Botham vs Flintoff

[sledger]

i mean with the likes of boycott, gower, robin smith et al....

 

[SJS]

There are plenty of arguments to justify the position that stats are a poor judge to compare players from different eras, different teams.

However, there is none more important than that to discuss and compare two players, one of whom has long since finished his career and the other isnt even halfway through his, is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Swervy]

no way was the England team from about 83 onwards to any point when Botham retired anywhere near as good as this England team, despite some great names that played for England back then.

I often wonder whether its merely coincidence that England slumped big time when Bothams form left him

 

[wpdavid]

no way was the England team from about 83 onwards to any point when Botham retired anywhere near as good as this England team, despite some great names that played for England back then.

I often wonder whether its merely coincidence that England slumped big time when Bothams form left him

If you look at the number of England test wins that were hugely down to ITB - 2nd test in NZ during 1977/8, first 2 tests at home to Pakistan in 1978, Indian test in 1980, all 3 wins against Aus in 1981 - it's tempting to conclude that he was succesfully papering over the cracks in an otherwise mediocre side. However, I think there were other factors too. England's bowling when he fist came along was infinitely better than in the late 80's, and the opposition was generally weaker than it would later become.

 

[badgerhair]

Fair enough. I'd suggest both were exceedingly unlikely, though perhaps when Flintoff came in victory was even less likely, given that 5 wickets had already gone down, just like in Botham's case, but the deficit was still over 300, while in Botham's case it was less than half that.

And I very much doubt whether the England team had ever believed they could win at Lord's after the SA innings. At Headingley, though, a friend of mine was drinking in a bar when Chris Old walked in on the Saturday night (after England's follow-on had started). Old said "We can win this, you know." And Botham would still have believed it when he walked into bat.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

Is that why he said "might as well have some fun" to Dilley when he arrived?
Without doubt they'd have realised there was a victory there before too long, but when they came together I don't think he was thinking that way.
Not, of course, that any parrallel can be drawn with Lord's 2003, because there are lost causes and there are utterly unturnable ships.

 

[Richard]

no way was the England team from about 83 onwards to any point when Botham retired anywhere near as good as this England team, despite some great names that played for England back then.

I often wonder whether its merely coincidence that England slumped big time when Bothams form left him

Maybe they weren't as successful - whether they were as good is anyone's guess, and fact is we'll never know.
England of the mid-1980s had names such as... Gooch (who everyone forgets was merely a reasonably good Test opener before 1989\90), Lamb (who while capable of playing stunning innings was, overall, a terrible underachiever), Gower... and frankly no-one else who ended-up being particularly highly regarded. England weren't, on paper, much of a side in the mid-1980s and it was reflected in the results.
It's quite possible that the current side is better, but equally it's possible that they're being made to look good while they're about on par with most England sides of the 1970s, 80s and 90s and, indeed, most of our cricketing history because, at the moment, there aren't very many good sides about aside from Australia.

 

[badgerhair]

no way was the England team from about 83 onwards to any point when Botham retired anywhere near as good as this England team, despite some great names that played for England back then.

I often wonder whether its merely coincidence that England slumped big time when Bothams form left him

Except that they didn't. True, we got seriously hammered by WI, but we went to India and won handsomely, we won the Ashes convincingly in 85 and less convincingly again in 86-7, and Botham didn't really have all that much to do with the winning of any of them. England didn't really start to slump, as you put it, until Alec Bedser stopped picking the team and it was entrusted to Peter May.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[wpdavid]

Except that they didn't. True, we got seriously hammered by WI, but we went to India and won handsomely, we won the Ashes convincingly in 85 and less convincingly again in 86-7, and Botham didn't really have all that much to do with the winning of any of them. England didn't really start to slump, as you put it, until Alec Bedser stopped picking the team and it was entrusted to Peter May.

Cheers,

Mike

Didn't May take over in 1982, or is my memory playing tricks on me? You're right to bring his name up though. Any attempt to explain our exceptionally poor results in the second half of the 80's must take into account his habit of getting through as many players as possible during a series. Before then, he got away with it because we still had a few world class players playing doing their job performing reasonably well and he had the luxury of a few series against relatively moderate opposition.

Whether Bedser would have done much better is questionable, I think. In his days, NZ were there for the taking, India usually did the decent thing and Pakistan didn't have the bowlers to beat us, even if we rarely beat them at full strength. Selection under him was already highly inconsistent, albeit apparently less so than under May. But he did have better players at his disposal than May, so I wonder how he would have coped with the situation in the 80's. As it was. he made some howlers, not least with the captaincy.

 

[Richard]

Were either Edward Dexter or Raymond Illingworth really any better?

 

[wpdavid]

Were either Edward Dexter or Raymond Illingworth really any better?

Since Dexter's initial contribution was to preside over the captaincy fiasco at the start of the 1989 Ashes series which then saw 29 players represent us in the six tests (going one better than May's record from the previous year), you'd have to say that he wasn't. Thereafter, results did pick up under his stewardship - for a couple of years anyway. How much that was down to him is debateable, of course. IIRC he was still in charge when we had the pig's ear of a squad that toured India in 1992/3 and then when we once again got through a sizeable proportion of the available players against Aus in 1993, so you'd struggle to conclude that he had much of a clue.

Illy was different, to be fair. He did make some duff decisions, but the side was a bit more settled under his stewardship and you generally thought he knew what he was trying to do. That being said, he wasn't in charge of a home series against Aus, which has generally been where things get out of hand.

Twas always thus, AFAICS. Historically, if you look at almost any series when we've lost heavily, the selectors have usually reacted by picking as many players as possible. That's where Duncan Fletcher has been so different, and, as I've probably said before, it's the consistency of selection as much as the quality of the current squad that has improved our results.

 

[Richard]

That's the point I was making - don't pick-out Bedser and\or May when the fact is most have been equally guilty. David Graveney has been a breath of fresh-air of late, however much Duncan Fletcher may or may not have helped him.
Incidentally... from memory of Atherton's autobio I'm sure Dexter's last act was the 1989 Ashes...?
Another thing - how often have injuries played the part in the pick-as-many-players-as-poss? Quite often in my time - how often down the years is less easy to tell.

 

[wpdavid]

That's the point I was making - don't pick-out Bedser and\or May when the fact is most have been equally guilty. David Graveney has been a breath of fresh-air of late, however much Duncan Fletcher may or may not have helped him.
Incidentally... from memory of Atherton's autobio I'm sure Dexter's last act was the 1989 Ashes...?
Another thing - how often have injuries played the part in the pick-as-many-players-as-poss? Quite often in my time - how often down the years is less easy to tell.

The reason we picked out May was we were disussing the decline England's decline in the 80's! My mention of Bedser was only to make the point that May was an extreme version of what had gone before. As for Dexter, I'm pretty sure the 1989 Ashes was actually his first series in charge, not his last. I *think* the 1993 Ashes was his last series. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

From memory, injuries didn't have much to do with the casts-of-thousands in the second half of the 80's. The only mitigating factor in 1989 was losing several players who signed up for Gatting's "rebel" tour of SA in the middle of the summer, but selection was already a mess by then anyway. Even in the series against WI, when one or two of our guys usually found themselves on the receiving end of something nasty, I don't remember injuries being a significant factor.

You're right to mention Graveney as well as Fletcher, of course. I suppose I tend not to because selection in 1997 to some extent followed the pattern we had seen in previous Ashes series - lots of good intentions followed by some bizarre picks when we started losing. But, irrespective of who actually deserves the credit, selection under Graveney has been more consistent than at any time in the history of the game, AFAICS, and he deserves some credit. The best example was probably the 2003 SA series when we twice lost terriby and previous incumbants would have changed much of the side - and lost the series 4-0. If you see past the injuries to Hoggard, Johnson, Kirtley, & Harmison (OK, I know opinions differ on that one) and Gough's retirement, selection was incredibly consistent that summer, and we were able to save the series.

 

[marc71178]

Dexter was definitely around in the 93 series, I remember his reasoning about juxtapositions being put on the classroom noticeboard by our temporary Aussie maternity cover teacher.

 

[wpdavid]

Dexter was definitely around in the 93 series, I remember his reasoning about juxtapositions being put on the classroom noticeboard by our temporary Aussie maternity cover teacher.

Cruel but probably fair. I suppose you weren't in a position to do much about it, anyway.

I'm trying to remember the sequence of managers & selectors in the 90's. IIRC Dexter stood down in 1993 and was replaced by Illingworth for the 1994 home series against NZ & SA. Graveney then took over in 1997.

As for managers, I *think" Micky Stewart was replaced by Keith Fletcher for the 1992/93 tour of India. Fletcher was still around for the Aus tour in 1994/95, but probably not after then. I vaguely remember Illy wanting and having complete control for a year or two. Maybe he stood down after the 1996 home series, because Lloyd must have been manager in the subsequent "flippin murdered them" tour to Zim & NZ. Lloyd was certainly manager against SA in 1998, and, IIRC, we didn't have one against NZ in 1999.

Does that sound about right?

 

[marc71178]

That sounds about right to me - certainly for CoS, manager/coach I'm more hazy as to the early ones.

 

[Richard]

The reason we picked out May was we were disussing the decline England's decline in the 80's! My mention of Bedser was only to make the point that May was an extreme version of what had gone before. As for Dexter, I'm pretty sure the 1989 Ashes was actually his first series in charge, not his last. I *think* the 1993 Ashes was his last series. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

From memory, injuries didn't have much to do with the casts-of-thousands in the second half of the 80's. The only mitigating factor in 1989 was losing several players who signed up for Gatting's "rebel" tour of SA in the middle of the summer, but selection was already a mess by then anyway. Even in the series against WI, when one or two of our guys usually found themselves on the receiving end of something nasty, I don't remember injuries being a significant factor.

Well - SA rebel tours were an extreme version of injuries. Of course, it's best, rather than just talking about injuries, to mention unavailabilities - covers everything, both injuries and suspensions.
And I wasn't specifically talking about the mid-80s, more the 70s and before. From what I've been able to see, England selection has near always been "a mess" as you put it, except when the going's been really good - the Fred Tate instance being probably the most glaring example, along with Syd Pardon's legendary "touched the confines of lunacy" comment about the 1909 selectors.

You're right to mention Graveney as well as Fletcher, of course. I suppose I tend not to because selection in 1997 to some extent followed the pattern we had seen in previous Ashes series - lots of good intentions followed by some bizarre picks when we started losing. But, irrespective of who actually deserves the credit, selection under Graveney has been more consistent than at any time in the history of the game, AFAICS, and he deserves some credit. The best example was probably the 2003 SA series when we twice lost terriby and previous incumbants would have changed much of the side - and lost the series 4-0. If you see past the injuries to Hoggard, Johnson, Kirtley, & Harmison (OK, I know opinions differ on that one) and Gough's retirement, selection was incredibly consistent that summer, and we were able to save the series.

And it was a very similar story in 2002 and, to a lesser extent, 2001 as well. Injuries and other unavailabilities all over the place, and it was extremely easy to miss the relatively small number of omissions. Hoggard and Harmison, obviously, are the best examples - Harmison has only been dropped for a single Test (even that some people debate), and Hoggard's been dropped just once after his debut.

 

[Richard]

Cruel but probably fair. I suppose you weren't in a position to do much about it, anyway.

I'm trying to remember the sequence of managers & selectors in the 90's. IIRC Dexter stood down in 1993 and was replaced by Illingworth for the 1994 home series against NZ & SA. Graveney then took over in 1997.

As for managers, I *think" Micky Stewart was replaced by Keith Fletcher for the 1992/93 tour of India. Fletcher was still around for the Aus tour in 1994/95, but probably not after then. I vaguely remember Illy wanting and having complete control for a year or two. Maybe he stood down after the 1996 home series, because Lloyd must have been manager in the subsequent "flippin murdered them" tour to Zim & NZ. Lloyd was certainly manager against SA in 1998, and, IIRC, we didn't have one against NZ in 1999.

Does that sound about right?

Yes, I'm near enough certain about all of that. Illingworth took control in 1994, after Atherton and Fletcher (K) had picked the squad completely for the West Indies tour. It must have been 1993 (another Ashes summer) when Dexter took his "strange" (according to Atherton) last act as a CoS. Illingworth always wanted complete control and got it after Fletcher got the brunt of the inevitable post-Ashes fallout. He had it until Bumble's appointment in 1996 (Illingworth found it intolerable after the horror winter of 1995\96), and was CoS until Graveney took over in 1997. Bumble remained as coach until the end of WC99, and of course Duncan didn't take-over until the SA tour, so there was no coach for the NZ Test-series.

 

[wpdavid]

Well - SA rebel tours were an extreme version of injuries. Of course, it's best, rather than just talking about injuries, to mention unavailabilities - covers everything, both injuries and suspensions.
And I wasn't specifically talking about the mid-80s, more the 70s and before. From what I've been able to see, England selection has near always been "a mess" as you put it, except when the going's been really good - the Fred Tate instance being probably the most glaring example, along with Syd Pardon's legendary "touched the confines of lunacy" comment about the 1909 selectors.

And it was a very similar story in 2002 and, to a lesser extent, 2001 as well. Injuries and other unavailabilities all over the place, and it was extremely easy to miss the relatively small number of omissions. Hoggard and Harmison, obviously, are the best examples - Harmison has only been dropped for a single Test (even that some people debate), and Hoggard's been dropped just once after his debut.

I think the last 2 Ashes series are good illustrations of where Graveney and/or Flecther have got things right. Both times we got thrashed hollow, but there still wasn't much doubt at the end of the series about most of the players who should still be in the team, and we were able to get on with life as normal afterwards. 2002 was a bit different as we weren't losing most of the time, so any changes were purely down to injuries to Caddick, Jones, Tudor, Tresco etc rather than kneejerk reactions.

Interesting comment of yours about Hoggard. I suppose you're ignoring 2000, which is fair enough as he only came in as a one-off 5th seamer at Lord's. Wasn't he dropped at some point in the 2002/03 Ashes, or was he injured? I know he was dropped for Kirtley in SL the following winter. But your basic point is spot-on.

 

[Richard]

True, that should be twice he was dropped, not once (it was very complicated in 2000 - his debut came in the last Test before a ODI series, and after that ODI series there was little doubt over a) the return of the captain and b) the need for a spinner. What I'd also question is - can a player called-up because of injury be dropped?), during The Ashes 2002\03 and SL 2003\04.
Still, given his performances I'd have dropped him many more times, and I still maintain that Harmison isn't a Test-class bowler and will go eventually unless he makes improvements.
With regards summer 2002 - maybe our overall record was decent enough, but the point I was making was there were lots and lots of injuries and that made it easy to fail to pick the fact that selection was reasonably consistent. And even though overall it makes good reading, from midway through Trent Bridge vs India our cricket was generally shockingly poor - as it had to be to fail to win a series at home to India.