The side that never was???

[Monk]

For one reason or another didn't play enough tests XI (but would have been really good)

- Barry Richards
- Sid Barnes
- Ian Craig
- Archie Jackson
- Graham Pollock
- Mike Procter
- Krom Hendricks
- Bob Taylor *
- Eddie Gilbert
- Stu MacGill *
- Bruce Reid

* played a fair few, but could've played a lot more in different circumstances.

Each an interesting story.

[Spooony]

^I really like that list up there.

What about Michael Bevan, Peter Kirsten, Sylvester Clarke, Nick Pothas, Fanie De Villiers, Clive Rice, Jimmy Cook, Ray Jennings. Don Bradman lost a lot of cricket due to the war.

[Mike5181]

Would throw Shane Bond's name out there as well.

[marc71178]

LOL, Nick Pothas.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by marc71178

LOL, Nick Pothas.

Indeed, but there are loads of South Africans - I'd add Vintcent Van Der Bijl, Garth Le Roux, Ken McEwan and Denys Hobson

[Prince EWS]

How good a batsman was Procter?

I was always of the impression that he'd have nosebleeds any higher than seven in a Test side and would probably bat eight below a lot of Test wicket keepers if he played today. It's become very much in fashion to include him in ATW elevens and such lately (which is fine, as he was obviously an ATG cricketer and bowler) and he often seems to find himself at seven there with a specialist gloveman at eight. In this thread he's been listed at six a few times.

I know he scored heaps of runs at county level and I'm sure he was a very fine middle order batsman in county cricket in general, but an average in the mid 30s doesn't really scream "Test batsman" to me - did he have a late-career decline with the bat or something?

Very keen to hear from anyone who followed his batting career.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

How good a batsman was Procter?

I was always of the impression that he'd have nosebleeds any higher than seven in a Test side and would probably bat eight below a lot of Test wicket keepers if he played today. It's become very much in fashion to include him in ATW elevens and such lately (which is fine, as he was obviously an ATG cricketer and bowler) and he often seems to find himself at seven there with a specialist gloveman at eight. In this thread he's been listed at six a few times.

I know he scored heaps of runs at county level and I'm sure he was a very fine middle order batsman in county cricket in general, but an average in the mid 30s doesn't really scream "Test batsman" to me - did he have a late-career decline with the bat or something?

Very keen to hear from anyone who followed his batting career.

He seldom batted at the top of the order, and in those days the way the Championship operated meant he was never going to have a particularly high average - if he got in early it was because there had been a collapse, so either the bowling was good or batting conditions difficult, and if he got in later he would generally need to get on with it because of the way that the bonus points system worked so he would often have had to take risks from the off. He was an aggressive bat by nature, but he was undoubtedly a class act, and much better than his stats suggest, imo anyway

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

He seldom batted at the top of the order, and in those days the way the Championship operated meant he was never going to have a particularly high average - if he got in early it was because there had been a collapse, so either the bowling was good or batting conditions difficult, and if he got in later he would generally need to get on with it because of the way that the bonus points system worked so he would often have had to take risks from the off. He was an aggressive bat by nature, but he was undoubtedly a class act, and much better than his stats suggest, imo anyway

Fair enough; thanks for that.

It just struck me that perhaps his batting was slightly over-estimated because of how good an overall cricketer he was. He never scored a Test fifty and his highest score in WSC was 66 so, unlike his bowling which is rated so highly partly because he was amazing in the few Tests he played, we only have his domestic exploits to judge his batting upon. And as far as the numbers go with that, he comes off very unfavourably when compared to someone like.. Ronnie Irani.

How do you think he would've gone as a Test #6, should the need have arrived? Or perhaps more relevantly; do you think he could have maintained an average in the 30s as a #7 batsman against all-time great bowling attacks, and how would he stack up against Imran's batting on that front in your opinion?

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

He seldom batted at the top of the order, and in those days the way the Championship operated meant he was never going to have a particularly high average - if he got in early it was because there had been a collapse, so either the bowling was good or batting conditions difficult, and if he got in later he would generally need to get on with it because of the way that the bonus points system worked so he would often have had to take risks from the off. He was an aggressive bat by nature, but he was undoubtedly a class act, and much better than his stats suggest, imo anyway

Out of interest, what is the reason that he didn't bat at the top of the order? I'm assuming it can only be workload?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Fair enough; thanks for that.

It just struck me that perhaps his batting was slightly over-estimated because of how good an overall cricketer he was. He never scored a Test fifty and his highest score in WSC was 66 so, unlike his bowling which is rated so highly partly because he was amazing in the few Tests he played, we only have his domestic exploits to judge his batting upon. And as far as the numbers go with that, he comes off very unfavourably when compared to someone like.. Ronnie Irani.

How do you think he would've gone as a Test #6, should the need have arrived? Or perhaps more relevantly; do you think he could have maintained an average in the 30s as a #7 batsman against all-time great bowling attacks, and how would he stack up against Imran's batting on that front in your opinion?

Just had a look at a few scorecards and my memory is playing tricks as it seems he generally did bat at 5 for Gloucester, but he still had Sadiq and Zaheer in front of him and Gloucs had some other decent batters like Roger Knight and Arthur Milton as well.

Its difficult looking at his Test record to know what he might have achieved because he generally got a start and also never really needed to score big in the few tests he played in - whether he would ever have got big scores at Test level has to be debatable, but he was as good as Kapil, Imran and Botham were later, so I think his record would have matched theirs, but I bear in mind also that he would have played in an immensely strong South African batting side, so in truth I suspect he would have been more of a Hadlee with the bat, although capable of rather more.

[Spooony]

Originally Posted by marc71178

LOL, Nick Pothas.

Well if Ian Heally and Gilchrist competed for gloves at same time and Gilly would have never gotten a chance due to that you would have gone LOL Adam Gilchrist

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Spooony

Well if Ian Heally and Gilchrist competed for gloves at same time and Gilly would have never gotten a chance due to that you would have gone LOL Adam Gilchrist

He would've would've said LOL Ian Healy.

[Spooony]

Would have been pretty hard as Heally was already the established wk

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Spooony

Well if Ian Heally and Gilchrist competed for gloves at same time and Gilly would have never gotten a chance due to that you would have gone LOL Adam Gilchrist

What sort of argument is that meant to present? Are you seriously comparing Pothas to Gilchrist?

[Daemon]

Saw him mentioned in the thread about peckers and yeah, Len Pascoe