Best ever English Player

[flanflinger]

I have listed some players who could be described as the best ever English Test player and given us the option to vote, and maybe we could also discuss who I have missed off?

[flanflinger]

Knew I missed someone important!!!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I have listed some players who could be described as the best ever English Test player and given us the option to vote, and maybe we could also discuss who I have missed off?

No 'keepers in your list.. and my nomination (though I never saw him play) is a 'keeper: Godfrey Evans. This was the guy that made Alec Bedser so special... the magician that made glove-work a wicket-taking (not run-saving) activity.. that stood up to fast-medium bowling (faster than Bicknell).

I couldn't really give a damn about his batting.. but I'm a great believer in the mark of true class being the ability to adapt to the situation.. and this is a guy who has both batted 97 minutes without scoring to help Denis Compton to his second century of the match and avoid likely defeat and scored an unbeaten 98 before lunch throwing the bat: I wish more of our current Test side were so versatile.

The wisden write up is worth reading in full.. and makes the case far more eloquently and authoriatively than I could... and starts as follows:

"Godfrey Evans was arguably the best wicket-keeper the game has ever seen. Debates about wicket-keepers cannot be stilled by statistics in the way What is beyond question is that Evans was the game’s most charismatic keeper: the man who made the game’s least obtrusive specialism a spectator sport in itself. His energy and enthusiasm brought the best out of other fielders, whatever the state of the game. But he added to that a technical excellence that has probably never been surpassed."

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...S_TG_01000758/

[yubeingfunny]

I went for botham, and i suspect everyone else who does so will agree, although he may not have been the greatest player in terms of statistics/technique/results - he was undoubtably the most entertaining to watch and follow, and was probably responsible for more people taking up the game than any other player on the list. thats why i made my choice anyhow.

ability wise i would probably say gower but hutton/laker etc suffer in comparisons simply as they are from an era which few of us can remember.

p.s. can Nasser get a special mention - the poor bloke deserves it!

[Rachael]

The PWC all time listing for batsmen is headed by Bradman (who isn't eligible), has Hutton 2nd (who you have listed).. and one noticible, eligible absentee third: Peter May (actually tied 3= with Jack Hobbs). Compton and Barrington come in 12th and 13th.

On the bowling front... Sydney Barnes is the all time number 1... followed by George Lohmann.. with Tony Lock coming in at 5. Botham, Underwood, Bedser and Laker are the other 900+ pointers.

I'd not read too much into the peak ratings... as consistency through time is perhaps a better guide.. and the ratings do, anyway, favour the glamour figures who are potential liabilities (like Waqar Younis)... and not the dependable types (like Boycott). That said.. anyone who got even close to the 900 mark (in either discipline) has to be considered.

One thing on the early leader in the poll though: Beefy, for more than 3/4 of his career (the 3/4 that doesn't include the Packer era) was a very, very ordinary bowler... something that's borne out in the ratings (a steady deline from 1981 onwards, sinking below the 700 mark in 83, below the 550 mark in 84 and then (after a brief rally) tailing away to the realm usually reserved for occasional bowlers. He was also a pretty ordinary batsman: compare Beefy (who batted in a way that the PWC ratings like) and Hussain (who doesn't) match by match through their careers.. and there's very little to choose between them - we're not talking a guy who rates up with the likes of Thorpe and Atherton, let alone with Barrington and co.

Even his most ardent admirers have been known to acknowledge that Beefy's early success was Packer influenced... middle-period OK-ness was "rebel tours" boosted and final 5 years in Test cricket were something of a disaster... and I think that should be considered here.

No quibbles with others on the list: great players.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Even his most ardent admirers have been known to acknowledge that Beefy's early success was Packer influenced... middle-period OK-ness was "rebel tours" boosted and final 5 years in Test cricket were something of a disaster... and I think that should be considered here.

Rachael

All this goes to show (once again) that statistics are just absolutely meaningless!

Everyone knows 'Beefy', everyone knows what a wonderful player he was, everyone knows how exciting the game was with him in it, everyone knows that frisson of excitement he brought to the game. Go on about your stats to your hearts content, make the stats show what a poor player Botham was, what a poor batsman bowler whatever he was, make them say whatever you want them to say...

The fact remains that Botham brought excitement to the game, and for that reason alone he was one of the worlds (not just England's) greatest Cricketers.

Scott

[Goatman]

Greetings all,

I'd like to navigate a path between the two of you here. Firstly, PwC does not reward agressive batting as suggested by Rachael. It rewards heavy scoring - which is only right. I have said it before, but until I see a testmatch won by 3 hours and 42 minutes I'll keep on rating run scorers over end blockers. I'm not sure where you got the idea that fast scoring was rewarded by PwC, but in fact the reverse is true as decent scores in low scoring matches/against top bowling (ie. what Hussain does best) are what is most heavily rewarded by the points system - even over massive scores. Just to quote a recent example, Atapattu's 249 against ZIM earnt him only 25 points! You'd get that for a 30 odd against AUS. Secondly, sinking below 700 does not make a player very ordinary at ALL! PwC define 700 points as world class - top 10 status. In fact, we have less than 10 700+'s at present. 500 is still the border of test class, so until he dropped below here he was still more than ordinary. Sinking below 700 does mean that he came off the boil, but would not prevent him from being a test quality bowler. Thirdly, ENG supporters are uninimous that Botham went on for too long, and it is certainly unfair to judge a player by the last couple of series in thier career in such a situation. There is indeed little to choose between Botham and Hussain in term of thier batting beyond the way in which they were able to influence a match - which are reversed from each other - however it does have to be remembered that Botham was, for nigh on a decade, in the top 10 in the world with the ball and at one time no 1 - his position amongst the 900 pointers shows what he was capable of. Combined, this puts him in a completly different league to Hussain, and easily justifiably in the running for best ever ENG. As Scott quite rightly says:- there are very few players who were capable of exerting such influence over a match.

However, Scott argues that you can prove anything with stats, which is complete and utter rubbish. The only way you can prove "anything" with stats is if the person you are proving it to is a moron of such buttock clenching idiocy that they wouldn't be able to understand multi-syllable words like "batting" anyway. There are simple ways to tell if tricks are being played on you. So long as like is being compared with liek, the presenter is telling you that the numbers reflect what they actually reflect, and if you check for other explainantions and attempts to make the working obscure or attampets to with-hold information you are on completely safe ground, and the only argument can be in the interpretation. Numbers reflect truth Scott - they are not the whole truth, but honest numbers don't lie. You can't get out of that by arguing that you can prove anything with stats. Even if it is true (which it isn't - you can pretned that you can prove anything with stats, but it can't be done. When it seems to be being done, it is because the presenter is lying to you about what they mean (ie. using number dishonestly) - the numbers will still prove the same thing as they ever did), you have to show that the stats being presented ARE being misrepresented/mis-interpreted/are meaningless. Rachael has done no anaysis on these numbers and so the way in which they are calculated are transparent to all. I know how they were put together and could do it again from the original scorecards, just as you could. Just as matches are not won by time at the crease alone, they are not won by charisma alone either. They are won by runs and wickets, and that is what these numbers reflect. A player can be as exciting as they like, but they are not a "good player" until they knock the pegs back a few times or biff some big runs. Nothing clever is being done here, no wool is being pulled over eyes, no tricks being done, and no lies being told. Like is being compared with like,. These are honest numbers. Rachaels numbers do prove that Botham came off the boil Scott - I am with you that they don't prove he was remotely ordinary (Rach was a slightly annoying habit of massively overstating her case, which often causes considerable damage to her argument ), - but to argue that she is able to prove anything with the numbers presented simply transcends reason. If you stop and look at them Scott, you notice immediately that the problem here is not the fact that the numbers are meaningless, but in the fact that they have been slightly mis-interpreted. I give the time to chew over you gut-instinct judgements before I reject them out of hand, and learn as a result. It would be nice if you would do the same with numerical arguments. You never know - you might learn something yourself!

[Kirsty Harris]

I always find these kind of questions hard. I think it's hard to assess the 'greatness' of a player you never actually saw playing live (on t.v or in person). It's hard to get a 'feel' for the impact that a player had if you didn't live through it, too.


At the same time, players of the past can be hailed as 'great' based upon myths and legands that are attched to them. Plus the increased fitness levels of recent years have raised the performance of players generally, so it's hard to measure how great Gough was compared to Larwood, or Gower was to Barrington.

The greatest English player of my (short) life time was probably Gooch - he may not have been the prettiest of players, but he was a powerful, brutel player who could tear apart the finest bowling attacks on the most hostile of pitches. Whether he is the 'Greatest English Player ever' is another thing.

[Rachael]

OK... I was lazy in using "aggressive batting" instead of "heavy scoring" in criticising the PWC ratings: they are clearly not the same thing.. though as a batsman whose natural game is to play aggressively (like Hayden or Gilchrist) tends to get a lots of reward for their successful efforts in this mode.. and not penalised for failing to dig in and do "bed and breakfast" batting when that is what is called for.. whereas those batsmen who see off the new ball and anchor an innings, or who come into their own in the rearguard batting (Boycott, Atherton, Langer, Hussain, etc) get scant reward for efforts that eclipse any run making... and are effectively penalised for not matching up to the flat-track bullies when the going gets easy.

Same with the bowling: wicket taking strike bowlers get the reward (even if routinely wayward: think Gough and Waqar Younis) and the guys who can do the containment and who bowl tirelessly and effectively when the going gets tough (Angus Fraser, Brian Statham) get short changed.

On the stats front... there's clearly a lot more to being a great player / contributing in a major way than scoring runs and taking wickets.. and it's true that the PWC stats people have yet to work out a way of rewarding all contributions (most famously true with glovework, fielding and captaincy). That said.. so long as you appreciate HOW the PWC ratings are put together... are informed enough to recognise when bizarre circumstances (like the Packer years and the rebel tours) inflated certain ratings (Botham's quite classically)... and are prepared to put the work in to grasp what the stats actually reflect... there is absolutely nothing wrong with utilizing them: they certainly do not misrepresent anything.

With all that said... there's no real need for reliance on PWC ratings or any particular set of stats to back up the argument that Botham's glory years with the ball were the Packer influenced years of 1979-82... or that from 1984 until 1992 (more than half of his career) he was doing little more to justify his place with the ball than (say) an in-form Ashley Giles today: he was OK, but nothing special.

On a similar note: even at his height Botham was at best marginal for claiming a spot for his batting alone... and certainly for the final 5 years of his career... he was marginal for even being considered a Test batsman - I don't think anyone seriously disputes that in his last 5 years he wouldn't have even matched up to the level of Jack Russell!

I'll end with this thought: given Peter Foy's team of the 60s / 70s... which ran: Hutton (Capt), Boycott, May, Compton, Cowderay, Graveney, Evans(WK), Laker, Trueman, Bedser/Underwood (Depending on the conditions), Statham... I'm not sure I could find a place for Botham. Add in competition from Barrington, Hobbs, Barnes, Lohmann, Lock and the rest.. and I'm finding it hard to see him even in an all time England XI.

[Goatman]

This is going to be a matter for debate. I suspect Botham would get into that team. No doubt others would differ. he never tried to get in the team by his batting alone, just as Kallis does not try to by his bowling alone, so thats a bit of a daft argument. Having said that, at his peak he would be pushing for selection in most ENG teams even if he bowled like Boycotts mum. Botham, for much of his career, was ENG's lead seamer. Thats why he was in the team.

If the opposition he played during the Packer years were poor, he would have been unable to score heavy points - look at the Atapattu/ZIM situation. Botham got to 900 points because he was class. If he was playing rubbish opposition, he would never have been able to because that is not how the PWC system works. Imperfect it is. Stupid and easily fooled it is not. That he retired too late is in universal agreement. "Fat embarrassment" is a common accusation.

Rearguard abtting and the sheet anchor bit is difficult to quantify, and so is indeed undervalued. However, flat-track bullies are not really overvalued in the PwC system:- a 50 against AUS on a dodgy track would earn more points than Atapattu's 250 against ZIM A. Lara's 400 took him back to the top, but diddn't take him to 900 points - which he has done 3 times previously because other players made runs (it was a flat track) and a lot of overs were bowled by Batty and Tresco etc. Heavy scoring against decent opposition will score lots of points, but you surely can't have a problem with this. You'll never get top by scoring 200's gainst BAN - just ask GC Smith! You don't score points when the going gets easy - in fact it is easier to score points when the going gets tough. However, don't score points without scoring runs, and this is just how it should be. Boycott - with his 100 100's etc. - was more than capable of scoring heavily. To be a vauluable testmatch batsman you have to have more strings to your bow than knowing where your stumps are.

With the bowling, the faciltator does always get undervalued but in fairness the strike bowler would be more effective alone than the facilitator alone. Its no good pinning the opposition down if you can't finish them off. At least your strike bowlers are going to blow them away every now and again.