The Clive Lloyd legacy - champs or chumps?

[archie mac]

A lot of that and a bit of the attitude thing.
No-one as far as I know said that about the 1948 Australians or indeed most of Bradman's sides, despite all being (bar Bodyline) totally unbeatable.

They never lost a series with Bradman in charge, but they were given a coulpe of scares by the Poms, they were 2-0 down in 1936/37 winning 3-2. And in 1938 the series finished 1-1 but I think the English were the better team.

 

[Richard]

True he has not bowled that well against the Windies on their home grounds, but I would think his record against them in Aust would be quite good?

Warne was still a youngster back then, that match at the MCG he ranks as the start of his career as a true Test class bowler.

Does it?
I'd rank it as a one-off, given that he did nothing in the next 3 games (in 1 he bowled just 8 overs).
Warne's record against WI at home in the only other series he played before the most recent 1 (and I'm sure you'll agree that the West Indies of 2005\06 bore little resemblence to that of 1988\89 - the last of the times Australia saw West Indies beat their side) was only so-so: 68-180-4, 63-160-7, 31.1-89-3, 36-110-6, 19-55-2 - that's 2 good games, 1 poor one and 2 average ones.
In any case - bowling spin in West Indies has of late been easier than bowling it in Australia.

 

[Richard]

They never lost a series with Bradman in charge, but they were given a coulpe of scares by the Poms, they were 2-0 down in 1936/37 winning 3-2. And in 1938 the series finished 1-1 but I think the English were the better team.

Never mind not losing one with Bradman in charge - unless I'm much mistaken they didn't lose 1 with him in the side (except Bodyline, which I tend to discount).
In 1938, incidentally, the First and Second Tests were typical 1930s matches (658-8dec plays 411 & 427-6; 494 plays 422) which never looked like having a result; the Third was a typical Old Trafford Test with exaggeration - not a single ball was bowled; Australia won the Fourth with fair comfort; and England won the last (a timeless game) by the largest margin ever after Australia lost 2 front-line batsmen.

 

[archie mac]

Never mind not losing one with Bradman in charge - unless I'm much mistaken they didn't lose 1 with him in the side (except Bodyline, which I tend to discount).
In 1938, incidentally, the First and Second Tests were typical 1930s matches (658-8dec plays 411 & 427-6; 494 plays 422) which never looked like having a result; the Third was a typical Old Trafford Test with exaggeration - not a single ball was bowled; Australia won the Fourth with fair comfort; and England won the last (a timeless game) by the largest margin ever after Australia lost 2 front-line batsmen.

They did lose the first series Bradman played in; that of 1928/29 4-1. Bradman was dropped for the 2nd Test, but played the rest. I think this the best batting line up England ever sent into the field.

The 1938 series was a little misleading, in the first Test Eng made 600+ Aust were 7-250 (I think) before McCabe played one of the great Test innings. This is the innings where Bradman called to the other players form the team balcony 'come and watch this, you may never see it's like again' (not an exact quote). Bradman then played a slow innings the slowest 100 of his career to force a draw.

In the fourth Test O'Reilly claimed 10 wickets and Bradman played one of his very best innings to see the Aussies home. Although one all, this was a pretty good series.

 

[Richard]

They did lose the first series Bradman played in; that of 1928/29 4-1. Bradman was dropped for the 2nd Test, but played the rest. I think this the best batting line up England ever sent into the field.

Not a patch on 1905.
Yes, I was meaning that the established Bradman played in - ie from 1930 onwards.

The 1938 series was a little misleading, in the first Test Eng made 600+ Aust were 7-250 (I think) before McCabe played one of the great Test innings. This is the innings where Bradman called to the other players form the team balcony 'come and watch this, you may never see it's like again' (not an exact quote). Bradman then played a slow innings the slowest 100 of his career to force a draw.

In the fourth Test O'Reilly claimed 10 wickets and Bradman played one of his very best innings to see the Aussies home. Although one all, this was a pretty good series.

It was, and it was certainly the best England played against a Bradman-y Australia. Including 1928\29.
McCabe couldn't, incidentally, possibly have played an innings Bradman could not have played.
Any more than Kippax or Jackson - two other contemporaries who were said at various times to be his equals - could have.

 

[archie mac]

Not a patch on 1905.

Yes I will give you that

It was, and it was certainly the best England played against a Bradman-y Australia. Including 1928\29..

Bowling wise I think, but I thought the batting of 1928/29 just above it, Hammond was in the form of his life, and they still had Hobbs and Sutcliffe as openers, which they struggled in until Hutton came along, and even so were still short a quality player at the other end.

McCabe couldn't, incidentally, possibly have played an innings Bradman could not have played.
Any more than Kippax or Jackson - two other contemporaries who were said at various times to be his equals - could have.

McCabe was a rare genius more like an artist then a machine like Bradman. He played three of the greatest Test innings for Aust. I am not sure if Bradman could have played the innings Stan played against bodyline?

 

[Richard]

Bowling wise I think, but I thought the batting of 1928/29 just above it, Hammond was in the form of his life, and they still had Hobbs and Sutcliffe as openers, which they struggled in until Hutton came along, and even so were still short a quality player at the other end.

IMO Hutton-Washbrook wasn't a million miles behind Hobbs-Sutcliffe.
Both were magnificent opening pairs the like of which our country has not seen of late - not since Boycott-Edrich.

McCabe was a rare genius more like an artist then a machine like Bradman. He played three of the greatest Test innings for Aust. I am not sure if Bradman could have played the innings Stan played against bodyline?

Oh, no - well, maybe not, anyway.
McCabe was undoubtedly a brilliant player but Bradman must've played many innings McCabe could not play.
In any case - would you say Afridi is a better player than Dravid because Afridi can play innings Dravid can't?

 

[archie mac]

IMO Hutton-Washbrook wasn't a million miles behind Hobbs-Sutcliffe.
Both were magnificent opening pairs the like of which our country has not seen of late - not since Boycott-Edrich.

Oh, no - well, maybe not, anyway.
McCabe was undoubtedly a brilliant player but Bradman must've played many innings McCabe could not play.
In any case - would you say Afridi is a better player than Dravid because Afridi can play innings Dravid can't?

No, but then again I don't think McCabe a better bat then Bradman, but on his day just like on Afridi's day no one could/can match them.

yes Hutton-Washbrook were not a million miles behind, but still behind.

 

[Matt79]

I don't think we're arguing that McCabe was a better bat than Bradman, however he certainly played innings (particularly that innings) that Bradman wasn't capable of. By the same token, Bradman played innings that McCabe couldn't, and obviously maintained his effectiveness over a longer period than pretty much anyone else in the game. To pick up on your example, no Afridi is not a better batsman than Dravid overall, but in some facets he is, and on some specific days he has been better than Dravid ever has been. That said, Dravid is acknowledged a much better batsman because of his consistency.

In a way its similar to how some people who saw both rated Trumper over Bradman.

 

[Richard]

With the Trumper-Bradman thing, most people have always acknowledged the fact that there's simple rivalry involved in that. Trumper's admirers simply couldn't accept that someone even better had popped-up - although, really we'll never know, the difference could've been a small one. Bradman batted on some of the best pitches ever - Trumper sometimes on ones that would see matches abandonded without a second thought these days.
I've often thought the "how good would Trumper\WG Grace be today" question a far more interesting one than the "how good would Bradman be today"... and consequently still more impossible to answer.

 

[Richard]

yes Hutton-Washbrook were not a million miles behind, but still behind.

Behind, but not sufficiently to balance the rest...
In 1928\29 we had Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hendren, Jardine, Mead and Leyland who played just 1 match. The wicketkeeper, significantly, was non-batsman Duckworth.
In 1938 we had Hutton, Barnett, Bill Edrich, Hammond, Leyland playing a full part, Compton, Hardstaff jnr, Paynter and Ames to keep wicket.
The latter - I'd say - a stronger combination.
Of course, in 1938 Australia had O'Reilly, too - for whatever reason Grimmett missed 1928\29.

 

[archie mac]

Behind, but not sufficiently to balance the rest...
In 1928\29 we had Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hendren, Jardine, Mead and Leyland who played just 1 match. The wicketkeeper, significantly, was non-batsman Duckworth.
In 1938 we had Hutton, Barnett, Bill Edrich, Hammond, Leyland playing a full part, Compton, Hardstaff jnr, Paynter and Ames to keep wicket.
The latter - I'd say - a stronger combination.
Of course, in 1938 Australia had O'Reilly, too - for whatever reason Grimmett missed 1928\29.

Leyland a great player could not find a place in the 1928/29 side (1 Test) Ames was also on that tour but was not played as Duckworth was the better keeper (at that stage) and didnot need his batting. In one Test they had Tate batting as low as 10, and he was a fine batsman. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one

 

[archie mac]

I don't think we're arguing that McCabe was a better bat than Bradman, however he certainly played innings (particularly that innings) that Bradman wasn't capable of. By the same token, Bradman played innings that McCabe couldn't, and obviously maintained his effectiveness over a longer period than pretty much anyone else in the game. To pick up on your example, no Afridi is not a better batsman than Dravid overall, but in some facets he is, and on some specific days he has been better than Dravid ever has been. That said, Dravid is acknowledged a much better batsman because of his consistency.

In a way its similar to how some people who saw both rated Trumper over Bradman.

I have a feeling if I had seen both Bradman and Trumper, I would have been a Trumper man, he sounds like he was a stylish batsman you would think in the Mark Waugh class and he (MEW) was always my favourite.

 

[Richard]

Leyland a great player could not find a place in the 1928/29 side (1 Test) Ames was also on that tour but was not played as Duckworth was the better keeper (at that stage) and didnot need his batting. In one Test they had Tate batting as low as 10, and he was a fine batsman. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one

Maurice Tate could bat but I'd not describe him as a "fine" batsman.
Duckworth was always the better 'keeper, it was just that they eventually realised Ames was the better all-round cricketer and (as a vastly superior batsman and only marginally inferior 'keeper always will do) offered much more to the side.
If Ames had been in the side in 1928\29 I'd agree with you, but as I say - for me the 1938 side just shades it. And I do mean just.
Of course, it's not really possible to say for certain, I'm just guessing (as, of course, are you).

 

[Richard]

I have a feeling if I had seen both Bradman and Trumper, I would have been a Trumper man, he sounds like he was a stylish batsman you would think in the Mark Waugh class and he (MEW) was always my favourite.

Didn't someone once call MEW a "modern-day Trumper" or something?
I can't honestly think I've heard a bad word said about Trumper - seems to have been an incredibly good-natured man as well as a magnificent batsman.
Kind of like with Hobbs in England.

 

[archie mac]

Maurice Tate could bat but I'd not describe him as a "fine" batsman.
Duckworth was always the better 'keeper, it was just that they eventually realised Ames was the better all-round cricketer and (as a vastly superior batsman and only marginally inferior 'keeper always will do) offered much more to the side.
If Ames had been in the side in 1928\29 I'd agree with you, but as I say - for me the 1938 side just shades it. And I do mean just.
Of course, it's not really possible to say for certain, I'm just guessing (as, of course, are you).

It should be remembered that there was a different mind set in those days. AA Thomson actuallt believes that Ames batting worked against him in getting the WK job for England, because they thought his batting would effect his keeping. Thomson though that if it was not for his batting Ames would have been the England keeper earlier

 

[archie mac]

Didn't someone once call MEW a "modern-day Trumper" or something?
I can't honestly think I've heard a bad word said about Trumper - seems to have been an incredibly good-natured man as well as a magnificent batsman.
Kind of like with Hobbs in England.

Everyone seemed to love/like him, although he would stand up for what he believed, see the 1912 dispute for an example.

As for the Trumper quote, I once wrote a poem about Mark Waugh and I mentioned the Trumper thing, well sort of, though no one would publish it

 

[Richard]

It should be remembered that there was a different mind set in those days. AA Thomson actuallt believes that Ames batting worked against him in getting the WK job for England, because they thought his batting would effect his keeping. Thomson though that if it was not for his batting Ames would have been the England keeper earlier

Well... he got in eventually, didn't he?
I certainly feel the can-bat mindset still works against people's judgement of wicketkeepers these days - so does Jono.

 

[Richard]

Everyone seemed to love/like him, although he would stand up for what he believed, see the 1912 dispute for an example.

I imagine that only increased his standing.

As for the Trumper quote, I once wrote a poem about Mark Waugh and I mentioned the Trumper thing, well sort of, though no one would publish it

Wasn't you who I'm sure I heard say it, then?

 

[Matt79]

I think Trumper copped less flak than MEW for making batting look so easy - probably helped by the fact he didn't have a twin who averages 8 more than him for most of thei careers and placed such a high value on his wicket.