England v NZ, 3rd Test, Trent Bridge, 5th-9th June

Aye, so Gower reckoned, and he would know.

Beefy should of jacked it in after the 1986/7 tour.

Would've had a batting average of around 35 and bowling average of 25

Discussing the late 70's/80's allrounders is really to discuss degrees of greatness. Anyone who feels able to claim that any of Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham or Kapil Dev were anything less than great either never saw them play in their pomp, or is deluded in the extreme.
It is perhaps an over simplification but when considering Botham you can split his career into 3 parts. The first from his debut to the end of 1981 saw him score 2000 plus runs at an average 0f 33, and take over 200 wickets at 21.95, of those to play any numberr of tests only Joel Garner with 92 wickets @ 18.40 could boast a better average for the period. The second period from 1982 through to the end of 1985 saw Botham, though still with an inconsistant streak to his game score another 2000 runs and maintain an average of 40 with the bat (indeed only Gower scored more 50's &100's for England during the period) Injuries had begun to take tehre toll on his bowling and though still able to raise his game on occasion he was more of a stock bowler taking 128 wickets@34. The final and most depressing part of his career, for england fans at least, was the period from 1985 onwards where he managed just 23 tests in 6 years scoring 791 runs @ 24 and taking 40 wickets @ almost 46.
Botham's ability to perform at the top level clearly deteriorated in a more dramatic way than that of the other 3 great all rounders of the period, however he was probably the most likely to make an all round difference to a single match. In 14 of his 102 tests Botham averaged at least 30 with the bat and took 6 wickets in the match, compared to 8 of 88 for imran Khan, 6 of 131 for Kapil Dev and 6 of 86 for Hadlee. All 14 of those occasions for Botham came in his first 79 tests before the end of 1985. Not once after that point did he achieve the same feat. Furtehrmore 5 of Bothams centuries also came in matches where he also took 6 wickets in the match, compared to 1 for Imran Khan and 0 for Hadlee and Kapil Dev.
I think it is fair to assume that Botham would have finished his career with a better all round record if he had not suffered as badly with injuries, his bowling certainly suffered, however injuries are the bane of many a sportsmans life and it is certainly true that Botham did not help himself. His fitness levels aside from injuries were often not what they should have been. It is also an often quoted arguement that Bothams failure to accept his limitations after his injuries exacerbated many of his problems. Instead of focussing more on his batting and trying to maintain an economical but less devestating bowling action Botham continued to try to bowl as he had been able to when he was in his early 20's, something his body was just no longer capable of. Looking at Bothams career great though it was I always feel a sense of underachievement. He could have been even more and his failure to achieve that was not wholly down to his frequent injuries.

In summing up the 2-0 win against this NZ team I think we have to take this into consideration.

Having just seen the hours play I recorded - England fans at the game today were cheering the NZ 10 & 11 blocking the ball and booing when England took their wicket.

Says it all...

Gildas wrote: Looking at Bothams career great though it was I always feel a sense of underachievement. He could have been even more and his failure to achieve that was not wholly down to his frequent injuries.

Beefy himself said that whilst Hadlee was the ultimate professional and knew off by heart his average - he was totally the opposite.

He hated nets and just wanted to 'play' and wasn't bothered by statistics

Top post. Paragraphs and spacing would have been nice though.

Regarding your last line - I can't help but feel that Botham feels the same way. They were discussing Hadlee and the 80s allrounders during the current Test match on Sky. Botham had a sad look in his eye when he accepted that he could have been far better than he was if he'd just had the "intensity" of a Richard Hadlee.

Beefy was a party animal who enjoyed life. Hadlee was borderline obsessed

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Top post. Paragraphs and spacing would have been nice though.

Regarding your last line - I can't help but feel that Botham feels the same way. They were discussing Hadlee and the 80s allrounders during the current Test match on Sky. Botham had a sad look in his eye when he accepted that he could have been far better than he was if he'd just had the "intensity" of a Richard Hadlee.

I've been in the beer garden of the local since the cricket finished and while not drunk the effort involved in paragraphs and spacing seemed a little beyond me:)

JKLever wrote:Beefy was a party animal who enjoyed life. Hadlee was borderline obsessed

...and which one had the heart problems ....

A much more authoritative performance from England after the sham at Old Trafford, where we somehow managed to win courtesy of the Kiwi's uselessness. Still, one cannot help but feel that we were assisted by the friendly bowling conditions that Trent Bridge offers, and with no foreseeable Tests against major opposition at this ground, one also wonders how successfully our seamers will manage to pry out the opposition on the flatter pitches around the country (especially taking into account the fact that Old Trafford, another ground that suits our attack more, is also out of the picture). Even in the helpful conditions we benefitted greatly from the myriad mistakes by the New Zealanders, be it in their bowling or, more often, their batting, where batsman who were in threw their wickets away persistently. James Anderson bowled well at times, but only really ground his way through to the final game where his miraculous performance covers up his problems. In many ways he is a walking mass of contradictions, but I shall congratulate him for now and wait for the inevitable dreadful performance later on in the summer (probably in the up-coming ODI series) to really stick the boot in.

Further to my point about flat pitches, short of our successful efforts at Lord's in favourable conditions last year (where rain denied us victory), an attack that was probably slightly better than this one failed (consistently) to dislodge the quality of the Indian batsman. With up-coming Test against superior batsman from South Africa, India and then Australia (with the West Indies sandwiched somewhere in between), I have the distinct feeling that this young, improving attack will be brought very swiftly down to Earth if it does not benefit from having a world-class spearhead at one end to aid in the build-up of pressure, whether that is Flintoff or Jones or perhaps even both. Ultimately, there have been times even against New Zealand where every seamer apart from Sidebottom has looked ragged. I would like to think that Anderson has improved so much that he won't look ragged again, but recalling the Old Trafford Test one can immediately dismiss that hope as forlorn. Despite his figures in this series, Anderson is shit-house to decent batsman, and this one good series that always comes against the rubbish will probably go down as a blip in time.

Stuart Broad is something of a non-entity currently also when the conditions aren't helpful. It's not really his fault, he's nowhere near the finished article, but considering that he has been pencilled in for the South Africa series alongside Anderson, you have to consider his merits, or not, as the case may be. I don't see him excelling in English conditions if he cannot do so against a much poorer side in New Zealand, and I don't think we will be able to afford to carry a single passenger if, by some miracle, we harbour genuine ambitions of beating the South Africans when they visit in a month or so's time. Looking at the side currently, I'd have to suggest that we will probably be carrying five passengers; Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Stuart Broad and James Anderson. Continuity for continuity's sake, as has been pointed out by far more astute and eloquent judges than myself, simply will not enable us to beat, let alone compete, with good sides containing world-class batsman and bowlers. New Zealand were much of a muchness and ultimately succumbed to their own mediocrity. However, alarmingly, they sometimes managed to muster the strength to compete with England before they were eventually brushed aside.

So, whilst we should be happy with two very good Test wins, one fortuitious in many ways and the other comprehensive in every way, I think it's important that a sense of perspective is maintained, for I see this as nothing more than an ordinary side dispatching a less than ordinary side with very little style, probably in the manner that you'd expect. The batting was nowhere near ruthless, the captaincy was sometimes befuddled and incomprehensible, whilst the bowling was consistent though rarely ground-breaking. In helpful conditions we were incisive, but in less helpful conditions even Kyle Mills scored a half-century. Every bowler took wickets sporadically, but it was rare for two bowlers to excel in tandem in any one innings. I think we are worryingly short of match-winners in every department, personally, and on the evidence of this series shall not be investing too much hope in this England side. Whilst it was good to see England winning again, the batting was too inhibited to be entertaining and the eventual wins were too machine-like to be thrilling. It's only New Zealand, I suppose - here's hoping for some better cricket in the not-too-distant future. Once again, as I've said many times before, the England selectors need to strive for improvement in the next month if we have genuine hopes for the up-coming Test Series with South Africa.

Does anyone have faith that they will strive for the aforementiond improvement though? Me neither. Moores intimating that the forthcoming ODI series (and the Twenty20) offered a chance for players to prove themselves suggests to me that he and the selectors are hell-bent on picking the same side as long as they can realistically justify it prior to the series.

Gildas wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Top post. Paragraphs and spacing would have been nice though.

Regarding your last line - I can't help but feel that Botham feels the same way. They were discussing Hadlee and the 80s allrounders during the current Test match on Sky. Botham had a sad look in his eye when he accepted that he could have been far better than he was if he'd just had the "intensity" of a Richard Hadlee.

I've been in the beer garden of the local since the cricket finished and while not drunk the effort involved in paragraphs and spacing seemed a little beyond me:)

Fair enough! Was still a top post.

Augustus wrote: James Anderson bowled well at times, but only really ground his way through to the final game where his miraculous performance covers up his problems. In many ways he is a walking mass of contradictions, but I shall congratulate him for now and wait for the inevitable dreadful performance later on in the summer (probably in the up-coming ODI series) to really stick the boot in.

Hence the 'Anderson Cycle' - and the fear of copious amounts of legside dross to Graeme Smith. You'd have to be a fool or not watched much cricket if you think Jimmykins has made it on this performance.

Further to my point about flat pitches, short of our successful efforts at Lord's in favourable conditions last year (where rain denied us victory), an attack that was probably slightly better than this one failed (consistently) to dislodge the quality of the Indian batsman. With up-coming Test against superior batsman from South Africa, India and then Australia (with the West Indies sandwiched somewhere in between), I have the distinct feeling that this young, improving attack will be brought very swiftly down to Earth if it does not benefit from having a world-class spearhead at one end to aid in the build-up of pressure, whether that is Flintoff or Jones or perhaps even both. Ultimately, there have been times even against New Zealand where every seamer apart from Sidebottom has looked ragged. I would like to think that Anderson has improved so much that he won't look ragged again, but recalling the Old Trafford Test one can immediately dismiss that hope as forlorn. Despite his figures in this series, Anderson is shit-house to decent batsman, and this one good series that always comes against the rubbish will probably go down as a blip in time.

I think most of us have the feeling that this attack won't last the series against SA. It could get very messy.
Anderson averages 34, Broad in the 40's (although he's a rookie still) and so we're reliant on SideBum.

Stuart Broad is something of a non-entity currently also when the conditions aren't helpful. It's not really his fault, he's nowhere near the finished article, but considering that he has been pencilled in for the South Africa series alongside Anderson, you have to consider his merits, or not, as the case may be. I don't see him excelling in English conditions if he cannot do so against a much poorer side in New Zealand

Broady is very much a work in progress. I'm loathe to leave the guy out because he'll improve the more he plays at this level. In someways it'll be good to see him tested against the saffers...

So, whilst we should be happy with two very good Test wins, one fortuitious in many ways and the other comprehensive in every way, I think it's important that a sense of perspective is maintained, for I see this as nothing more than an ordinary side dispatching a less than ordinary side with very little style, probably in the manner that you'd expect. The batting was nowhere near ruthless, the captaincy was sometimes befuddled and incomprehensible, whilst the bowling was consistent though rarely ground-breaking. In helpful conditions we were incisive, but in less helpful conditions even Kyle Mills scored a half-century. Every bowler took wickets sporadically, but it was rare for two bowlers to excel in tandem in any one innings. I think we are worryingly short of match-winners in every department, personally, and on the evidence of this series shall not be investing too much hope in this England side. Whilst it was good to see England winning again, the batting was too inhibited to be entertaining and the eventual wins were too machine-like to be thrilling. It's only New Zealand, I suppose - here's hoping for some better cricket in the not-too-distant future. Once again, as I've said many times before, the England selectors need to strive for improvement in the next month if we have genuine hopes for the up-coming Test Series with South Africa.

I think we're almost in the same position as we were against India in 2002. We had decent players but were nowhere near the finished article. We're very much in the early stages of rebuilding the side into Ashes winning potential. 2009 will come too soon for us you feel...

Does anyone have faith that they will strive for the aforementiond improvement though? Me neither. Moores intimating that the forthcoming ODI series (and the Twenty20) offered a chance for players to prove themselves suggests to me that he and the selectors are hell-bent on picking the same side as long as they can realistically justify it prior to the series.

That was pretty depressing listening wasn't it? 'It's good that it's the end of the series so they can go and play freely in limited overs cricket' says Moores. Yeah - good for who...

Remember over the winter Ontrack saying Ace could force his way into the Test XI against NZ if he scored "two or three hundreds" in the preceding ODI series? Batting six.

I believe he came in with more than eight overs left twice.

There's no way Shah and Bopara will be able to force their way into the Test team through their ODI performances as - assuming both play (doubtful) - they'll be stationed at six and seven with the sloggers.

Bell (3) and Collingwood (5) will obviously have more of a chance of scoring runs as they'll face a far higher percentage of the overs.

The only way Bopara and Shah will get to bat for a long enough period to make a decent score is if they come in in the midst of the mother of all batting collapses, in which case they'll have to both shepherd the tail and play a heroic backs-to-the-wall knock.

Bollocks, 'aint it?

skully wrote:No question. Paddles was God, Imran was God who could bat and bowl, Beefy was a fat turd.

Imran is definitely my god! I saw him yesterday, presenting a political address in London, he's still very handsome and was always more so than Botham!!


Congratulations England but what's with the Vaughan hubris - his "impressive record" may possess two back-to-back series wins against New Zealand but didn't he lead England into a defeat at home to the Indians? Did his teams beat the Lankans away? Does quality of opposition not count? Yes, yes, 2005 ........ It's like Pakistan claiming much over cricketly bashing the Bangalis, they should they're a longer established, stronger team.

Gildas wrote:Discussing the late 70's/80's allrounders is really to discuss degrees of greatness. Anyone who feels able to claim that any of Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham or Kapil Dev were anything less than great either never saw them play in their pomp, or is deluded in the extreme.
It is perhaps an over simplification but when considering Botham you can split his career into 3 parts. The first from his debut to the end of 1981 saw him score 2000 plus runs at an average 0f 33, and take over 200 wickets at 21.95, of those to play any numberr of tests only Joel Garner with 92 wickets @ 18.40 could boast a better average for the period. The second period from 1982 through to the end of 1985 saw Botham, though still with an inconsistant streak to his game score another 2000 runs and maintain an average of 40 with the bat (indeed only Gower scored more 50's &100's for England during the period) Injuries had begun to take tehre toll on his bowling and though still able to raise his game on occasion he was more of a stock bowler taking 128 wickets@34. The final and most depressing part of his career, for england fans at least, was the period from 1985 onwards where he managed just 23 tests in 6 years scoring 791 runs @ 24 and taking 40 wickets @ almost 46.
Botham's ability to perform at the top level clearly deteriorated in a more dramatic way than that of the other 3 great all rounders of the period, however he was probably the most likely to make an all round difference to a single match. In 14 of his 102 tests Botham averaged at least 30 with the bat and took 6 wickets in the match, compared to 8 of 88 for imran Khan, 6 of 131 for Kapil Dev and 6 of 86 for Hadlee. All 14 of those occasions for Botham came in his first 79 tests before the end of 1985. Not once after that point did he achieve the same feat. Furtehrmore 5 of Bothams centuries also came in matches where he also took 6 wickets in the match, compared to 1 for Imran Khan and 0 for Hadlee and Kapil Dev.
I think it is fair to assume that Botham would have finished his career with a better all round record if he had not suffered as badly with injuries, his bowling certainly suffered, however injuries are the bane of many a sportsmans life and it is certainly true that Botham did not help himself. His fitness levels aside from injuries were often not what they should have been. It is also an often quoted arguement that Bothams failure to accept his limitations after his injuries exacerbated many of his problems. Instead of focussing more on his batting and trying to maintain an economical but less devestating bowling action Botham continued to try to bowl as he had been able to when he was in his early 20's, something his body was just no longer capable of. Looking at Bothams career great though it was I always feel a sense of underachievement. He could have been even more and his failure to achieve that was not wholly down to his frequent injuries.

Gildas, are you saying that the others did not suffer injury? Imran did. This debate will continue forever, the fans of each will consider their hero the more heroic.

Come now Filo.... NZ are hardly Bangladesh

JKLever wrote:Come now Filo.... NZ are hardly Bangladesh

Sorry, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that England are much stronger on paper than the New Zees, thus they should have won this series, 3-0. If Pakistan beat Bangla in their current encounter it is to be expected, so I'll vomit if I read plaudits about Pakistan's victory. In fact, I might sup a pint if Bangla win one Test (not really!).

Paper is stronger on paper than New Zealand.

Dello wrote:Paper is stronger on paper than New Zealand.

At least they've got rugby!

filosofee wrote:

skully wrote:No question. Paddles was God, Imran was God who could bat and bowl, Beefy was a fat turd.

Congratulations England but what's with the Vaughan hubris - his "impressive record" may possess two back-to-back series wins against New Zealand but didn't he lead England into a defeat at home to the Indians? Did his teams beat the Lankans away? Does quality of opposition not count? Yes, yes, 2005 ........ It's like Pakistan claiming much over cricketly bashing the Bangalis, they should they're a longer established, stronger team.

We were extremely unfortunate not to draw the India series.

filosofee wrote:

JKLever wrote:Come now Filo.... NZ are hardly Bangladesh

Sorry, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that England are much stronger on paper than the New Zees, thus they should have won this series, 3-0. If Pakistan beat Bangla in their current encounter it is to be expected, so I'll vomit if I read plaudits about Pakistan's victory. In fact, I might sup a pint if Bangla win one Test (not really!).

If England were a sh*thot unit currently i'd agree with you but we've been anything but that over the past 12-18 months...

NZ's bowling averages also stacked up very well against ours. Their batting is lacking, it has to be said

[quote="filosofee

Gildas, are you saying that the others did not suffer injury? Imran did. This debate will continue forever, the fans of each will consider their hero the more heroic.[/quote]

erm no, infact i say at one point "injurys are the bane of many sportsmans life" the stresses and strains all rounders put on their bodies mean they are all pretty suseptible to injuries, and yes as you say Imran Khan was no different.

I do however think Botham's injuries affected him performance wise in away that they didnt certain other players. Imran Khan missed a number of games through injury but when he regained his fitness he was still able to perform to the levels he had previously. Botham could not, the cumulative affect of his injuries, most notably back and shoulder, that affected his bowling, and a general lack of dedication to fitness training (a charge that could never be leveled at Imran Khan or someone like Hadlee) meant that Botham was not able to return to his pre injury levels.

As i said in my first comment in relation to the 4 all rounders we are really discussing degrees of greatness. All of them were unquestionably great players. I hadnt even realised I was puting Botham forward as the more heroic, though i would stand by my assertation that he was the more likely to influence a single game with both bat and ball (at least during the first 80 tests of his career). I tried very deliberately not to rank them in my previous post but for what its worth I would give Botham the edge with regards to batting and Imran Khan the edge with the ball, and if I had to pick one I would probably pick Imran Khan.
As i said before Botham's career, great though it was, carries with it a lingering sense of under achievement and that was not due completely to his deterioration through injuries.

What year was the serious back injury Gildas?

I only really started following cricket closely in 1985, and that year although Beefy was beginning to get a bit 'portly' he was still managing to put Aussie batsmen on their arses regularly.

I remember him on the tour down under 1986/7 bowling most of that series with a side strain and bowling at half-rat pace.

Should have retired there and then whilst he was still good and fit enough...

JKLever wrote:What year was the serious back injury Gildas?

I only really started following cricket closely in 1985, and that year although Beefy was beginning to get a bit 'portly' he was still managing to put Aussie batsmen on their arses regularly.

I remember him on the tour down under 1986/7 bowling most of that series with a side strain and bowling at half-rat pace.

Should have retired there and then whilst he was still good and fit enough...

I started about the same time, though im pretty sure he had back trouble as early as 83 (in fact im positive but cant remeber which autobiography it was taht mentions it, i want to say Gooch but i dont think it was) it was only in 87(ish) when his back trouble became a continual problem, no doubt not helped by his general lack of fitness. In hindsight Botham should have retired after the 85 ashes, he was a spent force from that point on, he'd have finished with a batting average of 36 and 13 100's and a bowling average of 26 with 25 5 wicket innings. That in my mind is a better reflection of his levels than his final career average. But how many players realise they are through at 30?

Allan D wrote:
One canot explain Botham's performance without considering the influence of Mike Brearley. It is no coincidence that his most outstanding all-round match performance with both bat and ball, first rescuing England from collapse and then turning the match around came in the Golden Jubilee Test at Mumbai in 1980 which was Brearley's intended final interbnational appearance. His total loss of form in 1980-1 was not only accountable by his premature assumption of the captaincy (Peter Willey would have made a far better choice) but also by the absence of Brearley. His renaissance coincided precisely with Brearley's return in 1981.

One cannot explain Brearley's record as England skipper without considering Botham's wickets, runs and catches.

It's also interesting to note that Brearley ducked ten tests in a row against WI, before returning to beat the much weaker Australians and seal his legend (you'll remember Botham doing a bit in that series).

After Brearley's second retirement Botham only performed fitfully and never ascended the heights he had scaled under Brearley.

In the four calender years after Brearley's second retirement:

Botham: 38 tests, average 40, 5 x 100; 141 wickets at 33.7.

So it would appear that his batting was as good after Brears retired, for a long time; indeed slightly better than before. His bowling deteriorated, due to the injuries he picked up in 1982.

So, did Brearley create Botham?

Or was it the other way round?