• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is it fair to rate players based on their first class records ?

bagapath

International Captain
The idea that Surrey v Yorkshire (or in fact Yorkshire v several other counties) was of a lower standard than for instance West Indies v India would've been in, say, 1935, is plain wrong. There are many other examples. For some, a tourist fixture against Yorkshire in 1935 would've been barely lesser than a Test against England, and certainly greater than a Test against South Africa.
possible. but by the 60s and 70s tests were the ultimate form of the game. I was looking forward to hearing from you about that specific period since you had mentioned it in your earlier post.
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
WSC matches are categorically not First-Class, nor have they ever been regarded as such, nor should they ever be so. They were organised with the specific aim of disrupting real cricket and should never, ever be recognised as anything other than totally unofficial.
didn't know this. its a shame though because the players were as serious as though they were test matches. deserved a FC status at least.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't think they do deserve First-Class status. Standard, even at First-Class level, is not absolutely the only consideration. Packer matches do not have to be First-Class for their worth as far as assessing a player's calibre is concerned - many people, rightly, look in part at Packer matches when assessing players, especially the likes of Barry Richards. But Packer had at the heart of his aim the disruption of First-Class and Test cricket in order to serve his own purposes. This to me makes it abhorrant to ever recognise such games as First-Class. They were entirely private enterprises. No-one has ever recognised games under Sir Paul Getty's aegis as First-Class either, despite the fact that a large number of outstanding cricketers have sometimes been involved and despite the fact that Getty was a cricket affectionado who, unlike Packer, cared deeply about the game's welfare.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
possible. but by the 60s and 70s tests were the ultimate form of the game. I was looking forward to hearing from you about that specific period since you had mentioned it in your earlier post.
No, I'm every bit as confident about what I wrote earlier as I am that, say, Lancashire's attack was stronger than that of West Indies, Australia and probably Pakistan as well in the late-1960s and early-1970s. Of course, the West Indies team of 1966/67 (which comprised in case anyone is unaware of Hunte, AN Other, Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse, Sobers, Lloyd, Hendriks, Hall, Griffith and Gibbs) was miles ahead of any domestic side probably in history. And of course the side Australia had assembled by 1974/75 and 1975/76 was among the best ever. The best Test cricket was of course still superior to any domestic FC cricket. But the 1972 WI vs. NZ series would've been very unlikely in my book to be of a higher standard than a good deal of county or state cricket around the same time - in terms of bowling if not batting.

And look at it this way - in 1964 Bobby Simpson was the dominant Test player. But would he really be regarded as the best player around ahead of Garry Sobers, who was in barnstorming form in the Sheffield Shield and County Championship? Of course he wouldn't. Sobers' domestic performances were easily strong enough to maintain his pre-eminence.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Well, if you care about records at all, then obviously standardization would be the first thing to look at, otherwise you don't really care about it at all (which is fine too, of course, if that's what you prefer). Otherwise, it's just numbers without meaning surely? What are they except in context against other numbers?
No
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No, I'm every bit as confident about what I wrote earlier as I am that, say, Lancashire's attack was stronger than that of West Indies, Australia and probably Pakistan as well in the late-1960s and early-1970s.
If only that were true Rich but the reality is Statham retired in 68 and while Higgs Lever and Shuttleworth were decent bowlers they weren't world beaters and a spin attack that consisted of John Savage, Bumble, Simmo and Yosser was, with the greatest of respect to the latter two in one day stuff, as ordinary as you get
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If only that were true Rich but the reality is Statham retired in 68 and while Higgs Lever and Shuttleworth were decent bowlers they weren't world beaters and a spin attack that consisted of John Savage, Bumble, Simmo and Yosser was, with the greatest of respect to the latter two in one day stuff, as ordinary as you get
Even without Statham, Higgs, Lever and Shuttleworth are in my book notably better than the likes of Asif Masood, Grayson Shillingford and Alan Thomson, bowlers who were leading the attacks of Pakistan, West Indies and Australia in the times in question. If Savage, Bumble et al were ordinary, so absolutely were the likes of Terry Jenner, Kerry O'Keeffe, Arthur Barrett, Inshan Ali and Lance Gibbs (at that point).

The only decent bowlers around for any of West Indies, Australia and Pakistan at the time in question were Vanburn Holder, Ashley Mallett and Pervez Sajjad - and these were decent only, certainly not remotely outstanding. If Lancashire and indeed another county or two couldn't do better than that I'll be very surpised.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think the Aussies amongst us will be horrified that you've overlooked Neil Hawke, Graham McKenzie, Alan Connolly and Johnny Gleeson

You're on stronger ground with Pakistan but I still think Salim Altaf and Intikhab would have walked into Lancashire's side and don't forget Asif Iqbal was a fair bowler in his early days - some youngster called Imran Khan started in 1971 as well

but you may be right about the WIndies - for a brief period between Hall and Griffith at the end of the 60's and Boyce in the early 70's there was just Vanburn and that Sobers bloke leading a pretty threadbare attack but it was only really weak in the 70/71 series aginst India

An old Jamaican guy I know always swears that Uton Dowe was the worst bowler ever to be selected for Test Cricket - an 11th Commandment was added apparently - "Dowe shall not bowl" :)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think the Aussies amongst us will be horrified that you've overlooked Neil Hawke, Graham McKenzie, Alan Connolly and Johnny Gleeson
Actually forgot about Connolly - he was a decent bowler and fit to rank with the Holders and Sajjads. Hawke had finished by the time in question however and Gleeson had already been worked-out. McKenzie as I'm sure you know was utterly woeful at the end of his career. I maintain that their attack in the 1969/70 and 1970/71 seasons was very probably weaker than several county attacks around the time.
You're on stronger ground with Pakistan but I still think Salim Altaf and Intikhab would have walked into Lancashire's side and don't forget Asif Iqbal was a fair bowler in his early days - some youngster called Imran Khan started in 1971 as well
Imran was hopeless and shouldn't have been picked in either 1971 or 1974 though - he was a lesser bowler than Asif Masood at that point. Salim Altaf I confess I don't really know much about but if he was behind Asif Masood he couldn't have been that good - yet or by then at least. Intikhab Alam and Asif Iqbal were decent part-time bowlers and no more for mine.
but you may be right about the WIndies - for a brief period between Hall and Griffith at the end of the 60's and Boyce in the early 70's there was just Vanburn and that Sobers bloke leading a pretty threadbare attack but it was only really weak in the 70/71 series aginst India

An old Jamaican guy I know always swears that Uton Dowe was the worst bowler ever to be selected for Test Cricket - an 11th Commandment was added apparently - "Dowe shall not bowl" :)
Dowe was actually a bowler who appeared to be coming-up well and certainly not even a bad piece of selection - he started his Jamaica career well, played 3 Tests in 1971 and 1972 for 1 good, 1 bad and 1 moderate. He then had an utter horror-show in the First Test against Australia at his home ground (hence the Dowe Shalt Not Bowl commandment poster which ranks with No Cummins No Goins as the most pithy banners in Caribbean history) and never recovered. This game was indeed apparently as bad as any bowler could really expect to be (comparable to Harmison and Plunkett Old Trafford '07, McCague 'Gabba '94/95, Patterson Thompson '96 and '96/97, and the like) but was not representative of his whole career.

There were plenty of other awful bowlers around that time as well though - and this featured the time between the 1968/69 tour of Australasia and the 1973 home series against Australia. Threadbare throughout, for a whole 5 years - certainly not just a single year. This period featured a well-past-best Hall and Griffith, Holder who wasn't as good at that point as he would be later, Sobers who was past his best, the aforementioned Shillingford, Barrett, Inshan Ali and Dowe who were all awful, plus John Shepherd and Jack Noreiga (for a single season) who were decent, plus others who were every bit as bad as the aforementioned: "Prof" Edwards, David Holford, Raphick Jumadeen, Elquemendo Willett, there'll be others I've forgotten and CBA to look-up.

When Holder upped his game then Boyce and Julien appeared and Gibbs roared back to form, things looked-up very, very quickly indeed. But between 1968/69 and the home spring of 1973, no-one should underestimate just how bad WI's attack truly was - uniformly so.
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
No, I'm every bit as confident about what I wrote earlier as I am that, say, Lancashire's attack was stronger than that of West Indies, Australia and probably Pakistan as well in the late-1960s and early-1970s. Of course, the West Indies team of 1966/67 (which comprised in case anyone is unaware of Hunte, AN Other, Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse, Sobers, Lloyd, Hendriks, Hall, Griffith and Gibbs) was miles ahead of any domestic side probably in history. And of course the side Australia had assembled by 1974/75 and 1975/76 was among the best ever. The best Test cricket was of course still superior to any domestic FC cricket. But the 1972 WI vs. NZ series would've been very unlikely in my book to be of a higher standard than a good deal of county or state cricket around the same time - in terms of bowling if not batting.

And look at it this way - in 1964 Bobby Simpson was the dominant Test player. But would he really be regarded as the best player around ahead of Garry Sobers, who was in barnstorming form in the Sheffield Shield and County Championship? Of course he wouldn't. Sobers' domestic performances were easily strong enough to maintain his pre-eminence.
50 odd years ago, on a belter of a wicket in england in a tour game, every aussie batsman worth his salt piled on a hapless county attack to score 600 plus runs. keith miller walked in, took a wild swipe at a half volley he faced first ball, completely missed it, was bowled middle stump and walked away with a smile; because he was too bored. i see an opportunity here to take your post line by line and score a triple hundred. but i am tired and this is year end. time to party. so merry christmas and a very happy new year to you richard. will save this argument for some other time. cheers mate.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
McKenzie as I'm sure you know was utterly woeful at the end of his career. I maintain that their attack in the 1969/70 and 1970/71 seasons was very probably weaker than several county attacks around the time.
In 68/69 and 69/70 McKenzie's figures look hugely impressive to me but on reflection I think I'm backing the wrong horse here. Having thought about it further you are absolutely correct Rich and your hypothesis just goes to prove that were it not for the weather the old Championship pennant would be flying permanently at Old Trafford :)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
50 odd years ago, on a belter of a wicket in england in a tour game, every aussie batsman worth his salt piled on a hapless county attack to score 600 plus runs. keith miller walked in, took a wild swipe at a half volley he faced first ball, completely missed it, was bowled middle stump and walked away with a smile; because he was too bored.
You can take isolated examples and use them to prove any point you wish if you try to project them as part of a larger picture which they were not. Yes, there were county-vs.-touring-side mismatches like the infamous Essex-vs.-Australians match in 1948 which Miller wanted no part in (UIMM he actually batted at four after Barnes, Brown and Bradman had added about 350 for the first couple of wickets and deliberately left a straight one 2nd ball then commented "thank god that's over" upon returning to the pavilion; Bradman, overhearing, said "he'll learn"). However there were also occasions when county sides beat touring teams which the national side could not. Many county-vs.-tourist fixtures in the 1930s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s were competetive.

Why do you think that until very recently people talked as much about what a player did on a tour at large than purely what they did in the containing Test series? Because until not so long ago, tourist fixtures had a considerable stature and were a very important part of tours. It's easily forgotten in these days of 12-plays-15, 2 non-Test\ODI games max per tour and every tourist fixture seeing counties send out something between a second and third XI. But it certainly did happen, and if anyone thinks it didn't they're historically ignorant.
 
Last edited:

DaRick

State Vice-Captain
Well, it depends where they play their FC matches, obviously (for instance, I'd lend more credence to Australian FC matches than say, WI FC matches).

The era is also important. For instance, scoring has been easier in the 2000's than before. But wicket-taking has also been harder.

At the end of the day though, I feel that a player's Test record takes precedence over their FC record, provided that they actually had the chance to play Tests.
 

pskov

International 12th Man
You can take isolated examples and use them to prove any point you wish if you try to project them as part of a larger picture which they were not. Yes, there were county-vs.-touring-side mismatches like the infamous Essex-vs.-Australians match in 1948 which Miller wanted no part in (UIMM he actually batted at four after Barnes, Brown and Bradman had added about 350 for the first couple of wickets and deliberately left a straight one 2nd ball then commented "thank god that's over" upon returning to the pavilion; Bradman, overhearing, said "he'll learn"). However there were also occasions when county sides beat touring teams which the national side could not. Many county-vs.-tourist fixtures in the 1930s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s were competetive.

Why do you think that until very recently people talked as much about what a player did on a tour at large than purely what they did in the containing Test series? Because until not so long ago, tourist fixtures had a considerable stature and were a very important part of tours. It's easily forgotten in these days of 12-plays-15, 2 non-Test\ODI games max per tour and every tourist fixture seeing counties send out something between a second and third XI. But it certainly did happen, and if anyone thinks it didn't they're historically ignorant.
I that went over your head there Rich.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
It's probably a knottier question for chaps who've had distinguished FC careers, but whose test records are mediocre (I suppose Hick & Ramprakash are the obvious recent examples). Would anyone rate them as better batsman than someone like Collingwood, who averages far more at the highest level than he does in the first class game?

I think cases could be made either way, but it'd be interesting to see where people stand on the subject.
I could argue a case for Hick being better than Collingwood - or at least for why their test careers shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all of the discussion. Mostly it would revolve around the circumstances of Hick's test career - given a far, far tougher baptism, in-and-out of the side and before the introduction of central contracts. Quite simply, if Collingwood's first home series had been against WI (Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh & Patterson), followed by Pakistan with Wx2 at their peak and then at home to Aus featuring our first sighting of Warne, then you couldn't see him playing more than half a dozen tests, especially given the mentality of the selectors at the time.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
There is absolutely no way on Earth that I will ever rank Collingwood as Hick's equal. Not a cat-in-hell's chance.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Hick is the more talented batsman but I'll always respect Collingwood much more, and I'd also say Collingwood's is the more distinguished career.
 

Top