The "What If " Game

[Richard]

That thought makes me shudder, really.

Just goes to show how shambolic a state the English game was in in the 2nd half of the 1980s.

 

[GIMH]

But we won the Ashes
















































(YES, THIS POST WAS IN JEST!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[Richard]

Well, not in 1989 we didn't, anyway.

 

[GIMH]

We won two out of three in the second half of the 80s though

The reason I said it was because I know one of your pain points is people saying English Cricket can't have been a mess in 85/86/87 because we held the Ashes.

 

[Poker Boy]

Agreed. there is a case for saying (even ITB said it in a book) that the 1986-87 Ashes was the worst thing to happen to England because the TCCB didn't realise that we won them by default - they were the two worst of the (then) six established Test nations - its just that the Aussies were marginaly worse.

 

[wpdavid]

Good thread. Here is a "what if"? the other way round.Its the end of the 1989 season and Mike Gatting announces that he turned down a chance to captain the England rebel tour to SA. A greatful TCCB make him captain for the West Indies tour instead of Gooch (remember some people had wanted him to be captain in the 1989 Ashes). The selectors then decide to drop Gooch for the tour (not far fectched. He had averaged 20 in the 1989 series, was 36 years old and had dropped himself for a Test because he was off from).The selectors decide to look to the future and take Mike Atherton and John Stevenson instead. A dissapointed Gooch retires from Test cricket. Had he done so, this would have been his record:
74 matches, 4724 runs, average 36.90 HS 196 with 8 centuaries.
With his talent I reckon he'd have been considered an underachiever not unlike Hick or Crawley. As it happened he got the captaincy, it turned out to be the making of him and he became our highest ever Test runscorer, but it could have gone the other way...

Very good call.

Talking of Gatting, what if he'd kept his temper in Pakistan in 1987? He wouldn't have been sacked after the drawn 1st test against WI in 1988 (forget the hotel shenanigans, which would have been irrelevant without the Rana affair), England would have competed respectably for the rest of the series and got through rather less than 28 players.

Thereafter, Gatting would have still been in charge against Aus 12 months later with a still settled England side who knew what they were doing. Steve Waugh wouldn't have made those huge hundreds in the first two tests and would have had time called on his test career after 3 years of failure.

 

[wpdavid]

There's even more what if's in the 1970's. For starters ..

What if Boycott hadn't dropped out of test cricket for 3 years? Brearley probably wouldn't have been picked at all, and certainly wouldn't have been in the frame for the captaincy in 1977. Therefore no-one would have given a second thought to bringing him into the side in 1981 to sort out Botham, etc etc.

 

[GIMH]

Virtual History is a dangerous game

 

[Poker Boy]

Very good call.

Talking of Gatting, what if he'd kept his temper in Pakistan in 1987? He wouldn't have been sacked after the drawn 1st test against WI in 1988 (forget the hotel shenanigans, which would have been irrelevant without the Rana affair), England would have competed respectably for the rest of the series and got through rather less than 28 players.

Thereafter, Gatting would have still been in charge against Aus 12 months later with a still settled England side who knew what they were doing. Steve Waugh wouldn't have made those huge hundreds in the first two tests and would have had time called on his test career after 3 years of failure.

Actually I think we "only" used 23 players in that series. The other five were in the one off v SL. And on the subject of Boycott, im his autobiography he says if we had lost the 5th Test in Trinidad in 1974 Deness would have been sacked and Boycott himself appointed. captain Wether it is true or not we don't know but he wouldn't have opted out of Test cricket then and Greig wouldn't have been captain so we wouldn't have had the "Grovel" remark (I don't think Boycs was that stupid!)

 

[Richard]

Haha, all these fascinating possibilities! Shame things can't always go smoothly, really.

How Denness ever got in the side never mind got the captaincy has always been beyond me.

 

[Richard]

We won two out of three in the second half of the 80s though

The reason I said it was because I know one of your pain points is people saying English Cricket can't have been a mess in 85/86/87 because we held the Ashes.

I know, hence the "YES, THIS etc."

1985 isn't part of the 2nd half, though - it's part of the 1st. It's always from 1986 onwards that I talk. We actually did pretty well in 1985 and even more so before that by winning in India in 1984\85.

 

[GIMH]

If you start from 86 then that's four tenths rather than half

 

[Richard]

:condused:

If you start from 86 then that's four tenths rather than half

Well, true, it's not halves in literal terms. But it's close enough to call it that way IMO.

 

[wpdavid]

Actually I think we "only" used 23 players in that series. The other five were in the one off v SL.

You're right actually. I never knew that - I always swallowed the line that it was 28 vs WI. Seemed like more, tbh.

And on the subject of Boycott, im his autobiography he says if we had lost the 5th Test in Trinidad in 1974 Deness would have been sacked and Boycott himself appointed. captain Wether it is true or not we don't know but he wouldn't have opted out of Test cricket then and Greig wouldn't have been captain so we wouldn't have had the "Grovel" remark (I don't think Boycs was that stupid!)

I'm not convinced Denness would have been sacked. WI were a good side and no-one fancied us to do a thing over there. Prior to that, he'd led us to a 3-0 over India and a 0-0 vs Pakistan of which we'd certainly won one without time being lost. Obviously that's just my take on it, so maybe Boycott knows rather more than I do

EDIT
Gets brain in gear - the India & Pak series came after the WI tour.
Maybe Boycs has more of a point than I gave him credit for.

 

[Richard]

I'm not convinced Denness would have been sacked. WI were a good side and no-one fancied us to do a thing over there. Prior to that, he'd led us to a 3-0 over India and a 0-0 vs Pakistan of which we'd certainly won one without time being lost. Obviously that's just my take on it, so maybe Boycott knows rather more than I do

Those series were after that WI tour.

1974 in WI was Denness' first assignment, after Illingworth's tenure had ended with defeat to the same side the previous summer.

EDIT: you've spotted that before I have. And I had to check StatsGuru 'cos I don't remember it off by heart.

 

[wpdavid]

Those series were after that WI tour.

1974 in WI was Denness' first assignment, after Illingworth's tenure had ended with defeat to the same side the previous summer.

EDIT: you've spotted that before I have. And I had to check StatsGuru 'cos I don't remember it off by heart.

Well, you're entitled to look it up, if I may say so. I have no such excuse, being some of the first few series I ever followed. Anyway ...

 

[aussie tragic]

What if the World XI of 1971-72 and the Packer WSC were considered Test matches (like the 2005 World XI fiasco)

Dennis Lillee would have broken the World record one year earlier (in 1980 instead of 1981) and more importantly, would have held it for 14-years longer (1986 vs 2000).....

Also, with 88 Tests and 446 wkts, he would be above Dev (434), Hadlee (431), Pollock (416), Akram (414), Ambrose (405), Botham (383), Marshall (376), Younis (373) and Imran (362) in the records.

Test Career: 70 tests, 355 wkts

1971-72: 4 tests, 24 wkts

1977-78: 14 tests, 67 wkts

 

[Richard]

Or better still, what if Bangladesh and ICC World XIs weren't considered Test teams?

Imagine what that'd do to Warne and Murali's figures, especially the latter.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmmm, the ones where you just cut off the first few, and the last couple, of Tests from someone's career are a bit of a furphy, IMO. Chances are that those games at the start were required to gauge the difference between FC and Test level, while the last few games may be the ones that convince you (or the selectors) that you can no longer cut it at that level.

 

[aussie tragic]

Hmmm, the ones where you just cut off the first few, and the last couple, of Tests from someone's career are a bit of a furphy, IMO. Chances are that those games at the start were required to gauge the difference between FC and Test level, while the last few games may be the ones that convince you (or the selectors) that you can no longer cut it at that level.

Plus cutting off tests at the start of a career is not in the "What if" rules stated in the first post As for cutting off at the end, that's the whole point of the thread, i.e. when was the best time for a player to have retired....