A Dreadful Eleven

On this Anzac Day, thoughts dwell on the horrors of trench - as well as pther forms of - warfare.

This being a cricket forum, I thought I'd select a dreadful, attritional eleven.
It's drawn mainly from the 1950's, but both openers started in the following decade.

Geoff Boycott was an irresistible choice. I'd better make him captain, too, lest he sulk off.
Boycott had an exc4ellent defensive technique and could actually play strokes, but chose nearly always not to. One recalls a terrible innings at Perth in 1978, when from memory he made 70 something without a boundary in many hours of tedium. Not even the elegance of the young Gower at the other end could make it bearable.

His partner is Bill Lawry, partly because I prefer the left/right combination, partly because Lawry earns the spot for his sheer stubbornness. More often than Boycott, Lawry could bat with enterprise - he hit three sixes in one Test innings, and much more often battd with his team's interest at heart. But there were also some hours of defensive tedium.

At No 3 is Hanif Mohammad. His most famous innings - the 337 following on in the West Indies when he saved an apparently hopeless cause - alone would qualify him. Hanif could play attractively and strikes me as an under-rated batsman.

He's followed by Jim Burke, on the condition that he is not invited to the bowling crease - of all the 1950's throwers Burke was the most blatant.
Burke was a very sound batsman who started out as a fairly attractive stroke maker but went defensive following selectorial reverses. Late in his career he received more than his share of intimidatory bowling, and retired at 28. Perhaps he's best remembered for an innings of 26 not out in more than four hours, at Brisbane in 1958. Fortunately O'Neill, on debut, distracted our attention in a brilliant display [Mind you, his 71* came off 113 balls and would not be so exceptional today]

Next comes Ken Barrington, perhaps the most obdurate batsman of the 1960's. As an adolescent I despaired of Australia ever getting him out, especially once Davidson, who clearly troubled him, retired.

I've relied quite a bit on the 1950's South Africans. Especially on their own turf they were as negative and obdurate as any side surely ever was.

No 6 is John Waite, a very capable keeper/batsman.

No 7 is his colleague and sometimes captain, Goddard. Goddard was
a fine all rounder, statistically few were better. But he employed a tedious leg theory with his medium pace and was a slow batsman and probably one of the worst captains ever. He should have won the 1963-64 series against Australia but was far too negative when it counted.
Fortunately the spirit of Pollock and Barlow carried SA onwards as they slipped into Test oblivion.

Now for Bowling. This presents a problem because good bowlers need a degree of aggression which must be foeign to this team.

Trevor Bailey opens with Goddard, and is another all rounder. Obviously "The Boil" could not be left out. In that 1958 Brisbane Test he batted even more dourly and slowly than Burke and he had, unfortunately, noone like O'Neill at the other end. Actually, much of the time Bailey was an invaluable player without whom England could certainly not have won the Ashes in 1953, and conceivably not even in 1954-55.

Then, to complete the misery, Ken Mackay walks in at No 9. Mackay became a folk hero and saved more than one Test for Australia with the bat, most famously against the WI in Adelaide.
He was also a good medium pace, short of a length bowler who became an integral part of Benaud's bowling attack.

To complete the side, I have at No 10, Hugh Tayfield and at 11, Dereck Underwood, both very good if not great spinners of a largely negative disposition.

Despite an unavoidable lack of aggressive fast bowling this is actually a strong side, if painful to watch. I could probably replace Jim Burke with Jackie McGlew, appropriately named South African batsman.







.




H






It's drawn mainly from the 1950's, when

a truly hideous xi...well done peterg...a toss up between barrington and steve waugh...a boring medium pacer and stoic redink chasing middle order bat...

i remember lawry batting very aggressively at times...his style was alaways dictated to by the game situation...maybe you are a bit tough on him...at a shield cricket level few could top John Inverarity for mind numbing innings

where's nadkarani?

I don't think the word dreadfull is appropriate here, dreaded maybe.

They may not have set the blood racing but many of these players were great cricketers and the game would be worse for them not having played. Boycott was one who many who go to the game specifically to watch.

The game is definitely lesser now for having no Boycott, Bailey or Barrington.

I imagine most Autralians would place Tavare prominently in this list. He is a very interesting case as he was a fairly entertaining bat when playing for Kent. I feel he wasn't quite good enough for the role he tried to play for England.

Nadkarni could well replace Underwood. He'd make the batting even deeper, at the loss of a bit of bowling quality.

Did many non- Yorkshire or even non-English spectators deliberately seek out Boycott?

I thought of Tavare as 12th man.

I doubt that many non-English supporters would have sought out Boycott specifically but apart from Bradman it's hard to think of many individuals who would have that drawing power away from home.

Amonst Englishmen I can vouch for at least one non-Yorkshireman who went out of his way to go to a game because Boycott was going to be batting that day.

Tavare at 2nd slip would have a special place in Aussie hearts for trying to lose the 4th test in 82/83.

There's been little interst in this, so I thought I'd enliven matters bychoosing a team as different as possible - An Ultra Aggressive Eleven.

Sehwag demands inclusion, even though his career must have some time still to run.

To accompany him I propose the legendary Victor Trumper.
With the exception of the South African Sinclair, no batsman scored faster in Test cricket ubtil recent times, when batsmen have enjoyed the advantages of smaller grounds and better bats.
Besides, Trumper was held in respect, even awe, by all who played with or against him.

No 3 is Viv Richards. Everyone will recall the sheer destructive power of his batting, especially when he was still in his 20's.

No 4 is Stan McCabe. Very few specialist batsmen have, even now, scored faster than McCabe in Tests; even fewer at a higher average.

At 5 comes Sobers. He played a lot in the defensive minded 50's and 60's and his Test SR is around 52-53. I doubt anyone would dispute his inclusion.

No 6 is Gilbert Jessop. He wasn't a huge success in Test cricket and didn't even play a great deal, but on the strength of just one, immortal innings he demands inclusion.

Gilchrist walks into the wicket keeping role. Noone else comes close. In the first half of his career he was a very safe and athletic keeper and a batsman of whom the adjective phenomenal can justly be used.

At 8 comes Botham, who bristled with aggression. Other allrounders may have been better cricketers but none had more dynamism and besides Gilchrist none batted so fast so often.

Shane Warne, not surprisingly, wins the spinner position [Sehwag can help out if required, besides of course Sobers.]

I think the opening attack must be Lillee and Thomson. I doubt any pair has exuded so much sheer aggression as they. I considered Tyson instead of Lillee but thought it best to preserv the famous Australian alliance.

I have left out Bradman because, frankly, I don't like him and doubt he would be a good team man. There are a few others I'd have liked to have, but you can't pick them all.

Gary "double declaration" Sobers would have to be captain wouldn't he?

I reckon Tiger would get a look in.

waqar younis should be in the aggressive xi. his strike rate and % of unassisted dismissals is unrivalled. wasim deserves a mention too.

dravid has strong claims for the attritional xi. on average number of balls faced, he is the best batsman in the world. also, shiv may be in with a shout.

JGK wrote:Gary "double declaration" Sobers would have to be captain wouldn't he?

.

or declare at 0 Nass

I'd have Miller over Botham on stats alone.

I've got no particular fondness for Bradman (surprisingly) either but you don't have to be a good team man or even half decent captain when you have yourself in the side.

A bit unfair on Nass it was a part of a boat race after all.

I preferred Warne to Tiger O'Reilly chiefly because he was a better batsman. O'Reilly had the disadvantage of bowling often in timeless Tests against batsmen who placed infinite value on their wickets. Consequently his bowling SR is well below Warne's.

I stand by my preference for Lillian Thomson over the Pakistan pair, excellent though they were.

I think Dravid might have been a little too enterprising for the attritional XI

Mudassar Nazar must be in with a shout for the Ennui XI, opening and bowling his 'Dennis (Lillee) without the Menace' mediums. I'd pick him over Lawry; he was more consistently boring, and he put in one outstandingly boring effort.