Watson's All-Time-Great Ashes Contest

[watson]

Thought I’d have a go at creating a great Ashes contest by creating two great teams. There would be 10 test matches, 5 in England followed by 5 in Australia.

Both the England and Australian teams are not necessarily the strongest ever (at least on paper), but their respective combinations of skill and character should make for a thrilling slugfest on the field. Hopefully, something approaching the toe-to-toe contests of the famous 2005 series.

Like other recent selections of favourite teams I’m going to reveal the teams slowly, player by player. So here goes..........

England’s No.4: Ken Barrington

Ken Barrington began his career in 1955 against South Africa, but he was soon dropped and had to wait until the Barbados Test match of 1960 to score his first century. The Wisden match report shows that he did so under a bumper-barrage from the two opening bowlers Wes hall and Chester Watson. The same tactic was repeated by the West Indians during the next test match at Trinidad. However, Barrington handed-out the same treatment – another century in just under 6 hours;

.....After doing little for half an hour, Hall and Watson changed ends and unleashed a blistering attack of bumpers and short-pitched balls which sent England reeling to 57 for three with Pullar, Cowdrey and May gone. Barrington and Dexter brought a fine recovery with a stand of 142 in two hours thirty-seven minutes. At one point Hall was cautioned by the umpire, Lloyd, for excessive use of short-pitched ball in accordance with Law 46. England finished the first day with 220 runs for four wickets and next morning Barrington and Smith continued the improvement. The other umpire, Lee Kow, cautioned Watson for infringing Law 46 early in the day and after that there were only a few short balls.

Barrington batted five hours fifty minutes for his second successive Test century in his only two innings against West Indies.

Wisden - West Indies v England

These two centuries typify the character and style of this great English batsman – stoic and methodical. However, despite Barrington’s relative unattractiveness as a batsman he eventually became paramount to the English cause. Significantly, England managed 31 victories during Barrington’s 82 Tests, and in those victories he averaged 64.42. In 39 drawn Tests he averaged 67.05. However, when Barrington failed, England failed. In the 12 Tests that England lost he averaged only 30.50.

Therefore, Barrington takes the valuable No.4 spot in this Ashes team due the net positive effect he had on the English batting order. There is also the fact that Barrington was one of only three batsman from the 1960s who averaged more than 50 (30 innings or more). The other two were Graeme Pollock (60.97) and Garry Sobers (57.78). Barrington’s batting might have been ungainly, but his numbers certainly weren’t.

 

[watson]

Australia’s No.4: Greg Chappell

For most Australian batsman the 1970s and 1980s were tough going. Not so for Greg Chappell;

Batting Average: 1970s
Australian batsman (1-6) = 37.31
Greg Chappell (54 Tests) = 52.98

Batting Average: 1980s
Australian batsman (1-6) = 40.09
Greg Chappell (33 Tests) = 55.34

Indeed, only one other Australian batsman managed to average more than 50 (30 innings or more) during the 1970s – Ian Redpath (50.19). Ian Chappell’s average of 44.45 makes him a distant third.

The 1980s are not much better as only two other batsman managed to average more than 50 (30 innings or more) during the decade – Allan Border (55.46) and Dean Jones (52.65).

So while the title of the Best Australian batsman of the 1980s should probably go to Allan Border, the 1970s clearly belonged to Greg Chappell. During that decade his peak arrived during the 1975/76 series against Clive Lloyd’s West Indians. During 6 Tests he made 702 runs at an average of 117.00, and hit 3 centuries with a top score of 182* at the SCG.

Some have tried to diminish Greg Chappell’s achievement by arguing that Michael Holding was not yet a mature fast bowler, and therefore below par. However, the same cannot be said of Andy Roberts, Keith Boyce, Vanburn Holder, or Lance Gibbs. Indeed, figures of 9/119 in the second Test would indicate that Andy Roberts was at the height of his powers for that series. And only six months later both Roberts and Holding would demolish Tong Grieg’s England team on some flat English wickets.

A stack of runs against Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Richard Hadlee, John Snow, Bob Willis, Ian Botham, and Sarfraz Narwaz would indicate that Greg Chappell is one of the greatest players of pace bowling in Test history. He therefore makes this Ashes team in a cake-walk.

 

[kyear2]

Nice going so far, looking forward to the rest of the team.

 

[watson]

England's No.5: Walter Hammond

By the summer of 1939 Walter Hammond had played in 77 Test matches and achieved a brilliant average of 61.45. His best series came in 1928/29 when he toured Australia under the leadership of Percy Chapman. In this 5 Test series he made short work of Grimmett, Ironmonger, Hendry, and Wall to plunder a staggering 905 runs at an average of 113.12.

It is therefore ironic that Hammond’s 1928/29 Ashes series coincided with the genesis of a certain Donald George Bradman. Bradman of course would scale even grander heights, and ultimately condemn Hammond to the rank of second best for the next decade. Thus it is not difficult to suppose that Hammond may have achieved the highest batting average of all time if not for the interference of two antagonists in his career - Bradman and Hitler.

Walter Hammond therefore enters this Ashes squad because he is England’s premier middle-order batsman, and because he possesses a ‘near perfect technique’;

Bradman noted two areas in which Hammond could be restricted. One was his reluctance to hook or pull when ‘bounced’ or attacked with short deliveries. The other was his lack of an attacking on-drive. But these were mild deficiencies in an otherwise near perfect technique. Bowlers could only concentrate on Hammonds’s deficiencies hoping to get an error. The only factor that could defeat such a champion was brilliant bowling.....No paceman really had his measure.

(Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams, page 225)

Bradman also noted that Hammond was a skillfull medium-paced bowler;

‘He was most dangerous when he failed with the bat’, Bradman said. ‘He liked to have some success, one way or another, in every game he played. If he had concentrated on his bowling I believe he would have been bracketed with the best medium pacers in history.’ Hammond took 83 wickets in Tests at 37.80. In First-Class cricket he took 732 wickets at 30.58.

(Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams, page 226)

Because ‘No paceman really had his measure’ it is tempting to place Hammond in the No.3 batting position. But ‘his reluctance to hook or pull’ means that he is not the desired counter-attacking batsman needed to take on the Australian fast men should a wicket fall early. Speaking of fast bowling Hammond confessed that;

Gregory scared me of it badly when I played my first match against the Australians when I was a youngster, and it took me years to get happy against real speed.

(Cricket My Life, page 11)

So instead, this champion batsman will anchor the middle-order at No.5 and leave the top order flamboyance to another more intuitive batsman.

 

[watson]

Australia's No.5: Allan Border

Allan Border’s reputation centres on his skill and bravery against the superb West Indian fast bowlers of the 80s and 90s. Surprisingly, his average in the West Indies easily surpasses his home average by nearly 20 runs;

West Indies at Home (1979-1993)
Tests = 21
Average = 33.94
Centuries = 2
Fifties = 9

West Indies Away (1984-1991)
Tests = 10
Average = 53.06
Centuries = 1
Fifties = 5

However, it is Border’s liking for English pitches that promotes him to the middle-order of this Ashes side. In 25 tests between 1980 and 1993 he scored 2082 runs at an impressive average of 65.06. Even during the one-sided series of 1985 Border managed to average 66.33 while the rest of the batting order collapsed to either the swing of Ellison and Botham, or the spin of Emburey and Edmonds.

The main contender to Border’s No.5 spot was Neil Harvey. However, Neil Harvey’s average of 33.80 in English conditions contrasts unfavourably. It is also likely that the Australian team will feature several aggressive batsman, so Border’s pragmatic temperament gives the batting line-up some useful balance.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Four excellent selections so far. Great write ups too.

 

[bagapath]

Great concept for a thread. Perfect choices so far, assuming Compton would make it at 6. If not Boreington should go. Assuming one of Gower/ May/ Dexter could make it to no.3. Unless you get tweekey and bring in Hutton at 3 letting Hobbs go in with his equally immortal regular opening partner. In either case, you need the flair of Denis in the middle order; more than Barrington's grinding style.

Keep them coming. This is delightful.

 

[kyear2]

Also guess that he is going with Hutton at 3, which places Sutcliffe, Hutton and Barrington in successive batting order which doesn't exactly scream excitement or put a team in a position to win too many tests. Hoping for May at 3 instead.

 

[Red]

Hoping that Ken "Slasher" McKay and Trevor Bailey get a run as bits'n'pieces all rounders.

 

[watson]

Hoping that Ken "Slasher" McKay and Trevor Bailey get a run as bits'n'pieces all rounders.

Not sure about McKay, but Bailey was a very good 'bits'n'pieces all rounder', as was Ray Illingworth for that matter. However, 'bits'n'pieces all rounders' are never really quite to good enough with either the bat or the ball when faced with specialists who are at the top of their discipline. At best, they tend to just 'hang-in-there' and not much more.

 

[watson]

England's No.7: Alan Knott

Alan Knott conceded 4.4 Byes per Test which makes him the 6th tidiest keeper of all time. Paul Downton sets the benchmark at 2.8 Byes per Test.

Blogs: Test wicketkeepers: Everything you wanted to know about | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

However, in some respects statistics are meaningless when it comes to assessing wicketkeepers because so much depends on the quality of the bowlers in the team, not to mention the type of wicket. Jack Blackham must have had a torrid time stopping balls that shot along the ground. Instead we have to rely more than usual upon personal testimonies. And those pertaining to Alan Knott are invariably glowing. Here is Umpire Dickie Bird’s description of the former England wicketkeeper;

Without doubt, England’s Alan Knott is the doyen of them all. I am a great believer in picking your best wicketkeeper, whatever else he may or may not be able to do. He can be a piano player, a butcher, a labourer, or a candlestick maker, but, as far as I am concerned, as long as he can keep wicket he should be in the team. People argue with me and say times have changed. They claim that in this day and age a wicketkeeper has to be able to bat as well. I disagree, but in Knotty’s case, that does not matter anyway. I have seen England reeling at 80-odd for 5 and Knotty has come fidgeting in to score a magnificent century which has saved a Test match.

'My autobiography', page 323

Mike Brearley wrote a piece for Wisden in 1986 called ‘Alan Knott – a thorough genius’. He stated;

Alan Knott was a great cricketer. In my view he was also the best wicket-keeper of his time. He had a good physique for the job - short, low-to-the-ground, agile and quick (through he himself foresees a new breed of tall 'keepers by analogy with tall goalkeepers, and maintains that he had to stretch so much because he was not particularly supple, especially in the hips). He had marvellous hands. Physically he kept himself extremely fit, and was an assiduous practiser. His technique was not classical; he took catches with one hand when he might have got two to the ball, and he sometimes dived when he could have reached the ball without falling. He had a sound reason for both - simply that for him these methods were more natural and more effective. His judgement about what to go for was unerring. As a first slip I always seemed to know when Alan would go for a catch in front of me, and I was never baulked by him or distracted by any tentativeness on his part. Standing up, he took the low ball without bending his knees and with his legs together. This gave him the right amount of give, against his legs. Moreover, if he missed it with his hands, the ball would not go for byes, and if the edge beat the gloves, there was no knee or elbow sticking out to obscure first slip's view, or to deflect the ball…..

As I say, he would have been in my book a more or less automatic selection for any team on the strength of his 'keeping alone. When his batting was put in the scales, all doubt fell away. For he was also a genius - a minor genius - with the bat.

Wisden - Alan Knott - a thorough genius

It is not difficult to see why Brearley thought him a genius with the bat as Knott’s unorthodox 'French Cricket' technique, especially against the fast bowlers, bought him many runs for England. Against Australia he averaged 32.98, and during Tests in Australia he averaged 33.84. At the height of Lillee and Thomson’s ferocity during the Ashes summer of 1974/75 he put together the following sequence of scores;

12
19
51
18
52
4
82
10
5
106
5

Together they average 36.40 and make him third most successful batsman after Tony Grieg (40.54) and John Edrich (43.33) for the series.

Les Ames is considered by many to be England’s best wicketkeeper-batsman as he was possibly comparable with the gloves, but superior with the bat. However, this assumption does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is true that Ames averaged more than 40 overall, but against Australia he averaged only 27.00. Ames toured Australia twice and in the resultant 10 Tests managed a sorry average of just 17.43. Admittedly Ames scored a fabulous century at Lords in 1934 during ‘Verity’s Test’, but there is nothing similar on Australian soil. In short, Ames was little more than a 'minnows basher'. Alan Knott wins the keepers spot in this team hands down.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

So true about the glowing reports on Knott, I very rarely here him talked of as simply a great keeper batsmen. Though he was, it was his glovework that was the reason he was selected. As I believe should happen with keepers. Great choice too over Ames, I hadn't looked into his country by country batting stats. Keep these good write ups coming!

 

[bagapath]

Knott is always, always the right call. Congrats.

 

[watson]

Also guess that he is going with Hutton at 3, which places Sutcliffe, Hutton and Barrington in successive batting order which doesn't exactly scream excitement or put a team in a position to win too many tests. Hoping for May at 3 instead.

You'll just have to wait and see. Have now decided to reveal the No.3 batsman later rather than sooner........

 

[watson]

Australia's No.7: Adam Gilchrist

In March 2008 Kumar Sangakkara wrote an excellent piece describing Gilchrist’s impact on international cricket;

Adam the revolutionary: Gilchrist's greatest contribution was the way he changed how the world looked at wicketkeepers

One of my first memories of Adam Gilchrist is of his counterattacking century against Pakistan in Hobart in 1999, which in partnership with Justin Langer helped Australia chase down 369 from 124 for 5. Another innings I fondly remember is the double-century he scored against South Africa in Johannesburg in 2001-02. When he came in, the second new ball had been taken. I remember the commentators saying that he didn't much like to face the new ball - but in two hours he had a double-century.

Those were the kind of innings that proved a wicketkeeper batting lower down the order could be the most important member of the side when it came to sealing and winning games. You could have imagined something of that sort in ODIs, but he was doing it in Test cricket, where no one had seen a No. 7 quite like that, coming in and murdering attacks and then going behind the stumps to do a wonderful job.

That is what Adam meant to international cricket: he completely changed the way we looked at wicketkeepers. After his ascent, specialist wicketkeepers started taking a back seat and wicketkeepers who could contribute big runs with the bat came into prominence. He put a lot of pressure on other teams to unearth players who would become genuine wicketkeeping allrounders.

That his wicketkeeping was often overlooked is a compliment to his batting, and more importantly to his wicketkeeping. When your wicketkeeping is being noticed, there is normally a problem. Adam was an excellent wicketkeeper - maybe not in the same bracket as Ian Healy, but definitely one of the best going around in world cricket today. It would have been very difficult for him to step into Healy's shoes, but it was clear from the start that he was not trying to be another Healy; he was himself. Just as I have to keep to Murali, he had Shane Warne to keep to. When you have such great spinners in your side, it puts your keeping under scrutiny. You have to raise your keeping skills to match those of the bowlers you are keeping to. If you look at Adam's career, he has been consistently good, and that's exactly what you look for in a wicketkeeper.

Adam the revolutionary | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Sangakkara’s argument that Gilchrist combined great batsmanship with ‘consistently good’ wicketkeeping is backed up by some simple statistics - if Gilchrist had retired in October 2003 after playing 46 Tests then his batting average would have been 61.06, and no other batsman would have had a higher average except Bradman himself. Also, Gilchrist claimed 416 victims during his 96 Tests. This means that he holds the record for the average number of dismissals per Test match – 4.33.

Blogs: Test wicketkeepers: Everything you wanted to know about | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

It could be argued that these figures are due to the great bowling of McGrath and Warne. This is true to a large extent, but by the same token, victims only become victims if the wicketkeeper is good enough to consistently catch the ball in the first place.

Admittedly, Gilchrist’s batting averages do fall away a little against England. Overall he averaged 45.12, and during his 10 Tests on English soil he averaged 40.07. However, he is still significantly ahead of his nearest rivals. For example, Ian Healy averaged 30.95 against England. And so, it is this large gap in batting skill, combined with efficient wicketkeeping skills that puts Gilchrist ahead of the pack, and allows him to bat at No.7 in this Ashes team.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I'm sorry but Knott wins this by a long way. Its good to have the best keeper. When he put down a few catches in his career he had Warne and McGrath and Dizzy would provide more chances. But against a GREAT English side. What happens if he puts Hammond or Hutton (or anyone really) down and they go on to make a big score. Then all he adds with the bat is 70. Is that worth it?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm sorry but Knott wins this by a long way. Its good to have the best keeper. When he put down a few catches in his career he had Warne and McGrath and Dizzy would provide more chances. But against a GREAT English side. What happens if he puts Hammond or Hutton (or anyone really) down and they go on to make a big score. Then all he adds with the bat is 70. Is that worth it?

Yup.

And anyway that's not what Gilchrist would do. He hardly dropped any catches throughout his career... Was extremely tidy. And then when he comes out to bat he'd smash a 100 at a run a ball with and turn a good position for the team into an unbeatable one.

He got 17 hundreds.... That's as many as VVS Laxman got in many more test matches as a specialist batsman batting higher up the order. Gilchrise was an absolute freak and imo he is a shoe-in for an AT XI... I understand the argument for Knott but don't agree with it

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Yup.

And anyway that's not what Gilchrist would do. He hardly dropped any catches throughout his career... Was extremely tidy. And then when he comes out to bat he'd smash a 100 at a run a ball with and turn a good position for the team into an unbeatable one.

He got 17 hundreds.... That's as many as VVS Laxman got in many more test matches as a specialist batsman batting higher up the order. Gilchrise was an absolute freak and imo he is a shoe-in for an AT XI... I understand the argument for Knott but don't agree with it

He dropped many catches, and as was said, his batting wasn't as strong against the POMs.

 

[watson]

Teams so far (playing 5 Tests in England and 5 Tests in Australia for the Ashes);

England XI
01.
02.
03.
04. Ken Barrington
05. Walter Hammond
06.
07. Alan Knott
08.
09.
10.
11

Australia XI
01.
02.
03.
04. Greg Chappell
05. Allan Border
06.
07. Adam Gilchrist
08.
09.
10.
11.

 

[Red]

He dropped many catches, and as was said, his batting wasn't as strong against the POMs.

I can only remember Gilly dropping catches at the very end of his career, and he gave it away very quickly once that happened.

Gilly was a very sound keeper. Keeping to Warne was probably the hardest task that a keeper's had to do in international cricket in the last 40 years, and Gilchrist did it well.