England's winter of cricket 2024/25

First topic message reminder :

Mousley is really fun to watch. I've no idea if there's longevity in what he's doing. I'm really happy that England are giving it a go though.

Yorkers from seamers have become less regular at the death as the margin for error is so small. It always was a small margin, but, if you hit it, then it couldn't get hit. Shots like the scoop changed that though. There's plenty of batters who can now turn a very good yorker into a boundary behind square on either side. Yorkers are still a weapon, but it's in an arsenal with other options. As opposed to guys like Flintoff who had a brilliant ODI record and rep as a death bowler largely by trying to bowl 5 yorkers an over.

Mousley bowling 75 mph yorkers off 3 paces in the Hundred was both effective and just really intriguing. Logically, 'spinners' are usually more accurate than seamers. The tiny run up that he flies through gives less time for a batter to shift their feet, look to scoop, etc. Plus, if they shape to scoop very early, then Mousley can take all the pace off, bowl a regular off-break and there's suddenly not enough there for the batter to work with. It's really interesting.

Part of me suspects that he might be found out. Trying to bowl yorkers off 3 paces like that, all from the shoulder, he does seem liable to bowl full tosses more often than others. Might batters adjust to the tiny runup and basically play him like a 75mph medium pacer bowling off a regular, longer runup? If Paul Collingwood was doing the same thing at the death off his runup then he'd be hit into space! Mousley really isn't putting much action on the ball either. It does seem to just be rapid arm balls. They've been very effective at times though. He might prove to be a one trick pony that gets worked out.

As said though, I'm just glad they're giving him the chance to find out either way. I really wish they'd done that with Benny Howell when he was at his peak. There was a period when Howell's stats in the middle overs were absurd. He was a similarly odd bowler. His cricinfo page says "right-arm medium". In reality, he was a 'quick spinner'. He had about a dozen slower balls that did different things. Many were genuinely deviating off the pitch too. Batters just couldn't hit him for a long period. He was very tough to get away square due to the pace. He bowled wicket to wicket with smart fields, got a ton of players caught at long-on and long-off with miss hits down the ground from the battery of slower balls. Some would dip. Some would turn. Batters couldn't line him up. England just weren't interested at that point in some weird medium pacer though, sadly. I think that Howell bowling in tandem with Dilly in the middle overs of T20i's could've been a brilliant weapon.

I'm glad they're having a look at something different this time. He shouldn't have played the ODIs but that's the schedule and having a T20 squad for 50 over games, so obviously not Mousley's fault!

Hi Duty. Think Stokes just wants to share the bowling load around and with the 50 over old ball not offering too much for swing bowlers he is happy to do a bit of "wear 'em down" donkey work.

Here's another one ! Carse too quick and straight for Henry...five for him now ...192/8 and early finish looms ...as I rather expected.

Oh rats...Stokes stops mid over , apparently something has gone wrong and can only hope it is minor and he's stopped out of extra careful management rather than a sign he might be unable to bowl again. Makes a huge difference to England in the field when he is fully fit and frankly they don't have any way to cover when he isn't.

Fantastic for Carse to get five.

Stokes needs to stop bowling permanently. Focus on being a specialist bat and prolong his career and avoid injury issues occurred by his bowling. Since the start of 2023, he's averaged 45 with the ball and an economy near four and goodness knows how many no balls. The glory days of Stokes being a genuine point of difference with the ball have long since gone, and there's little sense trying to reverse time.

No stopping Southee playing his shots

Trouble is , Stokes just batting really isn't the same force. Not sure he can reinvent himself as a pure batsman at this point ? I know a lot of people think he could take the number three spot...maybe. Still doesn't help the need for a fifth bowler though... meanwhile, Southee chasing six hitting record

The attempt ends at 2.

Wrap this up get out of here before lunch

Southee's entertaining innings ends with a nice catch by Joe Root in an unfamiliar spot in the deep... one to go.

Maybe bowl at number 11s stumps a bit more?

Weird that both Ollie Robinsons have their birthday on December 1st.

Proof that the world's a lazy simulation.

England 's weird inability to dismiss rabbits continues to frustrate...12 overs and 43 runs added? Had to go out so wonder if this will end any time soon...

See from texts Carse has finished the job...ten for him on a flat pitch so early call for PoTM ? 104 to win...

alfie wrote:See from texts Carse has finished the job...ten for him on a flat pitch so early call for PoTM  ?  104 to win...

And a more than handy undefeated 30 odd which helped cement England's control. Barring a New Zealand bowler turning this game on its head after lunch, Carse is definitely my choice. However, I suspect it may go to Brook for the runs scored in his six innings.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;orderby=start;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=10;qualval1=wickets;team=1;template=results;type=bowling;view=match

Should easily be Carse for MOTM. First English player to get 10 wickets overseas in 12 years. Phenomenal.

England will hopefully wrap this up in 20 overs and move on.

Crawley is legitimately one of the worst test players I've ever seen. To get 51 tests is scandalous. It's like watching Ashley Giles' career again, only as a batsman.

Hurry up and drop Crawley. His average is now below Buttler, Flintoff and Hick. Let's have Bethell open in the next test (which is also what he's been doing in this test), Pope at 3 and Robinson at 6/7.

England need 9 to win.

Drinks break called.

Bethell completes his half-century in 37 balls by hitting the winning run.

Lovely debut, but he might have to wait a little while for his second test.

On paper, a resounding win. In practice, not quite. The difference between the teams was NZ's abysmal catching. Had they caught Brook the first time, England would have been around 80/5 in the first innings and likely lost. Instead, Brook escaped, and then escaped a few more times, finishing up with 171.

Carse led the bowling and returned outstanding, world-class figures, with some support from Atkinson and Woakes.

Short turnaround for the second test. Expect Robinson in for Bethell and the order back to Pope at 3. Quick bowlers may have some rotation, but we won't know about that until 48 hours before. What should happen is Crawley and Bashir getting the axe.

NZ, odd test for them. Plenty of bats got starts and showed they had form, but none kicked on to the centuries you need on wickets like these. Some poor shots in their dismissals. Their catching was atrocious. Smith had a very good debut with the ball. I don't agree, however, with O'Rourke getting the ball fourth. He should be getting use of that new ball in the first ten overs. I don't expect changes in their batting, but they have a curious situation coming up with Santner available for test two. I would drop Southee for Santner, but would they be willing to do that? The pitch should be more conducive to spin at the second venue.

Anyway, 1-0 to the Engerland. Can they close this out to a series win, unlike the Pakistan series?

Good to see that wrapped up without too many dramas. Carse a deserved MOTM and is proving to be quite some find. Good for Bethell to score a few pressure free runs, wonder if he may actually play the second test?

Crawley does desperately need a score, he could actually be out at this rate. That innings in The Ashes should not be a ticket to being in the team forever, and was now an age ago given how many Tests England have played since

The most likely 100 run chase that Eng got and expected ease with which they polished it off.
With that all but knocked off NZ from a WTC final reckoning.
Barring dual failure of Crawley Eng should be happy with all round positives...
Bashir got wkts in unhelpful conditions and Pope finally got runs.
Carse reaffirming his presence as a striker with pace, Woakes and Atkinson among wickets and even the debutant scored a 50 at no.3 and if he plays a few more good innings , how will Eng fit Smith in the 11 when he eventually return.

Not expected from NZ to lose so easily would go down to shoddy half a dozen drops . I expect them to come back stronger and introduce some spin in the pitch for T2

I wouldn't have any problem with Crawley being dropped, and I think he's been lucky to get the chances he has. As I remember it, the reason he was in the team when the management changed is that Sibley decided to skip his turn on the musical chairs by not going to Australia to carry drinks. Sibley wasn't very Bazball, but the more established opener getting an extended vote of confidence alongside Duckett could just as easily have been Hameed or Burns. At which point I suspect Crawley's CC figures wouldn't be screaming 'let me back in', but that brings me to the thing that prompted this comment as I was catching up on things:

GSC wrote:To be fair to Crawley, an average of over 50 against Australia and over 40 India suggested he had turned a corner in 2023. That bought him a fair amount of credit (to go with a lack of viable replacements if we're being honest). But 2024 has been a sizable step backwards, poor returns against the WIs, injured for SL and then returned for Pakistan to similar returns.

That's actually a very Crawley statistic, in that he seems to perform better against better (faster) bowling. Which is why I can understand why they want to carry him to the Ashes, although I'd rather see him focus on the white ball stuff.

Good work and win - superb performance by Carse, who looks a real handy find for us.

Great to see Bethell get a fifty and hit the winning runs too.

Won't go too much into next XI speculation until we know more about how bowlers pull up and Stokes's fitness. I do wonder if there is a world where if Stokes can't bowl, you could replace Bashir with Potts/Stone and use Bethell/Root for spin overs...especially if the next pitch is like this one. Anyways, discussion for another day when we have more info.

Great start to the series for England, and a real opportunity in these next two tests to do something not many Eng sides have done and win a series in NZ!

(I'm still not over the wide not being given to win the game in the last test last time we were out here...)

An excellent win, even if aided by a suspect NZ fielding performance and propensity to get themselves out. Given England's woes in this area, nice to be on the other side.

alfie wrote:Oh rats...Stokes stops mid over , apparently something has gone wrong and can only hope it is minor and he's stopped out of extra careful management rather than a sign he might be unable to bowl again. Makes a huge difference to England in the field when he is fully fit and frankly they don't have any way to cover when he isn't.

It didn't sit right with me that Stokes stopped bowling mid over but didn't go off the field. Instead, he remained out there fielding and captaining.

Two reasons.

Firstly and obviously, he's more likely to worsen any injury.

Secondly, whilst I'm not suggesting there was anything deliberately underhand employed by Stokes, it does perhaps seem to encourage any bowler coming off during an over if he's being clobbered.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=4;orderby=runs;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

Interesting stat from yesterday is Root is now the all-time leading run scorer in the fourth innings of test matches, overtaking Tendulkar yesterday. Root has 1,630 runs in the fourth innings. Interestingly, of the players to score 1,000+ runs in the fourth innings, the average is led by Boycott with 58.76.

KP_fan wrote:The most likely 100 run chase that Eng got and expected ease with which they polished it off.
With that all but knocked off NZ from a WTC final reckoning.
Barring dual failure of Crawley Eng should be happy with all round positives...
Bashir got wkts in unhelpful conditions and Pope finally got runs.
Carse reaffirming his presence as a striker with pace, Woakes and Atkinson among wickets and even the debutant scored a 50 at no.3 and if he plays a few more good innings , how will Eng fit Smith in the 11 when he eventually return.

Not expected from NZ to lose so easily would go down to shoddy half a dozen drops . I expect them to come back stronger and introduce some spin in the pitch for T2

Oliver Pope got runs at 6 having taken the gloves. They aren't going to drop him, and he's not going to score runs at 3 on anything other than a . They seem to rate young Bethell, so might as well stick with him...

Not sure I need a big need to change. Pope was the reserve keeper and Bethell the reserve bat, both over Robinson. Bringing Robinson in would be an affirmation he's preferred to one of the two in that role, which would beg the question why he wasn't in the original squad.

Smiths spot in the XI and holding the gloves is secure, Pope would likely be the one under pressure if Bethell does well at 3

I think in English composition there is a bigger variable at play.  
I have seen a number  champion bowlers( Harris, Watson, Jones, Zaheer etc) fight hard to hold their body together unsuccessfully at some point generally around early to mid 30s and sadly that might be the case with Stokes.

Surgery, rehabs, breaks for recuperation don't work for long and hopefully not but perhaps Stokes is there.
And if that's the case then:
 Do Eng play 7 batsmen (including WK)+4 bowlers  and if so, does Stokes fit in as a batsman?
Or
do they play 6 batsmen(including WK) +5 bowlers,  which they can as their bowlers Woakes, Atkinson, Carse , Rehan can bat, which is the way I would go.
And
Would Stokes fit in as 1 of the 6 batters or 5 minus WK

Caught up with the replay of that rapid England chase down...104 was never going to be any problem (although I see some crazy pessimists on bbc comments were apparently anxious ) : 12.3 overs was quite entertaining

Duckett does Duckett - killed the chase in two overs ; Bethell must have thought he was practising for his next t20 ; and Root enjoyed himself ... all fun ; but not sure it means a lot in terms of the next match. In which they will probably need to be a bit more composed as I rather doubt NZ will be so generous with the fielding errors again.

Don't see England wanting to change the side unless injury issues dictate - though they might want to rotate a pace man (Atkinson ?). Pope is fine at six and keeping (so far played 4 in that role , won 3 drew 1 !) ; and Bethell did himself no harm in his debut and might as well continue at three to see if he can make runs under some more serious pressure. Obviously Crawley needs some runs : but for a bit of context , he has had just two poor matches each against West Indies and Pakistan , either side of an injury break , plus this last shocker , since two rather good series against the two best sides in the world . And even in there he did manage 70 odd in a couple of games ... I reckon the sample size isn't exactly overwhelming yet. (I do take the point that his overall record remains distinctly underwhelming. If he can't resume what appeared to be an upward trend in 2023 , then yes , his time might be running short. But I don't think that time is up yet...especially given the difficulty in finding anyone acceptable as an opening bat for the last 12 years !)

Really pleased with the bowling. Carse has surprised me : even watching him in white ball stuff I wasn't so impressed as to expect him to be this effective in Tests , but he has done brilliantly , without any real assistance from conditions. Tremendous energy , and impressive stamina demonstrated - plus it helps that he can bat a bit. Very handy addition to the pace bowling stocks , along with Atkinson of course. Woakes still seems less than happy away from home but his second innings effort was really good and I do think he remains valuable as the experienced part of a nicely balanced group - for now. Bashir got his 4 wickets in the first knock - arguably with a fairly large dose of good fortune from some dodgy Kiwi batting but hey...what is in the book is what counts. I still have reservations about him ; but as they hardly need his batting in the current configuration I see no reason to worry about his place : at least as long as Stokes is able to contribute some overs of pace.

That last is my only real concern at the moment. I believe Ben when he says he is being careful and expects to be fine for match two. But I do worry about whether his body might let him down at any point again ... and unfortunately that is a problem that could continue to recur as he really does put it through a lot of strain both bowling and flinging himself around in the field. Just keeping fingers crossed because I think England at this stage of their development need him (fit and bowling at least a modest amount) more than many want to admit. Just in this last match , he took no wickets : but 20 overs that Woakes/Atkinson/Carse didn't have to bowl made a significant difference...

Yet another away win in Test cricket which is good to see. England were 1-0 up in India, NZ and Pakistan in recent tours, only to lose/share the series, so anything can happen in NZ.

Doubt whether the hosts will be so generous to their guests with their catching next time out. By the end of the series England might be glad they got Williamson out before he reached three figures in the first Test.

Bethell and Carse just the latest players to take instantly to Test cricket - a tribute to the atmosphere and encouragement within the England camp. It's all a contrast with the experience of talented newcomers to the Test arena in days of yore. One thinks of the early trials and tribulations of the likes of Amiss, Fletcher, Gooch, Gatting, Ramps and Hick.

And what do you think the likes of DeFreitas must make of it all? Wasn't he dropped a record number of times?

A bit early to say that about Bethell. First innings was more indicative, and though he did not look out of place, he made the kind of low score that Crawley or Pope would be called out for.

sirfredperry wrote:  

And what do you think the likes of DeFreitas must make of it all? Wasn't he dropped a record number of times?  

Wasn't that the era of West Indian dominance ( mid to late 80s)
When  Eng was going from one West Indian born to the next in hope for a Windies like dominating pacer......
From Norman Cowans to "neckless" Gladstone Small to DeFreitas to Devon Malcolm to Chris Lewis at the start of 90s, never staying too long with any of them and rarely playing two of them in a 11.

Of them all I think Chris Lewis was most talented with the makings of a Ben Stokes if he was handled correctly.

Crawley against NZ - 168 runs @ 9.88
Crawley against all others - 2680 runs @ 36.21

That's such a Zak Crawley stat.

Some fun Southee stats:

Most 6s in Test cricket

Stokes - 131
McCullum - 107
Gilchrist - 100
Gayle - 98
Kallis - 97
Southee - 95

So, Southee could feasibly usurp Kallis, Gayle and Gilly if he plays the next two Tests and bats 4 times.

Even better stuff though...

25% of Southee's Test runs have come through 6s. The others are around 10%, with Kallis down at 5%.

Southee hits a 6 every 28 balls faced in Test cricket. Gilly is the next lowest there at every 68 balls.

Tim Southee. The chaos slogging, 6 sitting GOAT.

Hi Carlos - as I'm sure your Grandad told you, it's not all about 6s and big hitting though.

A few quick mentions for some at the bottom of the bill.

Predictably, Geoffrey Boycott. 108 Tests, 193 innings, 8,144 runs and 8 6s.

Even less as regards 6s, Don Bradman. 52 Tests, 80 innings, 6,996 runs and 6 6s. ''If I don't hit the ball in the air, I won't be caught.''

A personal favourite lower still, Pakistan's Hanif Mohammed. 55 Tests, 97 innings, 3,915 runs (including 337 in the longest innings in Test history - 970 minutes against the West Indies in Bridgetown) and just 2 6s.

Proper cricket.

guildfordbat wrote:Hi Carlos - as I'm sure your Grandad told you, it's not all about 6s and big hitting though.

A few quick mentions for some at the bottom of the bill.

Predictably, Geoffrey Boycott. 108 Tests, 193 innings, 8,144 runs and 8 6s.

Even less as regards 6s, Don Bradman. 52 Tests, 80 innings, 6,996 runs and 6 6s. ''If I don't hit the ball in the air, I won't be caught.''

A personal favourite lower still, Pakistan's Hanif Mohammed. 55 Tests, 97 innings, 3,915 runs (including 337 in the longest innings in Test history - 970 minutes against the West Indies in Bridgetown) and just 2 6s.

Proper cricket.

Ather's hit only 4 maximums from 20,609 balls faced. That's a great stat in the other direction. I'd love to know how many of those were top edges in the days before his back went and he put the pull away!

The Hanif stat surprised me. I knew he was famous for hitting it predominantly along the ground from reading so many 1900's cricket books from my grandfathers collection. It's commonly referenced, he was a very influential batter in his time. Being one of the earliest proponents of the reverse sweep (if not the earliest major one) made me think he might've hit a few more 6s from time to time though. My brain tends to group Hanif and Javed Miandad together as Pakistani batters who were somewhat ahead of their time but are sometimes overlooked for how their style influenced their peers and pushed batting in different directions.

On the topic of old cricket books. I'm currently rereading Beyond a Boundary by CLR James. I'd forgotten just how brilliant but also odd a book it is. Part biography, part homage to cricket. It's uneven in parts for that reason but somewhat unique. Certainly a favourite. The first chapter discussing also mythical cricketers from his local club and their achievements always sucks me in and gets me reading about cricket again. I immediately picked up Who Only Cricket Know by David Woodhouse. About the Len Hutton led tour to the Windies in '53/54. It's a brilliant book from only a few of years ago. I read it at the time but not since. A truly fantastic cricket book for anyone needing to give Xmas gift recommendations in the next few weeks!

I found a better English one than Ather's with 6s. Jonathan Trott didn't hit a 6 in his Test career. Obviously he was known for being obdurate, batting time and scratching a trench into the crease when marking his guard. Even so, that surprised me a lot. I'm fairly sure he was the leading T20 run scorer in the game at one point when it was predominantly played in England. The strike rates were way lower of course, but he just churned out T20 runs at a good average like Trott often did.

Sadiq Mohammad, Hanif's youngest brother, had zero 6s in a 41 Test career. Vijay Manjrekar none in 55 Tests.

Glenn Turner, who could have achieved so much more in Tests, also none in 41 Tests. He frequently spurned chances to play for NZ as he could earn more playing elsewhere. The prolific Bob Cowper also scored no 6s in in 27 Tests averaging 47 (and a F-C average well over 50) before retiring very early to go into banking as there wasn't much to be earned in cricket. A couple of interesting reminders that wanting to maximise your earnings isn't a new concept brought on by 20 over cricket!

England go unchanged for the next game, with Stokes pulling up ok and them opting to keep Pope at 6, with Bethell at 3.

Think that's sensible. Both did well enough to avoid being dropped

Agreed. I think it's a reasonable selection.

Bethell actually batted well in the toughest conditions in the 1st innings, then smashed a 50 in the second.

Pope got a very important half century and kept tidily. His glovework looks slightly better than Smith's to me, I don't have an issue with Smith's keeping either, I just feel that Pope is a natural wicket-keeper. That's all eye test stuff though. Until cricket uses SportVU cameras to actually track ball and player movements properly, we won't be able to analyse fielding, wicket-keeping and fielding positions as teams should be in 2024.

I'd have maybe been tempted to bring Olly Stone in for Woakes or even Atkinson. A case of rotation to keep the seamers fresh and wanting to see what Stone can do after looking promising against Sri Lanka on his Test return. There's so much talent there, so frustratingly stalled by injury. It would be so useful if England could even get two Tests from Stone in 5 Test series such as India next summer or the Ashes tour. Not just for those 4 innings of a fresh Stone firing in. Also, the knock on effect of allowing other seamers to stay slightly fresher over a long series.

That's a small quibble though. I thought the bowlers mostly did well and their batting depth played a key role in the first innings.

England go into this Test with the number 1 and 2 ranked batsmen in the world, wonder if that's ever happened before for England?

VTR wrote:England go into this Test with the number 1 and 2 ranked batsmen in the world, wonder if that's ever happened before for England?

Before the rankings you might have been able to come up with Hobbs and Sutcliffe in the 1920s, Hutton and Compton in the late-40s, May and Cowdrey in the late 50s.

The great batsmen (yeah, I know it should be batters) are having to contend with bowling by the best bowlers at present due to the ridiculous scheduling, although the rankings do take quality of the opposition into account.

No doubt someone can tell us if any other country has had guys at numbers one and two in the rankings.

sirfredperry wrote:

VTR wrote:  England go into this Test with the number 1 and 2 ranked batsmen in the world, wonder if that's ever happened before for England?

Before the rankings you might have been able to come up with Hobbs and Sutcliffe in the 1920s, Hutton and Compton in the late-40s, May and Cowdrey in the late 50s.

The great batsmen (yeah, I know it should be batters) are having to contend with bowling by the best bowlers at present due to the ridiculous scheduling, although the rankings do take quality of the opposition into account.

No doubt someone can tell us if any other country has had guys at numbers one and two in the rankings.

There is a Historical all time ranking site of ICC in the link given below
More recently Labuschagne & Smith were 1 & 2 in 2022 and perhaps in 2021 also sometime.
Kohli & Pujara may jhave been sometime in 2019
I believe Sangkaraa-Jayawerdena,  and Younis / Youssuf  and Younis /Misbah, Hayden/Gilchrist, Hayden / Langer,   could also be on that list

If someone spends more time flipping  thru this historical ranking with some intuitive commonsense.... either month by month or using the  2 player comparison feature ( see example of Richards compared to Greenidge and in 1984-85 they were 1&2)
You might land on combos of Viv Richards / Greenidge /Haynes/Lloyd in that early/mid 80s era
and surely Sobers and some of his contemporaries may also be on it
Jack Kallis / De Villiers also might be on this
Vengsarakar, Gavsakar or Azhar might also have been on it for a bit.

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/datespecific/test/batting/2019/02/12/

1&2 from same country will be multitude the more interesting exercise will be how many months they held on to 1&2
and equally interesting would be who held no.1 for longest

That's beyond the time I have, but I think some of those combinations are good shouts. For England I would be surprised, one world class batsman was always relatively rare. Maybe Cook and Pietersen at some point in early 2010s, but not sure either were quite peaking at exactly the same time

VTR wrote:That's beyond the time I have, but I think some of those combinations are good shouts. For England I would be surprised, one world class batsman was always relatively rare. Maybe Cook and Pietersen at some point in early 2010s, but not sure either were quite peaking at exactly the same time

Cook's & KP's highest was #3 and in that era Trott rose to No.2 and there might have been a time when Trott & KP were 2&3

the last English pair Ranked 1& 2 together are not from Black & White era...but quite counter intuitive  Gooch & Robin Smith in 1991-92 ( see below)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/cwydel7r9xyo

Quite a good read about the differences between test and county bowling. Steven Finn pace bowling analysis is very good in general.

I don't have time to go stat digging now to check the 1st and 2nd place in one XI stats, but Ponting's ranking was insanely high for a long time. He's got the joint 4th highest peak ranking ever. Level with Jack Hobbs. Just behind Len Hutton and Steve Smith. Punter's peak was insane and long. He fell away at the end, which no doubt clouded how good he once was for some. He averaged about 60 for over 100 Tests across 11 years though. An incredible player.

I'd be surprised if that Oz team didn't hold 1st and 2nd place at some point with Punter at 1 and Haydos or Gilly at 2.

Sachin and Dravid perhaps for India? Weekes, Walcott and Sobers had outrageous records around the same times but so did several other batters in the 50s. It was a tasty time to be a batter!

Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock likely would have achieved this quirk if not for playing few Tests due to apartheid. Two all time great batters, almost exactly the same age.

I'll try to have a deep dive sometime. It's an interesting question for sure!

Walcott and Weekes did overlap with Sobers - for about four years in fact. But Sobers had a modest average in the low 30s until a certain match against Pakistan... when the other two were all but done. So I doubt he would figure with the W's . Would be interesting to see how Walcott Weekes and Worrell were placed , as a threesome , around , say 1956 ?

As to the England team selection : not unexpected. No real reason to mess with the batting ; I did think they might have rotated one of the bowlers out but guess they can do that for the third game and didn't want to disturb a winning XI.

Interesting to see that NZ are also unchanged ... apparently don't see any need for a proper spinner. Think we can assume they aren't taking the Pakistan template of destroying England with blow-dried dirt tracks

Assuming the Kiwis catch better this week I expect a good contest.

alfie wrote:Walcott and Weekes did overlap with Sobers  - for about four years in fact. But Sobers had a modest average in the low 30s until a certain match against Pakistan... when the other two were all but done. So I doubt he would figure with the W's . Would be interesting to see how Walcott Weekes and Worrell were placed , as a threesome , around , say  1956  ?

1955 Walcott was 1 and Weekes 2
1956 Weekes was 1 and walcott 2
Worrell's highest ranking ever was 3

For WI further

Kallicharan-1 & Kanhai-2 in mid 70s overlapped

And then early to late 80s Llyod, Richards, Greenidge & Haynes surely had multiple overlaps


Lara peaked for very long 1&2 for nearly 10 years but had declined by the time Chanderpaul rose to 1 &2 for a few years...so they did not overalp
But unexpectedly Jimmy Adams was 1&2 at the start of Lara's peak and so they overlapped both as 1&2 and 2&1

Thanks , KP_fan... Was Worrell ever 3 while the other two were 1 and 2 ? That would surely have been unique !