ATG Derbyshire XI

T.S.Worthington
P.N.Kirsten
K.J.Barnett
D.Smith
D.B.Carr
D.G.Cork
G.Miller
R.W.Taylor
H.L.Jackson
T.B.Mitchell
D.E.Malcolm

Reserves: M.Holding
J.E.Morris
W.H.Copson
C.Gladwin

Bit of a scratch side but could be useful if everyone was in form.

No Kolpaks??!

Major omission was Malcolm whom I've now included at expense of Holding but it rather unbalances the batting as there are now 3 No 11s whereas the later Holding would have fitted in at 9. Holding would have to alternate with Mitchell dependent on the conditions.

Spofforth? Pope? Azharuddhin? Peter Kirsten? Does Hendrick not deserve a sub place?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Spofforth? Pope? Azharuddhin? Peter Kirsten? Does Hendrick not deserve a sub place?

Kirsten's opening. Hendrick not only deserves a sub place but also a place in the side possibly at expense of Miller (with Taylor moving up to 7)..

No Alan Ward? No Steve Stubbings?

No

Harold Rhodes, who partnered Jackson, was a more consistent bowler than Ward, who was certainly no quicker than Malcolm, who was far less prone to injury than Ward. Since Jackson, as the county record holder, with 1670 wickets @17.11, and like Shackleton, unlucky to have his playing career coincide with those of Trueman and Statham as far as Test appearances are concerned, is a mustplay, that leaves the problem of a partner with Malcolm as the obvious contrast with Cork as the third seamer (if both Miller and Mitchell play as spinners). Hendrick, whilst a fine bowler, offers less contrast to Jackson, who relied on seam movement rather than pace to take his wickets.

Hendrick should therefore be considered as an alternative to Malcolm on a slow pitch or to one of the spinners on a quicker one. He should definitely be one of the reserves.

Mike Hendrick would be one of the first two or three in my Derby team. Ledge. Great guy, and had the Pidge-type nagging consistency and intelligence, without the megatonnage of attack-dog hormones. (Which, in a seamer, explains why Hendrick was nowhere near as successful - in most cases, you have pretty much to be a semi-psycho and a wilful bully a la Piet Heine to get bags of wickets as a quick. The exceptions are the Aldermans, where the opposition batting lineups are piss-weak technically and lacking in character too )

I agree but those who saw him play said that Jackson was even better than Hendrick but there can't have been much in it as Hendrick bowled on much better-prepared wickets than Jackson did in the '50s and he was still pretty good when he went to Notts and bowled at Trent Bridge.