Barnes, Hassett and the 1948, more care-free,
>versions of Harvey and Miller would not have stood in their creases
>waiting for the end but would have taken the fight to L&L.  They
>might still have perished, but they would have scored a few runs
>in the meantime.

Indeed. But would they have beaten the England side of 1958 in England
in 1958?

You can point out that England lost to the rather weaker Australian
side of 1958-59 and easily convince me that the 1948 Australians would
also have beaten them, and you can explain that they would certainly
have won in 1957. But in 1958, wouldn't the England attack, the filthy
conditions and the inexperience of the "Invincibles" when it came to
top-class spin on such minefields, have tipped the balance the other
way?

Cheers,

Mike 
--

In message <g3esrn$745$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy Walker 
 writes
>In article ,
>Robert Henderson   wrote:
>[...]
>>>     Feel free to strip out figures against B&Z, and even WI if
>>>you like.
>>I shall not pander to your idleness. RH
>
>       Translation:  RH has discovered that omitting B/Z/WI makes
>little difference ....

Status quo. RH

>
>>The important thing to concentrate on is the difference in quality of
>>the players in both periods. Merely looking at stats  is inadequate. RH
>
>       Well, in general I agree, of course.  But the stats of the
>1958 NZ team, esp in Tests, are woeful.  The trouble is that we have
>no actual measure of "quality".  But unlike you, I actually remember
>the 1958 tour, and watched some of their cricket "live" [at an age
>when I was old enough to appreciate the skills on display].
>
>[...]
>>Simply a reflection of the strength of the English attack and the very
>>wet summer. RH
>
>       This sort of argument would be more convincing had the same
>attack either crunched Oz the following winter or not shown exactly
>the same dominance over NZ again in the following Tests.  Over the
>'50s as a whole, we were broadly level with Oz and WI,


Nope. Won three series to two. (Oz), won 2 series, drew 1, lost one 
Windies. RH

> somewhat better
>than SA,

Much better. Won two series, drew one. RH


>but utterly dominant over NZ

They always faced our full strength side or damn near it. RH


>[and India].

Not in India, but that was with a second eleven England team. . RH

>  The conclusion is
>inescapable:  in the '50s, NZ were a very weak side

Weak by what measure?  They had a very tough fifties Test schedule, 
playing the large majority of their games against England, SA and the 
Windies. There games against India and Pakistan were mainly on the 
sub-continent. RH

> -- it was not
>until the very end of the '60s that they became competitive.

They had some good series, most notably the 1961/62 series in SA. RH
>
>> [...].The ineptitude of the NZ batsman in the last
>>Test against the swinging ball tells you all you need to known about
>>tjheri chances against the 1958 England attack: nil. RH [...]
>
>       Um.  I hadn't previously regarded Lock as a swing bowler?

ROTFL! The limitations of the bounded mind cruelly exposed once again, a 
mind unable to understand the difference between citing a single aspect 
of a situation when others are also important and a situation where one 
thing is the determining factor. RH

>No surprise at all if the current side lost to the England side of
>1958, or even lost heavily;  but if you think they would have been
>dismissed again and again and again for scores below 100, I think
>your rose-coloured spectacles are showing.

Sigh. I am not saying they were a good side, merely that they were a 
match or more than a match for this current NZ side. RH

>
>       As above, in the end we don't have an adequate measure of
>"quality".  We just have opinions.  But it does strain credulity
>that anyone should think that the NZ batting of '58, esp in the
>Tests [where Reid and Sutcliffe were badly out of form], was of a
>decent quality by the standards of any era, or that the bowling
>was any better than that of the average county.
>

Imagine the 1958 side batting against the current England side. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message , David North 
 writes
>>
>> Simply a reflection of the strength of the English attack and the very wet
>> summer. RH
>
>England's bowlers averaged 12.65 in that series, compared to 24.93, 
>18.51 and 22.33 in the three previous years (earliest first), when 
>their attack was very similar. Do you really think the conditions were 
>bad enough to reduce the opposition scoring by 30-50%, or did this have 
>something to do with NZ's batting being rubbish?


I suggest you compare the average of FC wickets taken in the years 
1955-7 with the cost in 1958. Also, I am not claiming that NZ were 
anything like as good as the other sides you cite.  RH

>When answering this, bear in mind that England averaged 33.82 with the 
>bat in 1958, higher than in 1955 (25.41) and 1956 (30.85), although 
>well short of the 50.33 they averaged in 1957. If NZ's low scoring was 
>not largely due to poor batting, then their bowling must have been 
>hopeless compared to the SA and Australia attacks.
>--
>David North
>
>

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In article ,
Mike Holmans   wrote:
>You can point out that England lost to the rather weaker Australian
>side of 1958-59 and easily convince me that the 1948 Australians would
>also have beaten them, and you can explain that they would certainly
>have won in 1957.

	"Certainly" -- no.  The England side of 1955-58 had the
best attack [IMHO!] it has *ever* had;  the batting was perfectly
decent, apart from the perennial opening problem;  and there were
reserves a-plenty for when the top players were injured.  I think
the 1948 Oz side would *probably* have won in those years, but I
don't see any certainty.

>		   But in 1958, wouldn't the England attack, the filthy
>conditions and the inexperience of the "Invincibles" when it came to
>top-class spin on such minefields, have tipped the balance the other
>way?

	Possibly.  But I think you're still over-egging things.
"Filthy conditions"?  It was a wet summer, we didn't have all
that much snow, fog, hail, ....  Plenty of cricket *was* played,
some of it even in sunshine.  "Top class spin on such minefields"?
Well, certainly Laker and Lock were a handful that year.  But
actually most of the top bowlers in 1958 were the quicks.  Lock
was second in the averages;  but if you take away his "lakering"
of NZ, he drops to fifth, behind Jackson, Statham, Trueman and
Sayer [and just ahead of Laker, Ridgway, Wardle and Shackleton].
14 of the top 20, 20 of the top 30, were quicks.  We have to
suppose that Lindwall and Miller would have been as effective
as Statham and Trueman, and Johnston and Toshack probably better
than Bailey;  Johnson and McCool may not have been L&L, but they
were decent enough by Oz spinner standards in '48.  Tribe was
well up the averages in '58, and Dooland surely would have been
if he had still been playing;  and we know that the Oz selectors
preferred Johnson and McCool to them by '48.

	The two big unknowns are (a) how the Oz batsmen would
have responded to the conditions, and (b) how England would have
responded to pressure.  It's easy for a strong side to look good
against weak and demoralised opposition;  the test of captaincy
and management comes when opponents don't just lie down -- as we
found in '58-59.  Perhaps it all comes down to Bradman vs May,
both as batsmen and as captains.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:59:44 +0000 (UTC), anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker)
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>In article ,
>Mike Holmans   wrote:
>>You can point out that England lost to the rather weaker Australian
>>side of 1958-59 and easily convince me that the 1948 Australians would
>>also have beaten them, and you can explain that they would certainly
>>have won in 1957.
>
>	"Certainly" -- no.  The England side of 1955-58 had the
>best attack [IMHO!