Next Bothams

[Teatime FatCat]

whilst we're on the subject of comparisons - there's been a bit of debate about Giles, Salisbury et al and the lack of English spinners. This is a comparison of (I think) most of the English spinners of recent years -


Croft - Tests 21 wkt 59 Ave 37.24
Emburey - Tests 64 wkt 147 Ave 38.40
Tufnell - Tests 42 wkt 121 Ave 37.68
Giles - Tests 33 wkt 85 Ave 40.69
Salisbury - Tests 15 wkt 20 Ave 76.95
Dawson - Tests 7 wkt 11 Ave 61.54
Illingworth - Tests 9 wkt 19 Ave 32.36

Out of the top 5 (ie those who had a fair crack of the whip) Salisbury's figures look easily the worst. However, it is Giles who suffers a little by comparison. More expensive and taking his wickets at less per test than Tuffers. However, the real depressing thing is all of their averages, with only Richard Illingworth's looking ½ decent!

[James M]

191 caps between the lot of them says almost as much as the averages.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Teatime FatCat

with only Richard Illingworth's looking ½ decent!

I was just about to put Illingworth's wickets against lesser nations down.

However I see that he played his Test matches only against the West Indies (when they were still good) and South Africa.
So I'll let him off.
But, with regard to comments I made in another thread, you wouldn't ever say that Illingworth was watchable.
Unlike Tufnell.

[Teatime FatCat]

Quite right. I remember Illing replacing Tuffers in the test side and then taking a wicket with his first ball. I'm a massive Tuffers fan and I was quite unpatriotic at that point!


In any case, there was always Tuffers fielding and batting to watch to add to the entertainment value!

[Oliver]

A friend of mine suggested that Tufnell was a fast bowler in the body of a slow left-armer.

I like to think of Tuffers that way. His appeal was certainly a lot less appealing than the gentlemanly swivel and polite request that used to characterise some of the other English purveyors of that art.

[Teatime FatCat]

Does this mean that looking at some of the comments over the last week on this forum about certain England players, and also these stats, that a truly awful English side would look something like ...

(Disclaimer - I'm not saying they were bad players, just that they had, ahem - 'less than successful england careers'!

Barnett
Tresco (wkt)
Maddy
McGrath
Afzaal
Cowdrey
Irani
Ealham
Capel
Pringle
Salisbury

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

No martin macgague, hugh morris TTFC you should be ashamed of yourself.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by James M

Cork looks the best to me in terms of stats. If only he'd been a slightly better bat, although he was a matchwinner with bat or ball. In terms of technique we all know he lost his ability to swing the ball and regressed rapidly thereafter.

Cork was a bowler who batted, not really an all-rounder. But sometimes you are better off with that than a bits-and-pieces merchant who can't bowl or bat. The difference between him and Flintoff is also that Flintoff reached 30 tests and is in the best form of his life, Cork reached 30 tests and promptly forgot how to swing the ball.

[Teatime FatCat]

Please expand - i thought Mccague awful - Hugh Morris a battler?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Hugh morris was a glamorgan opening bat who did a star jump when ever someone bowled short at him, as a result gloved it behind often.