You would think he must have in their early pairing. Although it would be interesting to know if Spoff did not tell him in that 2nd of all Tests, to prove his opinion of Murdoch?It would be intriguing to know whether or not Murdoch required the same signalling system that Spofforth applied for Blackham's benefit. So cozening were the Demon's variations that not even the stumper laureate could pick them.
So all you've done is pretend to know something about Edwards when in reality you've simply rewritten his Cricinfo profile in your curious style of prose:He looks low- and thick-set in the extant black-'n'-whites, ala Godfrey Evans. Although regarded as an out-and-out wicketkeeper, he wielded the kashmir with enough efficaciousness to notch two fifties during his Test-Match rebirth. A genial cove, he handled censure well -- during the '78 tour of England, a niggler dubbed him the worst he'd ever seen -- and continued to make solid contributions until Smith knocked him off the radar.
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/36952.htmlJock Edwards was a short, stocky wicketkeeper who was a good enough batsman to make his Test debut (against Australia in 1976-77) as a specialist. He was brought back in 1977-78 as a wicketkeeper-bat and made 55 and 54 on his comeback against England at Auckland. That won him selection for the England tour in 1978 where his performances were disappointing - one member of the BBC commentary team said that Edwards was "the worst wicketkeeper I've ever seen ... he's made mistakes you'd have the 3rd XI `keeper at school running round the pitch for". But the genial Edwards kept his spirits up and was a most popular tourist. He returned for three home Tests against India in 1980-81 where he chipped in with useful runs, but the emergence of Ian Smith signaled the end of his international career.
Oh one can go on and on like that, I mean where does one draw the line of eligibility.The Yorkshire legion of Pinder, Bairstow, Dolphin, Ned Stephenson, Binks, Wood, Blakey and the Hunters must feel rather hard done by. The White Rose's tradition of wicketkeeping is almost as rich as its tradition of slow left-arm trundling.
I saw him in England in 1978 and so untidy was his keeping that he was dropped for the final Test and young opening batsman and part time wicketkeeper Bruce Edgar took his place. At the time New Zealand were still searching for a long term replacement for Ken Wadsworth who had died in August 1976, he was a genuinely world class keeper. They initially selected Warren Lees and he looked the ideal replacement with gloves and bat, I can't remember off hand why he wasn't on the 78 Tour. Edwards was presumably not always as inept as he was on that tour but I never saw him keep anywhere else."Jock" - now I am reminded of Jock Edwards who kept in a few tests for NZ in or around the late 70's - now he seemed like a nice guy but his would be the last name I would put forward as the greatest keeper ever - does anyone know much about him?
Apologies for stealing your thunder. I read it in one of Jack Pollard's books on the history of Australian cricket. Not sure which one, possibly The Game And The Players?Oh bugger. I wasn't banking on anyone else having heard that. Where did you get it?
I very much doubt it.So all you've done is pretend to know something about Edwards when in reality you've simply rewritten his Cricinfo profile in your curious style of prose
Doubt what? It's there for all to see from the Cricinfo profile I've posted.I very much doubt it.
Couldn't have said it better myselfKnott and Healy of those I've seen, with Russell not far behind.
Might say something about my bias that each of the 2 keepers I nominated did some great work up to the stumps - Knott to Underwood, Healy to Warne.
I very much doubt a self-respecting cricket historian like Rodders has simply reworded a CricInfo (or any place) profile. Simply because you think it's likely doesn't make it so.Doubt what? It's there for all to see from the Cricinfo profile I've posted.
It appears you've been captivated by his use of fancy words. Had you pinned as a little deeper than that.I very much doubt a self-respecting cricket historian like Rodders has simply reworded a CricInfo (or any place) profile. Simply because you think it's likely doesn't make it so.
That is what I thought we all did?So all you've done is pretend to know something about Edwards when in reality you've simply rewritten his Cricinfo profile in your curious style of prose:
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/36952.html
No, it appears I've actually taken some note of some relevant stuff. Not terribly difficult.It appears you've been captivated by his use of fancy words. Had you pinned as a little deeper than that.
Not for me. I first encountered it in Denzil Batchelor's The Book of Cricket; in fact, I may have posted it here before. Which goes to show how attentively Mr Dickinson reads my posts. (Insert disarming smiley.)Apologies for stealing your thunder. I read it in one of Jack Pollard's books on the history of Australian cricket. Not sure which one, possibly The Game And The Players?
I think that, having done nothing character-oppugning before, I deserve the benefit of the doubt here.So all you've done is pretend to know something about Edwards when in reality you've simply rewritten his Cricinfo profile in your curious style of prose