I recently read Colin McCool's autobiographical "Cricket Is A Game",
in which he casts his eye over his fellow wristies, and I thought some
people would be interested.

His ratings, in order:

WJ O Reilly
D Aylight
CV Grimmett
DVP Wright/GE Tribe
DT Ring/B Dooland/SP Gupte

About O'Reilly and Grimmett he says nothing you don't already know,
but his remarks on the others bear repeating.

"Tribe in his early days in the game was a magnificent member of the
left-handers' branch of the wrist-spinners union. He spun hard, he had
good control and, above all, he disguised his action so well...

"Yet Tribe was not as good a bowler in England as he was for ...
Australia soon after the war. He still had control of length and spin,
but in England he was as straightforward to read as a child's book of
nursery rhymes ... compared with his Australian form....

"Why did he deteriorate in England, yet succeed more?

"Possibly I fancy, because he found that he did not need to be so
good. With Englishmen reading the hand as poorly as they do, he
probably found he could get his wickets just as easily without being
such a perfectionist.

"Wright was an enigma. I don't know how you explain him away. On the
quicker Australian wickets just after the war he was a bettter bowler
than he had ever been before, or was afterwards. He was the best
wrist-spinner to bowl at the pace he did.... He could bowl anybody
out. Anybody. He could also fail to bowl them out, missing bat, stumps
and wicketkeeper with a consistency of misfortune that was downright
cruel. 

"Wright's tragedy was that he was born too soon.... As a result,
Wright had to take on more work and responsibility than he could
reasonably be expected to carry. Had he been born a few years later he
would have been a brilliant and vital member of the present [1961]
attack. With other top-line bowlers to take the strain off him, he
would have blossomed into true greatness."

He says nothing more of Dooland than that he was a successful bowler
in county cricket, though to have done so at spin-hostile Trent Bridge
was some achievement.

He felt sorry for Gupte on the 1959 tour of England because he was
over-bowled into ineffectiveness.

"However good a bowler may be, and Gupte had the reputation of being
probably the best leg-spinner in the world, he can't be turned on like
a tap and left on. He gets tired, stale and automatic. To get the best
out of any top-line bowler he must be used to speaqrhead the attack,
not be the be-all and end-all of it. That way lies the graveyard,
especially if he's not even having the consolation of having his
catches taken.

"In recent years both the Indians and the West Indians have been
guilty of trumping their own ace. The West Indians were so certain
that Ramadhin could bowl them to victory that they turned him into a
hack.

"Doug Ring was a fine bowler who arrived on the Test scene at the same
time as the new-ball rule and found that he wasn't wanted. That's how
much the game had changed in a couple of seasons.

"In 1953 he ... had hot oil poured on him because of his bowling in
the Second Test at Lord's. That was the one Willie Watson and Trevor
Bailey saved with their day-long defence.

"Now the wicket for that match was taking spin, yet neither Ring nor
Richie Benaud could do much about it. Consequently they were lanbasted
by the critics. Yet the point was overlooked that neither of them got
the bowling they needed before they went into the Tests. As ever,
Lindwall, Miller, Johnston and Davidson were enough for most of the
counties, and so they were allowed to get on with the job.

"I have said that a bowler can be over-bowler. He can also be
under-bowler, so that he has no feeling for length, direction, or
consistency."

The first point I'd make about McCool's rating is that Eric Hollies
seems to be missing. From one or two other references in the book,
though, McCool regarded Hollies as not really a wrist-spinner; I've
read some other references which suggest that Hollies was a roller
rather than a proper wrist-spinner in the generally-accepted sense.

The other point is that McCool was clearly mad, and no reliance can be
placed on his opinions. I conclude this from the following passage,
which he would certainly never have written if he had had the wit to
consult the young sage RH so as to get his facts straight.

"The international standard has dropped. I've walked the cricket
fields of the world for two decades and I've seen the deterioration
from close quarters.

"So often now we seem to be dealing in excuses. There always seems to
be a logical reason why bowlers bowl at only fifteen overs an hour. Or
the batsmen will cite with grave expression the choking effect on
their stroke-play of these scientifically-planned field placings,
which so often restrict the scoring rate to something round forty an
hour (and often less).

"I listen and I can't help being puzzled. I study these precision
field placings, and the bowlers using them, and I wonder at their
success.

"I can understand a great bowler, a world-class bowler, tying down
batsmen in certain cnditions. I know that these leg side field
placings make life uncomfortable.

But, frankly, I feel half the trouble lies in the minds of the
batsmen. They accept condtions placed on them by bowlers with no right
to dictate how the game will proceed. They think their way into
trouble, delight in seeing danger in every shift of the field.

"I do not believe that much of this ultra-defensive, dreary cricket is
necessary. I believe a lot of second-class bowlers are allowed to get
away with a repeated confidence trick."

As RH has told us over and over again, such a description of cricket
in the Fifties is a lie and completely at variance with the facts. Why
someone who played professional cricket throughout the decade should
resort to such falsehoods is to me unclear, but of course those of you
don't have the twit in your killfiles will have it explained.

Sigh.

Cheers,

Mike

--

In article ,
 Mike Holmans  writes:
>I recently read Colin McCool's autobiographical "Cricket Is A Game",
>in which he casts his eye over his fellow wristies, and I thought some
>people would be interested.
>
>His ratings, in order:
>
>WJ O Reilly
>D Aylight
>CV Grimmett
>DVP Wright/GE Tribe
>DT Ring/B Dooland/SP Gupte
<snip>

Thanks. That was very interesting. I was surprised to find Wright rated
so highly, and that Benaud and Ramadhin weren't included in his list.

One of my earliest cricket-related memories is of an edition of the BBC
programme "Sportsview" which previewed the 1959 Indian tour. Gupte was
praised to the skies - understandably in view of his record up to that
point. In the event, the tour was a disaster for India, in spite of the
summer being exceptionally dry, warm and sunny and England having just
been trounced in Australia.
-- 
John Hall      "George the Third
                Ought never to have occurred.
                One can only wonder
                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

>
> One of my earliest cricket-related memories is of an edition of the BBC
> programme "Sportsview" which previewed the 1959 Indian tour. Gupte was
> praised to the skies - understandably in view of his record up to that
> point. In the event, the tour was a disaster for India, in spite of the
> summer being exceptionally dry, warm and sunny and England having just
> been trounced in Australia.


Gupte suffered hugely from some terrible fielding, some of which was
deliberate, because the team was split into different factions based
on the domestic sides/regions that they represented. Quoting Nari
Contractor from Rajan Bala's book "The covers are off" :

"I can tell you when Subhash Gupte was bowling to Fred Trueman he did
not know what was happening. Normally he should have packed the
tailender off in no time. But as Trueman shaped to face Gupte, there
would be someone - a close-in fieldsman - saying, "googly" or "leg
break". It was ridiculous and anti-national. Trueman was able to play
the bowling on this advice from fieldsmen. I swore to myself that if
and when I became captain, I would come down beavily on such people."

In article <J$hsXrA69gYIFw5b@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
John Hall   wrote:
>>WJ O Reilly
>>D Aylight

	Nice one!  Had me going for a few seconds.

>>CV Grimmett
>>DVP Wright/GE Tribe
>>DT Ring/B Dooland/SP Gupte
><snip>
>Thanks. That was very interesting. I was surprised to find Wright rated
>so highly, and that Benaud and Ramadhin weren't included in his list.

	If there is one word that *everyone* used about DVPW, it
was "unlucky".  He was grossly overbowled, often in conditions
that really didn't suit him.  As McCool says, it would have been
interesting if he had been a few years later, and could have been
slotted in as part of a much more balanced side.  Everyone who
played with or against DVPW or who saw him in the flesh seems to
have had a much higher opinion of him than his figures suggest.
He certainly sticks in my memory -- this fast bowler, with a long
bounding run, and then I was told he was bowling LBG!

	The other aspect of Wright's career is to wonder how
Laker/Lock/Appleyard/Wardle would get on in a modern side, where
they would usually operate singly and be used in a defensive role.
I don't know whether any modern captains understand how to use
"spin twins" to attack.

	As for Benaud and Ramadhin, they may just be McCool being
a little eccentric.  He may have been envious of Benaud -- he had
plausible claims to being the better cricketer, but it was Benaud
who got the Test spot, the limelight and the captaincy -- or it
could have been a NSW rivalry, or perhaps he thought of Benaud as
a rather fingery wrist spinner.  Ramadhin was notably unsuccessful
vs Oz, which may have coloured his judgement;  he also bowled a
somewhat random mix of LB and OB.

	Is it not at least as surprising that McCool rates Ring
so highly?  Decent enough in f-c cricket, but not successful at
Test level.  Perhaps another eccentricity, with the thought that
if he rated Ring as #5, and everyone knew that McCool was better
than Ring, we would subconsciously be rating McCool up there with
Aylight?

>One of my earliest cricket-related memories is of an edition of the BBC
>programme "Sportsview" which previewed the 1959 Indian tour. Gupte was
>praised to the skies - understandably in view of his record up to that
>point. In the event, the tour was a disaster for India, in spite of the
>summer being exceptionally dry, warm and sunny and England having just
>been trounced in Australia.

	India had no fast bowling *at all*.  Desai and Surendra Nath
were woefully inexperienced, and just on the military side of medium.
Nine of our batsmen averaged over 50 ....  Statham and Trueman could
too much for their batting.  It was very welcome relief after the
trials of '58-59, but somewhat meaningless as a serious test of our
cricket.  NZ in '58, India in '59 and SA in '60 completely failed to
give us any real opposition.

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Andy Walker wrote:
> In article <J$hsXrA69gYIFw5b@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
> John Hall   wrote:
>>> WJ O Reilly
>>> D Aylight
> 	Nice one!  Had me going for a few seconds.

I believe that R.S.C's Alvey was the first to crack that caper.

<snip>

-- 
Rodney Ulyate

Ignoring for a moment its repudiation of our /laudator temporis acti/, 
how does McCool's book actually read?  Having seen it in the local 
charity shop, I am keen to know whether it is worth the two or three 
nickers that the indicators tell me it would cost in your country. 
Although obviously no /tour de force/, its excerptions appear trenchant, 
informed and coherent.  I am rather in the mood for something like that.

-- 
Best,
Rodney Ulyate

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:25:06 +0200, Rodney Ulyate
 tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>Ignoring for a moment its repudiation of our /laudator temporis acti/, 
>how does McCool's book actually read?  Having seen it in the local 
>charity shop, I am keen to know whether it is worth the two or three 
>nickers that the indicators tell me it would cost in your country. 
>Although obviously no /tour de force/, its excerptions appear trenchant, 
>informed and coherent.  I am rather in the mood for something like that.

For that kind of money, buy it immediately. The paragraphs I posted
are entirely typical of the rest of the book and you will enjoy it
quite a lot, especially if, as I did, you imagine a certain person
busily contradicting every other paragraph for not being sufficiently
worshipful of the golden decade.

Cheers,

Mike
--

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:51:12 +0000 (UTC), anw@cuboid.uk (Andy Walker)
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:


>	Is it not at least as surprising that McCool rates Ring
>so highly?  Decent enough in f-c cricket, but not successful at
>Test level.  Perhaps another eccentricity, with the thought that
>if he rated Ring as #5, and everyone knew that McCool was better
>than Ring, we would subconsciously be rating McCool up there with
>Aylight?

Indeed. Of the various non-mainstream opinions McCool expresses, I
found this one the most surprising; I can't recall reading anyone even
praising Ring, let alone rating him alongside Gupte and Dooland. 

I didn't quote the rest of what he said about Ring because it was
amplification of his earlier point about under-bowling, but it's clear
that McCool felt that Ring had been hard done by in the Australian
press because they did not appreciate how difficult it was to be the
bowler who got called on only when the pitch was dead, the batsmen
were in no mood to get out to the pace men and there were, remarkably
given the Laws then in force, still a few overs before a new ball
would be available. My guess is that this rating was an "Up yours!" to
one or more Aussie journos.

I'm certain the book contains a number of loaded remarks which would
have meant a great deal more to the contemporaries who read it than
they do to me: I don't fully understand why, for instance, he devotes
most of a chapter to his long-running on-field feud with Wilf Wooller.

Cheers,

Mike 
--

In article <g3tbfg$1pq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>,
 Andy Walker  writes:
>
>       The other aspect of Wright's career is to wonder how
>Laker/Lock/Appleyard/Wardle would get on in a modern side, where
>they would usually operate singly and be used in a defensive role.
>I don't know whether any modern captains understand how to use
>"spin twins" to attack.

Adam Hollioake, of not many years ago, did. The combination of Saqlain
Mushtaq and Ian Salisbury played a major part in Surrey's success.

Of course, covered pitches and fielding restrictions may the sinner's
life harder than it used to be. As partial compensation, the opportunity
to bowl on fourth day pitches helps them.
-- 
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 ,
Mike Holmans   wrote:
>I'm certain the book contains a number of loaded remarks which would
>have meant a great deal more to the contemporaries who read it than
>they do to me: I don't fully understand why, for instance, he devotes
>most of a chapter to his long-running on-field feud with Wilf Wooller.

	Oh.  Anyone who was anyone had a long-running feud with
Wilf Wooller.  Whether any of them deserved most of a chapter is
another matter.  Sadly, not many of them made it to the pages of
"Playfair" or "Wisden", so, innocent that I was in those days, I
knew/know little of the detail, nor how far it was WW's "fault"
that he got up so many noses.  But it sounds as though this is a
book worth looking out for.

	I do recall WW being roundly jeered at TB, following [and
probably several years following] a spat with Reg Simpson, which
may have been the occasion when RTS bowled underarm in response
to negative tactics by Glamorgan.  Before my time ....

	Feel free to quote any more [potential] "loaded remarks"
-- could be interesting!

-- 
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On 24 Jun, 23:58, Mike Holmans  wrote:

> The other point is that McCool was clearly mad, and no reliance can be
> placed on his opinions. I conclude this from the following passage,
> which he would certainly never have written if he had had the wit to
> consult the young sage RH so as to get his facts straight.

<snipped>

> As RH has told us over and over again, such a description of cricket
> in the Fifties is a lie and completely at variance with the facts.

A few weeks ago I was reading one of AA Thomson's books published IIRC
in 1953 (probably "Cricket My Pleasure", if Wikipedia's to be trusted)
- in it he was somewhat gloomy about how much weaker the contemporary
cricketers were than their pre-war counterparts. (To be fair, this was
before England's best results of that decade).

Andrew B. wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 23:58, Mike Holmans  wrote:
[...]
>> As RH has told us over and over again, such a description of cricket
>> in the Fifties is a lie and completely at variance with the facts.
> A few weeks ago I was reading one of AA Thomson's books published IIRC
> in 1953 (probably "Cricket My Pleasure"

My favourite in the cricketing canon (although /Odd Men In/ is presently 
posing a significant threat).  It was indeed published in '53.

<snip>

-- 
Yours,
Rodney Ulyate

On Jun 25, 10:39 am, John Hall  wrote:
> In article <g3tbfg$1pq$1$8302b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>  Andy Walker  writes:
>
>
>
> >       The other aspect of Wright's career is to wonder how
> >Laker/Lock/Appleyard/Wardle would get on in a modern side, where
> >they would usually operate singly and be used in a defensive role.
> >I don't know whether any modern captains understand how to use
> >"spin twins" to attack.
>
> Adam Hollioake, of not many years ago, did. The combination of Saqlain
> Mushtaq and Ian Salisbury played a major part in Surrey's success.
>
> Of course, covered pitches and fielding restrictions may the sinner's
> life harder

... not to mention avid cricket fans calling us "sinners." How dare we
sell our treacherous wares to the beloved, cute, innocent, little
saints... er... I mean, batsmen. :-)

-Samarth.

than it used to be. As partial compensation, the opportunity
> to bowl on fourth day pitches helps them.
> --
> 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
,
 Southpaw  writes:
>> Of course, covered pitches and fielding restrictions may the sinner's
>> life harder
>
>... not to mention avid cricket fans calling us "sinners." How dare we
>sell our treacherous wares to the beloved, cute, innocent, little
>saints... er... I mean, batsmen. :-)

Oops! Sorry about that. :)
-- 
John Hall      "George the Third
                Ought never to have occurred.
                One can only wonder
                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

John Hall waxed Freudian:
[...]
> Of course, covered pitches and fielding restrictions may the sinner's
> life harder

I would love to know what you were thinking about when you wrote that.

<snip>

-- 
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate

In message , Mike Holmans 
 writes
>
>"I do not believe that much of this ultra-defensive, dreary cricket is 
>necessary. I believe a lot of second-class bowlers are allowed to get 
>away with a repeated confidence trick."
>
>As RH has told us over and over again, such a description of cricket in 
>the Fifties is a lie and completely at variance with the facts. Why 
>someone who played professional cricket throughout the decade should 
>resort to such falsehoods is to me unclear, but of course those of you 
>don't have the twit in your killfiles will have it explained.


An Australian making excuses for why Oz batsmen were so inept against 
finger spin in the fifties. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
news:lE0u0EQY5VZIFwny@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Mike Holmans 
>  writes
>>
>>"I do not believe that much of this ultra-defensive, dreary cricket is 
>>necessary. I believe a lot of second-class bowlers are allowed to get away 
>>with a repeated confidence trick."
>>
>>As RH has told us over and over again, such a description of cricket in 
>>the Fifties is a lie and completely at variance with the facts. Why 
>>someone who played professional cricket throughout the decade should 
>>resort to such falsehoods is to me unclear, but of course those of you 
>>don't have the twit in your killfiles will have it explained.
>
>
> An Australian making excuses for why Oz batsmen were so inept against 
> finger spin in the fifties. RH


To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English batsmen 
would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19 wickets- 
surely that is one record that will never be broken.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:02:58 GMT, "Cicero" 
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>
>"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
>news:lE0u0EQY5VZIFwny@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , Mike Holmans 
>>  writes
>>>
>>>"I do not believe that much of this ultra-defensive, dreary cricket is 
>>>necessary. I believe a lot of second-class bowlers are allowed to get away 
>>>with a repeated confidence trick."
>>>
>>>As RH has told us over and over again, such a description of cricket in 
>>>the Fifties is a lie and completely at variance with the facts. Why 
>>>someone who played professional cricket throughout the decade should 
>>>resort to such falsehoods is to me unclear, but of course those of you 
>>>don't have the twit in your killfiles will have it explained.
>>
>>
>> An Australian making excuses for why Oz batsmen were so inept against 
>> finger spin in the fifties. RH
>
>
>To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English batsmen 
>would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19 wickets- 
>surely that is one record that will never be broken. 

Pretty poorly. 

I am immensely cheered, though, to see that RH reckons that a diatribe
against the feebleness of county batsmen against the negative medium
pace which predominated in the Futile Fifties is intended as an excuse
for Australian batsmen being undone by finger spin on doctored
wickets. His imagination knows no bounds, which is only reasonable for
one entirely unencumbered by knowledge of the facts.

Cheers,

Mike 
--

"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
news:ggsb6458peopqc470ja4mfbm8s9pgio4tl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:02:58 GMT, "Cicero" 
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>
>>"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message
>>news:lE0u0EQY5VZIFwny@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message , Mike Holmans
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>>"I do not believe that much of this ultra-defensive, dreary cricket is
>>>>necessary. I believe a lot of second-class bowlers are allowed to get 
>>>>away
>>>>with a repeated confidence trick."
>>>>
>>>>As RH has told us over and over again, such a description of cricket in
>>>>the Fifties is a lie and completely at variance with the facts. Why
>>>>someone who played professional cricket throughout the decade should
>>>>resort to such falsehoods is to me unclear, but of course those of you
>>>>don't have the twit in your killfiles will have it explained.
>>>
>>>
>>> An Australian making excuses for why Oz batsmen were so inept against
>>> finger spin in the fifties. RH
>>
>>
>>To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English batsmen
>>would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19 wickets-
>>surely that is one record that will never be broken.
>
> Pretty poorly.
>
> I am immensely cheered, though, to see that RH reckons that a diatribe
> against the feebleness of county batsmen against the negative medium
> pace which predominated in the Futile Fifties is intended as an excuse
> for Australian batsmen being undone by finger spin on doctored
> wickets. His imagination knows no bounds, which is only reasonable for
> one entirely unencumbered by knowledge of the facts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --

From where I sit, the fifties were not very exciting cricket wise. Compared 
to other decades they seemed to be so outmoded as if trapped in a time warp 
( I am not saying all decades other than the fifties were exciting). But in 
the sixties you had the emergence of the Windies with their players around 
Sobers, the seventies has RSA with one of the strongest teams ever (okay on 
the cusp) and eventually the re emergence of Australian cricket. The 80's 
had the Windies who were great, 90's that sort of disappeared. And in 
between we have seen Sri Lanka, India an Pakistan, if not dominating- at 
least being very strong and competitive.

And let's not forget England who kicked our a$$ when it deserved it. And NZ 
who are always competitive and should have beaten Australia.

The game is better than in the fifties in my view through the sheer talent 
around- and it is a faster game.

In article <6Cj9k.15491$IK1.9740@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
 Cicero  writes:
>To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English
>batsmen would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19
>wickets- surely that is one record that will never be broken.

That Laker may not have been totally unplayable by a batsman with enough
skill and experience is suggested by McDonald's scores of 32 and 89.
That must surely have been a great performance, but it rarely gets a
mention, perhaps because he didn't reach three figures.
-- 
John Hall      "George the Third
                Ought never to have occurred.
                One can only wonder
                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

"John Hall"  wrote in message 
news:L1lmXOBuIgZIFwRj@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article <6Cj9k.15491$IK1.9740@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Cicero  writes:
>>To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English
>>batsmen would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19
>>wickets- surely that is one record that will never be broken.
>
> That Laker may not have been totally unplayable by a batsman with enough
> skill and experience is suggested by McDonald's scores of 32 and 89.
> That must surely have been a great performance, but it rarely gets a
> mention, perhaps because he didn't reach three figures.
> -- 
> John Hall      "George the Third
>                Ought never to have occurred.
>                One can only wonder
>                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)..

Great scores and I am not arguing at all. (Much) Whilst not unplayable I 
would think he was extremely difficult to play. Didn't Harvey play in that 
match (scratches head) and whilst I am no fan he was a very good batsman.

In article <r3o9k.15565$IK1.13856@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
 Cicero  writes:
>
>"John Hall"  wrote in message news:L1lmXOBuIg
>ZIFwRj@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>
>> That Laker may not have been totally unplayable by a batsman with enough
>> skill and experience is suggested by McDonald's scores of 32 and 89.
>> That must surely have been a great performance, but it rarely gets a
>> mention, perhaps because he didn't reach three figures.
>
>Great scores and I am not arguing at all. (Much) Whilst not unplayable
>I would think he was extremely difficult to play. Didn't Harvey play in
>that match (scratches head) and whilst I am no fan he was a very good
>batsman.
>

He was, but on this occasion he made a pair (as did Mackay). Out of
Laker's 19 wickets, eight were dismissed for ducks. That slightly
suggests that Laker seemed almost impossible to play when a batsman
first came in, but if he could somehow survive for half an hour he could
acclimatise to some extent.
-- 
John Hall      "George the Third
                Ought never to have occurred.
                One can only wonder
                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

"John Hall"  wrote in message 
news:215pXJGeEhZIFwG3@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article <r3o9k.15565$IK1.13856@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Cicero  writes:
>>
>>"John Hall"  wrote in message news:L1lmXOBuIg
>>ZIFwRj@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>>
>>> That Laker may not have been totally unplayable by a batsman with enough
>>> skill and experience is suggested by McDonald's scores of 32 and 89.
>>> That must surely have been a great performance, but it rarely gets a
>>> mention, perhaps because he didn't reach three figures.
>>
>>Great scores and I am not arguing at all. (Much) Whilst not unplayable
>>I would think he was extremely difficult to play. Didn't Harvey play in
>>that match (scratches head) and whilst I am no fan he was a very good
>>batsman.
>>
>
> He was, but on this occasion he made a pair (as did Mackay). Out of
> Laker's 19 wickets, eight were dismissed for ducks. That slightly
> suggests that Laker seemed almost impossible to play when a batsman
> first came in, but if he could somehow survive for half an hour he could
> acclimatise to some extent.
> -- 
> John Hall      "George the Third
>                Ought never to have occurred.
>                One can only wonder
>                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

And Slasher was no Harvey. Thanks for the info. (BTW  actually met Slasher 
one day at a speaking meet- useless trivia)

In message <6Cj9k.15491$IK1.9740@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Cicero 
 writes
>>>the decade should resort to such falsehoods is to me unclear, but of 
>>>course those of you don't have the twit in your killfiles will have 
>>>it explained.
>>
>>
>> An Australian making excuses for why Oz batsmen were so inept against 
>>finger spin in the fifties. RH
>
>
>To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English 
>batsmen would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19 
>wickets- surely that is one record that will never be broken.

You can get a good idea from his county performances. RH


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

In message <hon9k.15558$IK1.14538@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Cicero 
 writes
>
>
>From where I sit, the fifties were not very exciting cricket wise. 
>Compared to other decades they seemed to be so outmoded as if trapped 
>in a time warp ( I am not saying all decades other than the fifties 
>were exciting). But in the sixties you had the emergence of the Windies 
>with their players around Sobers,


The fifties had the three Ws, Sobers, Kanhai, Oggie Smith, Rhamadin, 
Gilchrist, Hall, Stollmeyer...  Care to name ten players from the 
sixties who match that group? RH

> the seventies has RSA with one of the strongest teams ever (okay on 
>the cusp) and eventually the re emergence of Australian cricket.

Oz played  these players in the fifties - Benaud, Davidson, Archer, 
Miller, Lindwall, Johnston,  Harvey, Morris, O'Neill, McDonald, Burge, 
Tallon, Langley, Grout. RH

> The 80's had the Windies who were great, 90's that sort of 
>disappeared. And in between we have seen Sri Lanka, India an Pakistan, 
>if not dominating- at least being very strong and competitive.



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

In message , Mike Holmans 
 writes
>>
>>
>>To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English batsmen
>>would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19 wickets-
>>surely that is one record that will never be broken.
>
>Pretty poorly.
>
>I am immensely cheered, though, to see that RH reckons that a diatribe 
>against the feebleness of county batsmen against the negative medium 
>pace which predominated in the Futile Fifties is intended as an excuse 
>for Australian batsmen being undone by finger spin on doctored wickets. 
>His imagination knows no bounds, which is only reasonable for one 
>entirely unencumbered by knowledge of the facts.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

McCool's rant is just a piece of routine Oz toddler-style denigration of 
English cricket.

It is worth mentioning that in his five years with Somerset McCool did 
not set the CC on fire with his batting while his bowling was 
distinctly less than world beating. Rather strange as he claimed CC in 
the fifties  was of such  poor quality, unless, of course,  he wishes to 
say he was rubbish. . RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Cicero inquired:
> "John Hall"  wrote in message 
> news:L1lmXOBuIgZIFwRj@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In article <6Cj9k.15491$IK1.9740@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> Cicero  writes:
>>> To be fair though I would have liked to have known how the English
>>> batsmen would have gone against Laker in the Test where he got the 19
>>> wickets- surely that is one record that will never be broken.
>> That Laker may not have been totally unplayable by a batsman with enough
>> skill and experience is suggested by McDonald's scores of 32 and 89.
>> That must surely have been a great performance, but it rarely gets a
>> mention, perhaps because he didn't reach three figures.
[...]
> Great scores and I am not arguing at all. (Much) Whilst not unplayable I 
> would think he was extremely difficult to play. Didn't Harvey play in 
> that match (scratches head)

That he did.  I have footage of his hurling the bat some ten metres into 
the air after his pair-sealing second-innings dismissal.  Which 
occurred, by the by, on the same day as his pair-starting first-innings 
dismissal, contrived by a ball he fancifully rates as better than 
Warne's /chef-d'oeuvre/ of 37 years later.

<snip>

-- 
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate

"The /causa sui/ is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived 
so far; it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic.  But the 
extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and 
frightfully with just this nonsense.  The desire for 'freedom of the 
will' in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, 
unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the 
entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to 
absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing 
less than to be precisely this /causa sui/ and, with more than Baron 
Münchhausen's audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, 
out of the swamps of nothingness."
	Friedrich Nietzsche