• 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.

English batting post-Hutton, pre-Gower

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
In the 70's England hardly ever took a risk with a young batsman based on potential. The only real exception was Gooch who was 21, but he was discarded after only two Tests and disappeared for three years. People like Randall, Hayes and Barlow were all 25/26 before they were chosen, and even then Randall and Barlow were almost chosen by default as there was no real young talent around. I remember other county pro's like Richard Lumb and Graham Johnson being touted for England which was completely ridiculous. After David Steele's success in 1975 there was talk of plucking other batsman out of thin air like David Turner and John Whitehouse. I remember in the mid-70's Fred Trueman being asked during an interval at the Roses match to name any promising young players he'd come across and the only batsman he could come up with were Andrew Kennedy, Phil Slocombe and Chris Aworth - non of whom with hindsight could even be described as good county pros.

In fact such was the paucity of quality batsman at that time, if I was asked to name the best England batsman who actually made his debut between 1970 and 1977, if you disregard Gooch who's success came much later, I would probably say Tony Greig.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Anyone willing to hypothesize how Gordon Greenidge's career would have panned out if he had elected to play for England?
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Anyone willing to hypothesize how Gordon Greenidge's career would have panned out if he had elected to play for England?
Bob Barber 2.0 (He would have never given the strike to Boycott, in his life) :D

Honestly, he would have been hailed as the greatest thing since Barry Richards. Coaches from all over the land would have flocked to correct his unorthodox technique, and advised him to adjust his temperament, at which point he would have had to tell someone to sod off. ECB, would then suspend him, and he would go back to play for the Windies, and in his rage, destroyed England at every possible meeting, ending up with an average of a lot more than 44.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In the 70's England hardly ever took a risk with a young batsman based on potential. The only real exception was Gooch who was 21, but he was discarded after only two Tests and disappeared for three years. People like Randall, Hayes and Barlow were all 25/26 before they were chosen, and even then Randall and Barlow were almost chosen by default as there was no real young talent around. I remember other county pro's like Richard Lumb and Graham Johnson being touted for England which was completely ridiculous. After David Steele's success in 1975 there was talk of plucking other batsman out of thin air like David Turner and John Whitehouse. I remember in the mid-70's Fred Trueman being asked during an interval at the Roses match to name any promising young players he'd come across and the only batsman he could come up with were Andrew Kennedy, Phil Slocombe and Chris Aworth - non of whom with hindsight could even be described as good county pros.

In fact such was the paucity of quality batsman at that time, if I was asked to name the best England batsman who actually made his debut between 1970 and 1977, if you disregard Gooch who's success came much later, I would probably say Tony Greig.
Woh, never knew they dropped Gooch after 2 tests. Had Steele been allowed to play on, he would probably have turned out better than Greig. Wow, Greig coming up ahead of anyone else for almost a whole decade is mind numbing. Trueman was always making interesting choices from the country circuit, it seems. Here is an interview of him from the 90s (a must read):

Great Interview by Fred Trueman
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Of course he did spend his formative years at Hampshire opening the batting with the great man and it is for that reason that I am sure he would have been immune to any attempts that might have been made to change his technique were he avowedly English, as he could have been, 'cos he was a Reading lad
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Woh, never knew they dropped Gooch after 2 tests. Had Steele been allowed to play on, he would probably have turned out better than Greig. Wow, Greig coming up ahead of anyone else for almost a whole decade is mind numbing. Trueman was always making interesting choices from the country circuit, it seems. Here is an interview of him from the 90s (a must read):

Great Interview by Fred Trueman
Yeah, Gooch famously made a pair on debut, on a horrible rain-affected wicket against the great Aus attack of the time. He may even have made another blob in the first innings of his 2nd test. IIRC he actually did respectably in the second innings of that test, but that wasn't enough to save him.

I reckon that Greig being our best new batsman of the 1970's apart from Gower is a fair enough shout. You could actually go back a few years and say he was our best new batsman from about 1965 to 1977.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Excerpts from the interview (From 1996):

Andy from Aus writes to ask about improving first class cricket in Eng -how can it be done?

Fred Trueman: I would like to start at the bottom by playing more cricket in the schools. I would like to see uncovered wickets in England which would improve batting techniques. On wet wickets the faster bowlers would have to pitch the ball up which should help them to swing the ball in the air and it would encourage finger spinners back into the game of which there is a dearth. I am fed up of watching limited overs cricket in league matches in my county where the aim seems to be containment of the batsmen with defensive fields and the word attack seems to have gone out of the game.
YardB: Who was the most challenging batsman you had to bowl to?

Fred Trueman: Very difficult to answer yardb. There were so many world class players in that era; with Weekes, Worrell, Sobers, and Kanhai in the first six it was slightly daunting- they were wonderful players.

Fred Trueman: Oh, by the way, did we have Walcott in the list of batsmen I feared bowling to? He must be included.
Doesn't mention Sobers in a different breath. Respect.

sib: Which two players from county cricket would you put into the England test team, (from Chris Pope, Essex)

Fred Trueman: I would open the batting with either Martyn Moxon of Yorks or the old evergreen from your county, Gooch. They are still very fine players. I would be inclined to include the boy Shah from Middlesex. if he progresses as I think he could be a great player in the future.
vishal: Fred: (vishal from Bhopal, India and now Massachusetts) Do you think dropping Boycott after his 246 not out against India was justified? Do you think he played for himself?

Fred Trueman: Vishal:there was a classic case before then when Barrington made a 100 against New Zealand at Edgbaston when the ball was seaming and he was dropped. We could talk about such happenings until Christmas 1997 and we wouldn't cover them all. He wasn't a natural cricketer, Boycott, he was a self made cricketer who became a great run accumulator.
 
Last edited:

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Of course he did spend his formative years at Hampshire opening the batting with the great man and it is for that reason that I am sure he would have been immune to any attempts that might have been made to change his technique were he avowedly English, as he could have been, 'cos he was a Reading lad
What was their partnership like at Hampshire? How highly did Boycott consider him?
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, Gooch famously made a pair on debut, on a horrible rain-affected wicket against the great Aus attack of the time. He may even have made another blob in the first innings of his 2nd test. IIRC he actually did respectably in the second innings of that test, but that wasn't enough to save him.

I reckon that Greig being our best new batsman of the 1970's apart from Gower is a fair enough shout. You could actually go back a few years and say he was our best new batsman from about 1965 to 1977.
As I said, mind numbing. After D'Oliveira, you mean?
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
As I said, mind numbing. After D'Oliveira, you mean?
tbh I was thinking after Boycott and Edrich had arrived.

Dolly vs Greig is a hard call. Dolly was well past his best when I saw him, whereas Greig was at his peak in my formative years of test match viewing, so I'm biased towards the latter. People who saw Dolly bat against WI in 1966 might feel differently. And if Dolly had been able to play test cricket about 10 years sooner we might well be talking about an absolute legend.

Truth is I'd completely forgotten about Dolly when I made my previous post.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
While Dolly was a good Test player, it is hard to separate him from his story. That makes it hard to impartially assess him. He was certainly there or there abouts in the line up but it is hard to say that he was ever one of England's top batsmen at the time.

Probably not too harshly dealt with but Luckhurst appeared to be a good player.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
While Dolly was a good Test player, it is hard to separate him from his story. That makes it hard to impartially assess him. He was certainly there or there abouts in the line up but it is hard to say that he was ever one of England's top batsmen at the time.

Probably not too harshly dealt with but Luckhurst appeared to be a good player.
Probably fair enough about Dolly. Maybe the exception would be, IIRC, his first test series, which was against the 1966 WI tourists at which point he was probably one of our top batsmen. Of course, he was already in his mid-30s by then, so it's no surprise that things tailed off thereafter. Still averaged 40+ didn't he?

My memories of Luckhurst are that he was a very fine county player but out of his depth against the better test attacks.I remember him struggling horribly against Aus in 1972 and only later learnt about his rather better performances out there in 1970/71. That wasn't a bad series to be a batsman against Australia with McKenzie on the way out, Lillee still very inexperienced and no-one else that I'd heard of in their opening attack. That being said, he did well against the Rest of the World in 1970, and their attack wasn't too shabby. Maybe I simply saw him when he was getting a bit old. I think they took him to Aus again to face Lillee & Thomson in 1974/75 having not taken him to India in 1972/73 when Boycott & Edrich dropped out. With hindsight, those two decisions should have been reversed.
 

Flametree

International 12th Man
I think the 74-75 series against Australia and the following couple of years series against Australia and the West Indies have tainted our perceptions of the side a bit. They were simply exceptional bowling attacks to be facing, and I don't think it's any disgrace to have lost to them.

The West Indies toured Australia the year after England's 74-75 tour and a line-up of Fredericks, Greenidge, Rowe, Kallicharan, Richards and Lloyd was beaten 5-1.

And when Australia were without Lillee (and Thomson wasn't quite the same post-shoulder-op) in 1977 England beat them 3-0....

Through that period they always beat NZ, they beat or drew with Pakistan, shared series with the Windies (they won and drew on consecutive tours there) and had the better of the Ashes series with the exception of '75. The only real blips were home and away losses to India in the early 70's, the latter of which was not helped by a fairly random tour party - no Boycott, Edrich or Snow, Lewis as captain on debut, Wood ahead of Luckhurst, and a tail that started at 8.

From 65-75, in addition to Boycott, Amiss and Edrich which is a pretty good top order, they had the aging Barrington, Graveney, Dexter and Cowdrey, then Fletcher, Denness, D'Oliveira, Greig, Luckhurst, and Barber to call on, plus the mini-careers of Sharpe, Milburn and Steele, all of whom were unlucky not to play more.

Plus in Parks and Knott they had two good batting keepers, and often had one of Knight, Illingworth, Allen or Titmus at 8.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
My memories of Luckhurst are that he was a very fine county player but out of his depth against the better test attacks.I remember him struggling horribly against Aus in 1972 and only later learnt about his rather better performances out there in 1970/71. That wasn't a bad series to be a batsman against Australia with McKenzie on the way out, Lillee still very inexperienced and no-one else that I'd heard of in their opening attack. That being said, he did well against the Rest of the World in 1970, and their attack wasn't too shabby. Maybe I simply saw him when he was getting a bit old. I think they took him to Aus again to face Lillee & Thomson in 1974/75 having not taken him to India in 1972/73 when Boycott & Edrich dropped out. With hindsight, those two decisions should have been reversed.
Luckhurst wasn't really a Test class batsman either. He was already 31 when he was first selected for England. He had a fairly good Ashes Tour in 70/71 and while it's true he struggled for most of the 1972 series, the 96 he made to help draw the Trent Bridge Test was possibly his best innings for England. He wasn't originally selected for the 1974/75 Tour party but was called in when Geoff Boycott pulled out. The was never any chance that Boycott was going to tour but he didn't let anyone know until after the party was selected. There were two schools of thought. One that Boycott's modesty prevented him from being presumptuous about his selection, and two that he was just an awkward git.
One side story to the 1974/75 Tour was the trip to New Zealand (in those days a Test trip to New Zealand was tagged on to every Ashes Tour and was the only time England played there). After arriving in New Zealand short of fit players Barry Wood was summoned and after a 24 hour journey it was felt he should play. Luckhurst was livid at not being selected and it was the only time many people could ever recall him losing his temper. Barry Wood was then out to the first ball he faced.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I think the 74-75 series against Australia and the following couple of years series against Australia and the West Indies have tainted our perceptions of the side a bit. They were simply exceptional bowling attacks to be facing, and I don't think it's any disgrace to have lost to them.

The West Indies toured Australia the year after England's 74-75 tour and a line-up of Fredericks, Greenidge, Rowe, Kallicharan, Richards and Lloyd was beaten 5-1.
That is true, but they were very different series. England were annihilated and their only victory came in the final Test when they were 4-0 down and Lillee and Thomson were missing. On the other hand part way through the 4th Test of the West Indies series it looked like the West Indies were going to draw the series level at 2-2. It was only when that Test was lost that they fell to pieces.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Luckhurst wasn't really a Test class batsman either. He was already 31 when he was first selected for England. He had a fairly good Ashes Tour in 70/71 and while it's true he struggled for most of the 1972 series, the 96 he made to help draw the Trent Bridge Test was possibly his best innings for England. He wasn't originally selected for the 1974/75 Tour party but was called in when Geoff Boycott pulled out. The was never any chance that Boycott was going to tour but he didn't let anyone know until after the party was selected. There were two schools of thought. One that Boycott's modesty prevented him from being presumptuous about his selection, and two that he was just an awkward git.

One side story to the 1974/75 Tour was the trip to New Zealand (in those days a Test trip to New Zealand was tagged on to every Ashes Tour and was the only time England played there). After arriving in New Zealand short of fit players Barry Wood was summoned and after a 24 hour journey it was felt he should play. Luckhurst was livid at not being selected and it was the only time many people could ever recall him losing his temper. Barry Wood was then out to the first ball he faced.
Very informative. Luckhurst struck a nice pose while sweeping.



Bring back the cap culture, I say! I would love to see one of the modern bats play with a cap regularly. Dravid used to do it sometimes against spinners, and it used to look fantastic.

Btw, Is it really true that the English board has handled the talent worse than other boards in the past, or do they just get more flak than the others?
 
Last edited:

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Btw, Is it really true that the English board has handled the talent worse than other boards in the past, or do they just get more flak than the others?
That's a very good question. They haven't been helped by having far more professionals to choose from than other countries. Nor has it helped that we tend not to produce world class players, so it's harder to work out which of them might be good enough to make it at test level.

That being said, they haven't always helped their own cause. At times they have got through an obscenely large number of players when any fule could have told them that a bit of consistency would have helped. The late 1980's were the nadir in that regard. From memory, 26 players in the six home test in 1986, 28 in 1988 and 29 in the the 1989 Ashes. Utter madness.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That's a very good question. They haven't been helped by having far more professionals to choose from than other countries. Nor has it helped that we tend not to produce world class players, so it's harder to work out which of them might be good enough to make it at test level.

That being said, they haven't always helped their own cause. At times they have got through an obscenely large number of players when any fule could have told them that a bit of consistency would have helped. The late 1980's were the nadir in that regard. From memory, 26 players in the six home test in 1986, 28 in 1988 and 29 in the the 1989 Ashes. Utter madness.
Makes sense. I would love to read more about this, apart from the 90s because that was a **cked decade anyway for the English, and it doesn't matter.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Makes sense. I would love to read more about this, apart from the 90s because that was a **cked decade anyway for the English, and it doesn't matter.
There's a book called "Sins of Omission" by Alan Synge which deals with the subject - 'tis very interesting and they don't come out of it particularly well (and it is an objective account)
 

Top