IIRC May kept getting injured a lot in the late 80s. He toured England in 89 I think and was injured, by the time he got better, Hohns was in the side.He did? News to me. Took 12-238 in his first 2 Tests (and bowled just 2 overs in his 3rd), but in his last 10 took 15 wickets at 55.13 (including 8 at 56.50 in 6 Tests post-1989). He was very poor, as was Peter Sleep, as was Greg Matthews (though he could bat) and I have to say I'm a little mystified why any of them were picked instead of Tim May who, while nothing special himself, was generally held in much higher esteem than any of those three.
BTW, could someone tell me - I'd always presumed it was a joke, but is it actually true that he was picked when they wanted Mark Taylor?
Harsh on McIntyre. Always rated him.
Did a worthwhile job in the WI in 95 tbf. Not much else though - now has the best job in the world as a reporter on Getaway.
He was actually pretty competent at FC level.
Nah, I reckon it was his 63 wickets in 37 First Class games @ 49.57. Cullen's certainly not great either but he's a class above Hauritz.
Quite surprised you even remember him TBH.
Well, I never said "if you're a good player at a time of riches you're certain to play loads" did I?Explain Stuart Law, then.
I don't think Matthew Elliott doing well in the Carribean was a real possibility. For instance, his temperamental flaws and inability to accept Steve Waugh in the leadership role have been well documented. He was very good technically, but he was on the decline as a Test batsman well before that disaster of a Carribean tour (from 1997/98, IIRC). His injury issues didn't help him either (while Hayden has generally been fit, except for recently).Another what-if I've always liked the look of is "had Matthew Elliott done well in the Caribbean in 1999". No Matthew Hayden.
Bowled leg spin when it was unfashionable, I guess, and was second fiddle to Warne - but a good bowler IMO. Basically Stuart MacGill early 90's. His stats are not flattering but was a better bowler than they suggest.
Was more the type who didn't spin his leggie a big way, but had a very good wrong'un. From memory, might've been originally from Vic.
I've never been entirely sure of the Elliott story myself. He seemed to replace Slater for no good reason in 1996/97 and then Slater seemed to come back for equally no good reason in 1997/98.
Dislike and not rating him are two separate things TBH. But yeah - another time. In fact, possibly preferably, never, as it might cause many on here to lose the will to live.
We referring to Peter McIntyre?
Aye.
Sounds like Ian Salisbury.
Yep, certainly did, and it was. And 1 other game, I think it was in India in '96/97.
The line was outside off as to make sure that the wrong'un was harded to read.
Elliott was actually pretty poor during that 1997/98 season. He scored one century - and that was all.
However, Matthew Elliott may also have had issues with Steve Waugh, which may not have helped team harmony if he was actually successful. When you don't feel supported, as was the case with Elliott, it makes it harder to play for the team. It becomes a 'me vs them' kind of thing. Just look at the Pakistani cricket team throughout the 1990's, for instance. They couldn't get it together nearly as often as they should've because of all the infighting and conspirating.
- but the line between the two is often blurred.
