Best Non-England player?

My knowledge of anything pre 2000 is pretty limited so feel free to correct if I get anything wrong, or if you want to throw a name out that is earlier than my timeframe!

But, who is the best current county cricketer never to play for England? And we are just going to talk Test matches here. If I was to draw up a shortlist/onelist it might look something like this:

Gary Keedy - Solid, if unspectacular left arm spinner. Perhaps unlucky not to get a go in the Ashley Giles years where Giles was selected more for his ability to bat 8 than his bowling.

And he is the only one I can think of! And that is only because I am watching the Lancs-Yorks game on Sky! Feel free to throw in any names you think!

I assume you mean from those who've been around for a bit, rather than guys like Hildreth who may well yet get a look in. In which case I'd add Glen Chapple to your short list. Given how many seamers England have picked throughout the decade, it's surprising that this very good county player never got his chance (though I think he made the squad against SA back in 2002, when Vaughan was first made captain).

James Adams,Darren Stevens and Steve Kirby would be a few I can think of.

Someone like Paul Weekes was unlucky not to get a chance at least in one-day cricket. Ben Smith also. Jon Batty I always felt was a lot better than James Foster when the latter was picked first time around...

I'm wracking my brains and can't think of anyone who hasn't been mentioned.

If he hadn't played in Bangladesh, I'd have said Carberry, solid batsman!

Mike Selig wrote:Someone like Paul Weekes was unlucky not to get a chance at least in one-day cricket. Ben Smith also. Jon Batty I always felt was a lot better than James Foster when the latter was picked first time around...

I hope Chris from Stroud is not reading this thread!

I actually thought of Paul Weekes (pretty decent all-rounder) and Jon Batty (most other keepers got a shot after all), struggling to think of any others. Richard Johnson would have been a shoe-in, except he eventually did play a few tests for England. Ashley Cowan? went on tour to the WI, but his attitude was all wrong and that was that.

Graham Napier must be the greatest ever non-England all-rounder of all-time.

Didn't he play in a t20 tournament? Forgive me if I'm wrong...

Sainty wrote:Didn't he play in a t20 tournament? Forgive me if I'm wrong...

Don't think he has managed to officially play one game for England at a T20 level format yet even though he was included in England's squad for the 2009 T20 World Cup.

Just been looking at You Tube of Napier's massive T20 innings against Sussex 150+ off about 50+ balls. Colossal hitting.....

Robert Turner? just remember him being a good player from when i was younger

David Turner from Hampshire was a very useful batsmen. That's going back a bit! Their top four line up was I recall Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Turner and Richard Gilliat.....

The problem is that the 150+ is Napier's only scored above 50 in T20s. A magnificent innings, must a huge anomaly in his career.

England called him up to the T20 World Cup squad and saw nothing in the nets that convinced them he was good enough.

I've only been following County Cricket for a couple of years, so I can't really think of anyone who hasn't been given a go, except for youngsters who will probably get a game at some point.

Amongst the best and definitely the unluckiest was Alan Jones, opening batsman at Glamorgan. He scored more runs and more centuries for Glamorgan than anyone else in their history.

However, the reason he's the unluckiest is that he actually played a game for England but is no longer recognised as having done so! To briefly explain. South Africa were due to tour England in 1970 but the tour was called off at the last minute due to political pressure. A replacement series was hastily arranged against the Rest of the World. It should be emphasised that their squad did not comprise mere jobbing mercenaries but true international greats of the time led by Gary Sobers. The series was accordingly given official test status. Jones was selected to open for England in the first match. Sadly, he made a couple of low scores and was dropped for the next match never to play international cricket again.

However, to make matters far more distressing for Jones, several years after his 'debut' the ICC ruled that this series was to have its test status retrospectively withdrawn and the individual performances to be deleted from all international record books.

Thus, although Alan Jones once played for England and many saw him do so, he never officially did.

There was a time when almost anyone could get a game for England as the selectors went through numerous players only to discard them after the briefest of chances. One such was the batsman Paul Terry who played two tests, scoring a total of 16 runs at an average of just over 5. His arm was broken by a Windies quick bowler and that was that for his test career.

Mark Lathwell was another who came - and went after two tests. I wonder whether a study was ever done of the psychological damage done by this select and discard policy.

All this would have meant that for a number of years the best non England player was distinctly ordinary!

Mark Davies from Durham looks unlikely to play for England despite a stellar record (first class average of around 22, see here. Unlucky his best years coincided with Duncan Fletcher's obsession with pace (see Sajid Mahmood and Liam Plunkett).

Mark Lathwell was a tremendously talented player, I always thought he was a huge victim of the revolving door policy.

Mark davies is defo a good shout. On the batting side of things what about David Fulton?

david sales

It certainly does seem strange that in past years the selectors would pick the likes of Austin, riki clarke or richard dawson but decide that the stars of the county game such as David sales, Glen Chappel etc aren't / weren't good enough for international cricket.

What about Martin Bicknell, I know he did play one or two matches (certainly one against SA about 2003), but surely he should have played many more. A talented swing and seam bowler who seemed to suffer from the belief that extra pace is essential at international level. Too me it is a travesty that the obsession with pace has led to the likes of Mahmood getting more caps than a class operator like Bicknell.

I agree that Bicknell should be a honorary member of this club. Year after year he was the best pace/seam bowler on the county scene - despite bowling much of the time on the unforgiving Oval pitches. He was brought back right at the very end of his career when clearly well past his best and still did a very good job.

Of the others mentioned I agree that Chapple and the bowler Mark Davies have been the unluckiest to miss out.

Mark Davies is a great shout, though he's also been unlucky with injuries which probably didn't help his cause.

In the Martin Bicknell vein (fine bowler who had very limited chances), how about Jon Lewis of Gloucestershire?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Mark Davies is a great shout, though he's also been unlucky with injuries which probably didn't help his cause.

In the Martin Bicknell vein (fine bowler who had very limited chances), how about Jon Lewis of Gloucestershire?

Jon Lewis played for England,he played a test and a few one dayers.

What about the former Leicestershire fast bowler David Millns who I believe was very close to being picked for England V Pakistan in the 1992 test series.

I'm not sure I agree with the Bicknell assessment though. For me he was a couple of yards short of pace and zip (78/79 mph is very different to 81/82) and bowled too full a length to succeed at international level. Comparisons were often made with McGrath say, but McGrath bowled a bit quicker, got more work off the wicket, and bowled just back of a length unless the ball was hooping (when he pitched it up further). I'm not sure Bicknell could have changed from his natural length.

Mike Selig wrote:I'm not sure I agree with the Bicknell assessment though. For me he was a couple of yards short of pace and zip (78/79 mph is very different to 81/82) and bowled too full a length to succeed at international level. Comparisons were often made with McGrath say, but McGrath bowled a bit quicker, got more work off the wicket, and bowled just back of a length unless the ball was hooping (when he pitched it up further). I'm not sure Bicknell could have changed from his natural length.

Unfair to compare McGrath and Bicknell as both are different types of bowlers. Bicknell was more of a swing type bowler due to his lower height, whereas McGrath was a tall hit the deck hard bowler who relied on seam movement allied to his amazing accuracy to get his wickets. McGrath perhaps could compare with someone like a Tim Munton who only played one test for England.

True but people have often used McGrath as an example of why you don't need pace. My point is you need some amount of pace. Bicknell was simply not quick enough and too "driveable".

Mike Selig wrote:True but people have often used McGrath as an example of why you don't need pace. My point is you need some amount of pace. Bicknell was simply not quick enough and too "driveable".

But it is more of having either the pace and/or the height attributes which are needed to be a successful bowler at a test level. Someone like Darren Gough or Malcolm Marshall whilst not having the height certainly more than made up for this shortcoming by having the express pace which came at the batsmen at a skiddish trajectory. At the end of the scale, someone like Andy Caddick or Angus Fraser whilst lacking in any express pace, possessed the awkward trajectory problems to batsmen from being able to deliver the ball from a tall height.

Fair enough Mike, but what about Mohammed Asif from Pakistan. His stock ball is about 78-79 mph and he seemed to be doing alright...

Bowled back of a length tho. And hit the pitch harder than Bicknell. And relied more on seam than swing. Bicknell would have been fine in England at Headingley with a Duke ball. Think he'd have struggled most other places.

If Flintoff is to be believed, the real answer to your question is Phil Neville - at age group level he was (by Flintoff's admission) a better all rounder than Fred, but chose a career in football.

Flintoff is slightly less complimentary about Gary Neville's cricketing ability - yes he was a decent player but has talked himself up a bit, and would probably only have been a solid county pro.