Players who retired too early.

[wpdavid]

Given the decision to bolster the batting at The Oval when Jones went down, might Thorpe have got the nod had he not retired hastily after not getting selected?

Suspect we might have gone for Colly anyway under the 'all-rounder' guise but he only bowled a handful of overs as I recall

I suppose he was insurance if one of the others had been injured during the match, which Thorpe wouldn't have been.

 

[Moss]

Alistair Campbell called it quits when 31 I think (after being overlooked for the England tour just after the 2003 world cup), though the politics meant he probably wouldn't have continued for too long anyway. We could probably add a bunch of Zimbabweans from that era.

 

[trundler]

How come Thorpe and Gower are so underrated given English batsmen generally receive more acclaim than is warranted?

 

[BazBall21]

How come Thorpe and Gower are so underrated given English batsmen generally receive more acclaim than is warranted?

Graham Thorpe is my candidate for most underrated England cricketer of all time.

 

[trundler]

Graham Thorpe is my candidate for most underrated England cricketer of all time.

Cowdrey and Shrewsbury are fairly underrated too. Cowdrey had a fantastic away record compared to May and Compton. His overall average suffers a bit because he was the first cricketer to play a 100 test and was recalled to face Lillee and Thomson after retirement. After 80 tests he averaged as much as Dexter and May. That's over more tests than either. A fantastic batsman who's undersold by his overall average.

Shrewsbury was the best batsman of a decade WG Grace was active in and that's a pretty huge accomplishment. 19th century cricketers being overlooked is a bit more understandable though.

I'd say Underwood is underrated also. Not many touring spinners can claim to have outperformed their Indian peers in a series in India.

Maurice Leyland is another who inspires nary a mention. He was a brilliant Ashes batsman home and away in a time when that was all that mattered. Not an especially long career though.

 

[BazBall21]

Cowdrey and Shrewsbury are fairly underrated too. Cowdrey had a fantastic away record compared to May and Compton. His overall average suffers a bit because he was the first cricketer to play a 100 test and was recalled to face Lillee and Thomson after retirement. After 80 tests he averaged as much as Dexter and May. That's over more tests than either. A fantastic batsman who's undersold by his overall average.

Shrewsbury was the best batsman of a decade WG Grace was active in and that's a pretty huge accomplishment. 19th century cricketers being overlooked is a bit more understandable though.

I'd say Underwood is underrated also. Not many touring spinners can claim to have outperformed their Indian peers in a series in India.

Maurice Leyland is another who inspires nary a mention. He was a brilliant Ashes batsman home and away in a time when that was all that mattered. Not an especially long career though.

Yeah Cowdrey is a good shout mate. Got a lot of time for him. He was averaging 50 overseas at the age of 36 after his final Test hundred. Has lots of good knocks in low-scoring games and was good against pace and spin. Like you say playing on as long as he did eventually brought his numbers down and he probably unfairly suffers from that.

Underwood is an interesting one because he didn’t seem to get as much hype from the English media as someone like Bedser or Dexter etc. Very surprising he didn’t make CMJ’s top 100 for example as that list is pretty kind to Englishmen by and large.

 

[trundler]

Yeah Cowdrey is a good shout mate. Got a lot of time for him. He was averaging 50 overseas at the age of 36 after his final Test hundred. Has lots of good knocks in low-scoring games and was good against pace and spin. Like you say playing on as long as he did eventually brought his numbers down and he probably unfairly suffers from that.

Underwood is an interesting one because he didn’t seem to get as much hype from the English media as someone like Bedser or Dexter etc. Very surprising he didn’t make CMJ’s top 100 for example as that list is pretty kind to Englishmen by and large.

Old school writers have a ridiculous bias for what they saw as 'classical' or 'elegant'. Barrington's status in relation to May and Compton is another classic example of this, IMO. Underwood was unconventional and therefore inferior.

I apply the "players who play much longer than those who didn't should only be compared to the latter over a similar number of games/stretch of time" thing across the board and Cowdrey is definitely one who suffers from it. Perhaps the fact that he was so dominant away and less so at home compared to May, for example, is ironically why he's rated lower as English writers wouldn't have seen his best.

 

[wpdavid]

Another point about Cowdrey is, I think, that lack of alternatives until Edrich and Boycott came along meant that he had to open for a while even though he was really a middle order batsman. Now I'm winging it here to some extent. I don't know how often he had to open, and it may even be that his average didn't suffer when he did.

 

[wpdavid]

Underwood is an interesting one because he didn’t seem to get as much hype from the English media as someone like Bedser or Dexter etc. Very surprising he didn’t make CMJ’s top 100 for example as that list is pretty kind to Englishmen by and large.

I suspect that the thing about Underwood was that he was thought to be pretty ineffective in normal conditions but cashed in big time when they were in his favour. Obvious examples at The Oval in 1968, Headingley in 1972 and Lord's in 1974 . Plus summer of 1969, especially against a relatively weak NZ side. Which is why there were long periods of time when he wasn't picked, even when he was supposed to be at the peak of his powers. How the selectors ever thought that Norman Gifford was a better bet is beyond me. However, the big problem with that theory is that he ended up with almost 300 test wickets, so he can't have been a complete waste of space when the wicket wasn't drying or tinged with fusarium.

 

[AndrewB]

Cowdrey averaged 44.5 not as an opener, 42.4 as an opener.

 

[wpdavid]

Cowdrey averaged 44.5 not as an opener, 42.4 as an opener.

Ah, there you go. Not much of a difference at all.

 

[trundler]

Another point about Cowdrey is, I think, that lack of alternatives until Edrich and Boycott came along meant that he had to open for a while even though he was really a middle order batsman. Now I'm winging it here to some extent. I don't know how often he had to open, and it may even be that his average didn't suffer when he did.

Cowdrey averaged 44.5 not as an opener, 42.4 as an opener.

Very useful cricketer. Can bat anywhere and a great slipper, at least by the standards of the day. This adds to the mystery, I think.

 

[wpdavid]

Tony Greig springs to mind. I think he was only 31 or 32 when he retired from the FC game. Obviously his role with Packer meant he was persona non grata with the England selectors for the last couple of years of his career, but that would probably have died down. And even if his all-rounder role wasn't missed because of the emergence of Botham, Greig would still have been good enough to bat at number 5 for England had he put his mind to it.

 

[trundler]

I suspect that the thing about Underwood was that he was thought to be pretty ineffective in normal conditions but cashed in big time when they were in his favour. Obvious examples at The Oval in 1968, Headingley in 1972 and Lord's in 1974 . Plus summer of 1969, especially against a relatively weak NZ side. Which is why there were long periods of time when he wasn't picked, even when he was supposed to be at the peak of his powers. How the selectors ever thought that Norman Gifford was a better bet is beyond me. However, the big problem with that theory is that he ended up with almost 300 test wickets, so he can't have been a complete waste of space when the wicket wasn't drying or tinged with fusarium.

English selectors at the time must've been on crack, frankly. Truman's career was a bit earlier but the fact that he missed out a third of the matches played by England in his career is staggering. Very few of those were down to fitness reasons as he played 30 odd FC games each season anyway. Just pure pig headedness. Then a decade later came Snow's trials which you must certainly be more familiar with than I.

 

[trundler]

What's the deal with Gower though? Not many English batsmen have done so well at #3. I can only think of Hammond, Barrington, Compton, and Dexter who were better at that position. I've heard accusations of downhill skiing were levied against him, but how true are those?

 

[BazBall21]

Old school writers have a ridiculous bias for what they saw as 'classical' or 'elegant'. Barrington's status in relation to May and Compton is another classic example of this, IMO. Underwood was unconventional and therefore inferior.

I apply the "players who play much longer than those who didn't should only be compared to the latter over a similar number of games/stretch of time" thing across the board and Cowdrey is definitely one who suffers from it. Perhaps the fact that he was so dominant away and less so at home compared to May, for example, is ironically why he's rated lower as English writers wouldn't have seen his best.

I suspect that the thing about Underwood was that he was thought to be pretty ineffective in normal conditions but cashed in big time when they were in his favour. Obvious examples at The Oval in 1968, Headingley in 1972 and Lord's in 1974 . Plus summer of 1969, especially against a relatively weak NZ side. Which is why there were long periods of time when he wasn't picked, even when he was supposed to be at the peak of his powers. How the selectors ever thought that Norman Gifford was a better bet is beyond me. However, the big problem with that theory is that he ended up with almost 300 test wickets, so he can't have been a complete waste of space when the wicket wasn't drying or tinged with fusarium.

I suspect that the thing about Underwood was that he was thought to be pretty ineffective in normal conditions but cashed in big time when they were in his favour. Obvious examples at The Oval in 1968, Headingley in 1972 and Lord's in 1974 . Plus summer of 1969, especially against a relatively weak NZ side. Which is why there were long periods of time when he wasn't picked, even when he was supposed to be at the peak of his powers. How the selectors ever thought that Norman Gifford was a better bet is beyond me. However, the big problem with that theory is that he ended up with almost 300 test wickets, so he can't have been a complete waste of space when the wicket wasn't drying or tinged with fusarium.

WI dealt with him too. Yeah there is some suspicion that he was a bit of a favourable conditions bully but even still his record against Chappell and Gavaskar is exceptional.

I’m fairly middle ground on Underwood. Exceptional on turning or drying tracks and Trundler makes a good point that the weaknesses of the English cricket media darlings were much more ignored than his but still he could be neutralised on conventional pitches, where you would perhaps rather have someone like Chandra who could create chances on almost anything, or Lance Gibbs who was even better than Underwood at the holding job.

 

[GIMH]

How come Thorpe and Gower are so underrated given English batsmen generally receive more acclaim than is warranted?

1. I don't think they are
2. Stop ruining threads with this drivel

 

[wpdavid]

What's the deal with Gower though? Not many English batsmen have done so well at #3. I can only think of Hammond, Barrington, Compton, and Dexter who were better at that position. I've heard accusations of downhill skiing were levied against him, but how true are those?

Without checking, I'd guess that his best performances from 1982 onwards were against Australia, so the downhill skiing accusation is a bit harsh to our antipodean cousins. Again without checking, I think he made some decent contributions against WI, apart from during the 1984 blackwash, when his batting won't have been helped by being captain.

As for being underrated, GIMH is right. Most discussions about England's best post-WW2 middle order normally include Gower, even he doesn't make the final cut.

 

[BazBall21]

Old school writers have a ridiculous bias for what they saw as 'classical' or 'elegant'. Barrington's status in relation to May and Compton is another classic example of this, IMO. Underwood was unconventional and therefore inferior.

I apply the "players who play much longer than those who didn't should only be compared to the latter over a similar number of games/stretch of time" thing across the board and Cowdrey is definitely one who suffers from it. Perhaps the fact that he was so dominant away and less so at home compared to May, for example, is ironically why he's rated lower as English writers wouldn't have seen his best.

Yeah agree that players should not be punished for playing too long during an evaluation of comparison.
And also think May and Compton’s reputations in England being so big is definitely helped by how good they were at home.
Going back to Cowdrey, I think I rate him over Dexter and Gooch for example.

 

[trundler]

1. I don't think they are
2. Stop ruining threads with this drivel

Stellar contribution, mate. Try reading the thread.