Dennis Lillee man handled

[Ilovecric]

YouTube - Alvin Kallicharan destroys Dennis Lillee

It's interesting how players like that take nose dives at the end of their careers

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

After playing 50 games he was avg 50. Prolly lost confidence at the end.

Funny, he prolly wouldn't make WI third best 11.

 

[fredfertang]

Highlights just how unsophisticated field placings were for ODI's back in 1975

 

[Ilovecric]

Highlights just how unsophisticated field placings were for ODI's back in 1975

really ?

 

[Richard]

One of my favourite pieces of cricket action ever, that Kallicharran-vs-Lillee 1975 World Cup game. Precious little that I enjoy more than seeing consistent short bowling getting smashed out the park.

Kallicharran was a really, really strange case. Just when he should have been in the prime of his career, he instead went off-the-boil completely and disappeared from Test cricket so many years before he should have done. And then elected for Rebel tours to boot. He could've ranked with the greatest of West Indian batsmen, but instead goes down as merely a pretty good one.

 

[Top_Cat]

really ?

Reckon the lack of any sweepers would be somewhat unforgivable these days.

 

[Richard]

What's strange is that you'd imagine if one were deliberately bowling consistently short they'd have a fine-leg and a deep-square anyway - ODI or Test, 3rd over or 33rd over. Remember, apart from the no-more-than-2-men-behind-square rule, there were no restrictions at all in those early days.

 

[Ilovecric]

One of my favourite pieces of cricket action ever, that Kallicharran-vs-Lillee 1975 World Cup game. Precious little that I enjoy more than seeing consistent short bowling getting smashed out the park.

Kallicharran was a really, really strange case. Just when he should have been in the prime of his career, he instead went off-the-boil completely and disappeared from Test cricket so many years before he should have done. And then elected for Rebel tours to boot. He could've ranked with the greatest of West Indian batsmen, but instead goes down as merely a pretty good one.

So he should have avg around 55 then in the end then ? Many regard him as an excellent player still today, one of the best to ever come from the carib.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't regard him as such, but I'd certainly regard him as someone who could have been. I don't know quite what happened with him though, so it's merely speculative - I might be wrong, and maybe he was never going to be. I'm not sure he could've averaged 55 or anything, but certainly from the relatively little I do know I find it conceivable he could've had a long period averaging ~50 (whether or not his career average actually finished above it).

As it is even just from the period of West Indies' invincibility he goes down as third at best, behind Richards and Lloyd. It's also possible to argue the case for Greenidge (Gordon) being superior to him, and certainly his contribution to said 1976-1986 invincibility was greater. From later times Richardson and Lara are clearly better, Chanderpaul very probably is, and from earlier times there's obviously Headley, the Ws and Sobers just to start with.

 

[Ilovecric]

I wouldn't regard him as such, but I'd certainly regard him as someone who could have been. I don't know quite what happened with him though, so it's merely speculative - I might be wrong, and maybe he was never going to be. I'm not sure he could've averaged 55 or anything, but certainly from the relatively little I do know I find it conceivable he could've had a long period averaging ~50 (whether or not his career average actually finished above it).

As it is even just from the period of West Indies' invincibility he goes down as third at best, behind Richards and Lloyd. It's also possible to argue the case for Greenidge (Gordon) being superior to him, and certainly his contribution to said 1976-1986 invincibility was greater. From later times Richardson and Lara are clearly better, Chanderpaul very probably is, and from earlier times there's obviously Headley, the Ws and Sobers just to start with.

He avg more than 50 in his first 35 games, so thats a long enough period. Yes, his contributions were very important.

 

[Richard]

A fair few of those games though came in the 1973-1975/76 period. He did indeed play a massive part in taking West Indies off the canvas which they occupied 1968/69-1973, but he was only good for (IIRR) the first couple of years of the 1976-1986 period in which West Indies dominated the game so comprehensively, then continued to play for the effective second-team throughout the Packer schism, then basically fell to pieces shortly after the reformation. The likes of Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd and even Haynes were good for either all or most of the 1976-1986 period (and Haynes had been directly preceded by Fredericks who was even better though only very briefly), which is why I say they can be said to have made more of an impact on the invincibility.

I reckon Kallicharran could easily have been good enough to have continued his 1972-1977 form until pretty much the end of the period, which would've meant WI never had to mess around with the likes of Everton Mattis, Gus Logie (who in his early days was pretty awful before cracking Test cricket in 1987/88), Roger Harper and, briefly, Richardson (who was certainly very inconsistent in his early days as a Test player if not out-and-out bad).

 

[Ilovecric]

A fair few of those games though came in the 1973-1975/76 period. He did indeed play a massive part in taking West Indies off the canvas which they occupied 1968/69-1973, but he was only good for (IIRR) the first couple of years of the 1976-1986 period in which West Indies dominated the game so comprehensively, then continued to play for the first-team throughout the Packer schism, then basically fell to pieces shortly after the reformation. The likes of Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd and even Haynes were good for either all or most of the 1976-1986 period (and Haynes had been directly preceded by Fredericks who was even better though only very briefly), which is why I say they can be said to have made more of an impact on the invincibility.

I reckon Kallicharran could easily have been good enough to have continued his 1972-1977 form until pretty much the end of the period, which would've meant WI never had to mess around with the likes of Everton Mattis, Gus Logie (who in his early days was pretty awful before cracking Test cricket in 1987/88), Roger Harper and, briefly, Richardson (who was certainly very inconsistent in his early days as a Test player if not out-and-out bad).

Nice info richard ... Good reading. Well thats cricket.