Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[Jane Austen]

It's an interesting question. He seems to have been able to do things others couldn't. Noble said he never saw Trumper play a forward defensive stroke on a bad wicket. He either went yards down the pitch to drive, or right back.

One also wonders whether he was sometimes used unwittingly as a stick with which to beat others, a counter to reputations believed to be inflated. Grace did not endear himself to the locals during his two trips to Australia. Ranji's success was not universally welcomed by those who saw him as a threat to Empire. Some also viewed Bradman as a threat, while a few Australian cricketers past and present resented his popularity and financial offers at a time when many were struggling during the Depression. It was impossible to argue against Bradman being the best of his own generation, so a rival had to be found from the past.

Maybe that's over-thinking it, and Trumper was just good!

peterhrt--have you had a look at Renato Carini's book on Victor Trumper published in Australia in 2018.
It seeks to justify Trumper's standing as the greatest of batters using statistics.
As with any such evaluation,the statistics and analysis deriving from them are subjective and used to fit what I assume to be his starting point/agenda.
Mind you,it's a tough read,a very un-Trumper-like read,especially for someone like me.
Your observations would be interesting.

No other cricketer has received so much admiration from his contemporaries and so early in his career as Victor and the superlatives were without qualification.
Joe Darling,CB Fry,Archie MacLaren,AE Knight,Monty Noble,Pelham Warner,Ranji,Charlie McCartney,Arthur Mailey,were just a few who put our Victor on a pedestal.WG himself gave Trumper a bat with which he had played one of his great innings long ago declaring that only Trumper was worthy of it.Most tellingly perhaps,Wisden 1903,describing Trumper's glorious season the preceding summer,uses more glowing superlatives than it usually does in a whole annual.
And remember that all this hero worship came before his tragic early death in July 1915 from Brights disease and that he was not a guilded amateur---far from it.He came from a poor working-class part of Sydney.
Everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why Trumper was so idolised especially when Clem Hill,his almost exact contemporary and with very similar first-class and Test averages,was "merely" considered a very great batter..
Peterhrt made some,what I concluded to be,purposely,half-hearted,tongue-in-cheek suggestions as to why this may be.But in any case why was it Victor?
Maybe,as peterhrt goes on to suggest----he was simply THAT GOOD.

Is Barry Richards regarded similarly in this much more cynical and analytical cricket world or,more likely,will I be mocked and laughed off this thread?
Oh well,so be it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Trumper does tbf averages around 6 runs more than Hill in England in FC, where really his reputation was through the roof. Some very plausible explanations suggested here, I would personally go with HE WAS JUST THAT GOOOOOOOD!!!!

 

[Jane Austen]

Trumper does tbf averages around 6 runs more than Hill in England in FC, where really his reputation was through the roof. Some very plausible explanations suggested here, I would personally go with HE WAS JUST THAT GOOOOOOOD!!!!

Absolooooooooootely RIGHT CAPT!

 

[kyear2]

In some circles, yes they were. Peterhrt has referenced such observations on numerous occasions, and you've leapt upon it so ravenously as to repeat it constantly whether it is relevant to the discussion at hand or not.

It certainly wasn't a universal view though, and there were plenty of observers who considered Bradman - even during his career, let alone the years immediately after - to be clearly the greatest ever.

You never seem to mention those.

From these posts and

EW Swanton writing in 1962: As to the relative greatness of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman it is of course fruitless to argue: wickets, bowling, environment, atmosphere - all have varied. It is sufficient to say that each was supreme in his own day.

This was the general view of cricket historians up to that time, who tended to agree on most things. Some also placed Trumper in the same high bracket as a batsman, claiming he was the best of all on a bad wicket. When Sobers matured, he was added to the pantheon as a cricketer, but not necessarily purely as a batsman.

Since then Bradman and Sobers have pulled away from the others in perception as cricketers, with the Australian out in front as a batsman. This was confirmed in the Wisden Top 100 exercise at the turn of the century.

There are multiple other references, but I'm sure you get the idea. I'm also sure you have seen the same in your readings over the years.

But the question is always asked as to how and why?

There are two reasons for this. Everybody who watched and played cricket after WW1 agreed that standards had fallen significantly compared with pre-war days, especially standards of English bowling. This wasn't surprising since there had been no top-level cricket for the best part of five years and no opportunity for young players to develop. Hobbs said he found batting a lot easier after the war despite considering being at his peak in 1914. Armstrong reckoned his all-conquering side of 1921 would have lost comfortably to the 1902 tourists of which he was a member. One of the reasons the twenty years before WW1 was dubbed the Golden Age was because the balance between bat and ball was thought to be about right.



Which leads onto the second point. Pitches in Australia had been good for batting since the mid-1890s. More extensive covering after the war made them too good. During the 1920s Ponsford's average for Victoria was 102, Woodfull's 87. Alan Kippax averaged 82 for NSW and was selected for only six of the fifteen Tests for which he was available. When Bradman came on the scene and piled up a similar amount of runs, nobody took much notice.



Pitches in England now also unduly favoured batsmen. The 1928 season saw two batsmen averaging over 80 (including Hobbs at the age of 45), four more over 70 and another six over 60. Woolley's 3352 runs and 12 hundreds were not enough to see him on the boat to Australia.



Runs had become seriously devalued, unless they had been scored on a now much rarer rain-damaged pitch. The yearning for Trumper wasn't just about nostalgia. And the theory that standards always move forward in linear fashion doesn't apply here.

Then after 1948, there was an orchestrated and deliverate move to liven up the pitches. The why can be questioned, but not the results. This happened everywhere other than the Caribbean.

There there was also the explosion of bowling taken around the world, especially fast bowling. Lindwall and Miller, Johnston, Davidson, Trueman, and this only continued to progress.

It was not the same landscape.

 

[peterhrt]

peterhrt--have you had a look at Renato Carini's book on Victor Trumper published in Australia in 2018.
It seeks to justify Trumper's standing as the greatest of batters using statistics.
As with any such evaluation,the statistics and analysis deriving from them are subjective and used to fit what I assume to be his starting point/agenda.
Mind you,it's a tough read,a very un-Trumper-like read,especially for someone like me.
Your observations would be interesting.

I haven't seen the book but remember you mentioning it. Is it possible to quote a few of the author's numbers?

 

[kyear2]

That's fine and all, though I remember you used to rate Kallis in the same tier as Ponting and Gavaskar. But I asked how many tiers, are between Sobers and Don as batsmen, if Kallis and Sobers have 1 inbetween. Not the structure, but more so the gap. How many tiers gap you feel is sufficient to differ the batting of Don and Sobers.

Between Bradman and Hobbs?

One.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Between Bradman and Hobbs?

One.

So to get this straight, you think the difference in batting between Don and Sobers is the same as between Sobers and Kallis?

 

[Jane Austen]

I haven't seen the book but remember you mentioning it. Is it possible to quote a few of the author's numbers?

The book reads like a mathematical thesis!
I'll peruse it carefully and try to extract something I will understand sufficiently for me to precis and send to you.
I was hoping YOU had read it and been able to explain it all.
However,as far as I can comprehend,the premis is that a (much) larger proportion than usual of Trumper's runs were made in adverse conditions,when other batters would be all at sea,bravura innings to win games at a scoring rate unique to him and which were neccesary and vital to his team's result and that,in all,a (much) smaller proportion of the runs he made were irrelevant runs in relation to the result.
Carini seems to hint that the large scores,contrary to this premise,were mainly made at the beginning of his career when he was trying to establish himself as a top-notch player.

 

[peterhrt]

The book reads like a mathematical thesis!
I'll peruse it carefully and try to extract something I will understand sufficiently for me to precis and send to you.
I was hoping YOU had read it and been able to explain it all.
However,as far as I can comprehend,the premis is that a (much) larger proportion than usual of Trumper's runs were made in adverse conditions,when other batters would be all at sea,bravura innings to win games at a scoring rate unique to him and which were neccesary and vital to his team's result and that,in all,a (much) smaller proportion of the runs he made were irrelevant runs in relation to the result.
Carini seems to hint that the large scores,contrary to this premise,were mainly made at the beginning of his career when he was trying to establish himself as a top-notch player.

Thanks. Please don't spend too much time on it. The odd quote would be fine. Some preliminary research on the forum last year suggested that Trumper played in strong batting sides and did not dominate his teams' innings as much as one might expect. In this regard he was well behind Grace and Bradman in first-class cricket, as well as several others.

 

[The Sean]

It's an interesting question. He seems to have been able to do things others couldn't. Noble said he never saw Trumper play a forward defensive stroke on a bad wicket. He either went yards down the pitch to drive, or right back.

One also wonders whether he was sometimes used unwittingly as a stick with which to beat others, a counter to reputations believed to be inflated. Grace did not endear himself to the locals during his two trips to Australia. Ranji's success was not universally welcomed by those who saw him as a threat to Empire. Some also viewed Bradman as a threat, while a few Australian cricketers past and present resented his popularity and financial offers at a time when many were struggling during the Depression. It was impossible to argue against Bradman being the best of his own generation, so a rival had to be found from the past.

Maybe that's over-thinking it, and Trumper was just good!

Well I'm a huge fan of Vic, so I'm more than happy to jump on the "he was just good" train!

 

[kyear2]

Something I haven't seen mentioned that I think is worth considering is that bowling allrounders have arguably become less necessary/valuable the better at batting the average keeper has got throughout history.

If your keeper is going to average <25 you really need one of your frontline bowlers to average >25 and be capable of batting 7, because your keeper is going to be in the lower order or worse. These days you'll struggle to hold your spot as a keeper bat averaging in the 20s in a decent side, which means teams aren't needing one of the frontline four bowlers to be able to bat in the top 7. They still need the fifth bowler of some description though.

Not only is that fair, I think it's accurate.

I mentioned it from the perspective that we do currently have two established all round positions being the no. 6 batting all and the keeper batsman.

Think currently those are the two all rounders required for every team.

 

[kyear2]

Will you please reply to me pls

What is the problem, I didn't see it.

And even if, what's so damn pressing?

 

[kyear2]

Kohli was being spoken of as an elite ATG test batsman in 2019 or so, do you factor that in when rating him

Let's start with the grades.

Punter was seen as a BAB candidate, Kohli was seen as an upper ATG bat. But neither are there now, they've both fallen, but one fell from higher heights and is still higher.

Additionally, I was one who rated Ponting as such during that peak, Kohli's came admittedly during that period of time where I wasn't quite paying as much attention to the game.

 

[kyear2]

peterhrt--have you had a look at Renato Carini's book on Victor Trumper published in Australia in 2018.
It seeks to justify Trumper's standing as the greatest of batters using statistics.
As with any such evaluation,the statistics and analysis deriving from them are subjective and used to fit what I assume to be his starting point/agenda.
Mind you,it's a tough read,a very un-Trumper-like read,especially for someone like me.
Your observations would be interesting.

No other cricketer has received so much admiration from his contemporaries and so early in his career as Victor and the superlatives were without qualification.
Joe Darling,CB Fry,Archie MacLaren,AE Knight,Monty Noble,Pelham Warner,Ranji,Charlie McCartney,Arthur Mailey,were just a few who put our Victor on a pedestal.WG himself gave Trumper a bat with which he had played one of his great innings long ago declaring that only Trumper was worthy of it.Most tellingly perhaps,Wisden 1903,describing Trumper's glorious season the preceding summer,uses more glowing superlatives than it usually does in a whole annual.
And remember that all this hero worship came before his tragic early death in July 1915 from Brights disease and that he was not a guilded amateur---far from it.He came from a poor working-class part of Sydney.
Everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why Trumper was so idolised especially when Clem Hill,his almost exact contemporary and with very similar first-class and Test averages,was "merely" considered a very great batter..
Peterhrt made some,what I concluded to be,purposely,half-hearted,tongue-in-cheek suggestions as to why this may be.But in any case why was it Victor?
Maybe,as peterhrt goes on to suggest----he was simply THAT GOOD.

Is Barry Richards regarded similarly in this much more cynical and analytical cricket world or,more likely,will I be mocked and laughed off this thread?
Oh well,so be it.

By me and a very few others, yes. Barry was the epitome of brilliance and could do tjings other openers just couldn't.

 

[subshakerz]

Not only is that fair, I think it's accurate.

I mentioned it from the perspective that we do currently have two established all round positions being the no. 6 batting all and the keeper batsman.

Think currently those are the two all rounders required for every team.

No.6 isnt an AR position. Not unless you want to ignore all the ARs that India 2010 and SA 90s had.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not only is that fair, I think it's accurate.

I mentioned it from the perspective that we do currently have two established all round positions being the no. 6 batting all and the keeper batsman.

Think currently those are the two all rounders required for every team.

Wait but you often advocate for including Knott in an ATG XI over Gilchrist. In that scenario, doesn't having a good batsman at no.8 become important?

 

[capt_Luffy]

What is the problem, I didn't see it.

And even if, what's so damn pressing?

I mean, you think the difference between Sobers and Don as batsmen is the same as that of between Kallis and Sobers...... That's a pretty big problem.

 

[subshakerz]

Wait but you often advocate for including Knott in an ATG XI over Gilchrist. In that scenario, doesn't having a good batsman at no.8 become important?

@kyear2 explicitly said the option for an ATG XI is either Knott/Imran or Gilly/Wasim, basically acknowledging no.8 batting as important.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, you think the difference between Sobers and Don as batsmen is the same as that of between Kallis and Sobers...... That's a pretty big problem.

I am awaiting his response.

 

[kyear2]

I've been requested to select the All-Time World XI most capable of beating an All-Time Parallel Universes X1 at a venue as yet unknown,but to be at a ground which has been used for Tests.
The match is to be one of five days ( with three reserve days).

So I'm in old my primary school playground and,standing in front of me,are two hundred of the great and the good amongst those who have played first-class cricket since1865,all looking in prime condition.
They are all standing attentive,craving for me to call out their name!,
There's a tiny cherubic fellow in the front,can't be more than 17.
And another bloke in the middle row,,with a proud and defiant look and the most noble roman nose--OI,take that chewing gum out of your mouth!

So,what team do I want?
Firstly,the five greatest batters whom I think are most likely to make runs on most pitches against great bowlers regardless of anything else.
Secondly,the four greatest bowlers whom I believe are most capable of taking twenty wickets against a team which has a formidable batting line-up,again,regardless of anything else.
I would hope that the strategy of nine specialists is self evident.Quite simply put,it maximises the chances of taking twenty wickets and scoring the greatest number of runs ie BIG runs,in unknown conditions.

So two places left.
Do you choose the best wicketkeeper/batter or the best batter/keeper?
As you may expect from what I've written above,I want the principal skill of wicketkeeping to be the first consideration.Why? Two reasons.Firstly,because the better the keeper,then,by definition,the more chance of an "out of this universe catch" being taken and the less chance of a miss and,secondly,for me,the a better keeper/batter reducing the risk of giving an opposition batter a chance which could result in an incalculable number of additional runs is much more preferable to the batter/keeper giving his team,say,fifteen additional runs when the great batters in the line-up should have scored sufficient runs themselves---that's what they have been picked to do!
So to the final slot.What do we want another great batter or another great bowler
Well you have the four greatest bowlers of all time.However,the pitch may be a real flat pancake,a batters delight--a bowler could break down and it would be as well to have a top test-class bowler around as back-up.However,we have only chosen five batters,admittedly the five greatest ever,but we do need to give further sustenance to the batting.So a batting all-rounder is needed.

So now I'm gonna start selecting.

You with that alarming ,long,mushy,black beard and the stupid,silly multi-coloured cap perched on your head,step out please.
And the dapper chap playing keepy-uppy with a stump and golf ball,you too please.
Obvious and obvious.
And the third inevitable choice,the batting all-rounder who is an all-time top ten batter (at the least),a world-class left arm bowler who can,amazingly bowl slow left arm wrist spin and finger spin at Test level---c'mon,finish your beer/bet and lope your way over to join your colleagues.
And my fourth certainty,based on what I've said about wicket keepers is neat little Alan Knott,so take your bat-of-an-eyelid speed hands and feet over there and join your teammates please.
My four master bowlers---Marshall Larwood,Warne Barnes.
And I still need a second opener plus two more batters.Well,Hobbs to open,no 4 IVA Richards,no 5 the immmortal Victor Trumper.
So,in batting order:
WG
HOBBS
BRADMAN
RICHARDS
TRUMPER
SOBERS
KNOTT
MARSHALL
WARNE
LARWOOD
BARNES

I want to stress that I absolutely accept that the team I've picked can easily be pulled to pieces and is as indulgently subjective and hedonistic as having an extra pudding at a 3-star Michelin restaurant!
But the real reason for this post is to explain my premise that specialists are the fulcrum for great teams NOT all-rounders.All-rounders are an adornment,not a necessity.Bowlers who may be capable batters are no more than pleasant packaging round a ming vase! Please note--neither of the great Windies or Australian dynasties of the 1980s and the Taylor-Waugh era had great all-rounders in their teams.

Oh by the way you will see that in my team,nos 8,9 and ten have all made Test match 90s.

Something I haven't seen mentioned that I think is worth considering is that bowling allrounders have arguably become less necessary/valuable the better at batting the average keeper has got throughout history.

If your keeper is going to average <25 you really need one of your frontline bowlers to average >25 and be capable of batting 7, because your keeper is going to be in the lower order or worse. These days you'll struggle to hold your spot as a keeper bat averaging in the 20s in a decent side, which means teams aren't needing one of the frontline four bowlers to be able to bat in the top 7. They still need the fifth bowler of some description though.

I was looking for a response from another poster and came across the below.

Greg Chappell on India's slip catching and team composition at Headingley - England vs India 2025 | ESPNcricinfo https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/greg-chappell-on-india-s-slip-catching-at-headingley-1492362



It's not old, and I'm the one that posted it, but had totally forgotten about. But it reminded me of the two posts above.

BTW tldr...

Greg Chappell

The old adage about catches winning matches remains as true today as it ever was. Yet few aspects of cricket are as underappreciated - and as challenging - as the craft of fielding in the slips and the gully. In recent Tests, we've seen teams drop chances that proved costly. But rather than pointing fingers, it's worth understanding why these positions are among the most technically demanding and mentally exacting roles in the game.


I want to emphasize that neither were even in the slightest way dismissive, but it remained unmentioned. Not intentionally, but overlooked. It remains, to quote Chappell, underappreciated.

Growing up I always had a little bit of an issue with a certain tradition, ritual even. Ball delivered, edge induced, brilliant catch taken and everyone would run to the bowler. The completion was expected, almost taken for granted, while all the plaudits seemingly went to the bowler. Now as time passed and YouTube became a thing I realized that the commentators were much more effusive in their praise, but at the time it was a combination of awe of the act, and a little bemusement of the reaction.



In previous posts I've referenced quotes speaking to selection practices. Policies that I believe are not only embedding into the game, but still fundamental to success.

CMJ

He said: My side requires courage and impeccable technique from the opening batsmen, genius and attacking flair from three to seven in the order, a brilliant and effervescent wicket-keeper, and bowlers to cover every possible eventuality...Eight of the ten fielders are natural athletes who would catch anything above ground


I've always liked this little snippet from Gideon Haigh, even if it was applying to AT team, it's still applicable...

Lists of great players are static; teams are dynamic and must be designed with their functioning in mind. Who will provide the strokes and who the stability? Who will catch, at slip and at bat-pad? There's no point picking four new-ball bowlers if only two can share it; no need to pick three spinners if you're playing on seaming tracks or under cloud cover.

And there's this

✂️ how to select a test team

37 seconds · Clipped by kirksland · Original video "Geoff Boycotts Greatest English Team!" by rugbydad678

youtube.com

I don't think that it's over stated to say that the cricket community places somewhat of an elevated focus on the skill set that (despite a fairly even distribution in the poll) is seemingly underestimated or even dismissed by some factions.

In the quest for 20 wickets, a strong cordon is essential, in the pursuit of greatness, history would suggest almost mandatory.

And while as PEWS and @Jane Austen indicated, 5th bowlers will always be required at varying levels of skill and scope, depending on the team around them... the notion of the "bowling all rounder" or to be more precise, overlooking the better bowler in the interest of batting depth, seems to be one that wasn't valued quite to the extent as suggested and has been on the decline from even that starting point.

In the article shared above, it ended with the opinion that....

I don't agree that an extra batter who bowls should be selected as insurance against top-order collapses. The top six must be trusted to deliver the runs and that the best combination to secure the requisite 20 wickets is available to the captain

Kimber was equally effusive in his assessment of the no. 8 postion

Jarrod Kimber on Instagram: "India and the number 8s #cricket #testcricket #indiacricket #westindiescricket #australiacricket"

398 likes, 10 comments - ajarrodkimber on June 26, 2025: "India and the number 8s #cricket #testcricket #indiacricket #westindiescricket #australiacricket".

www.instagram.com

Tldl...

Taking 20 wickets is what wins you test matches, and has always won test matches, and you're way better off choosing your best 4 bowlers than trying to find one who can bat a bit.

It's a well developed argument.

Its no secret that I belive that there has some disconnect betwen some of the recent takes by some members of the forum and some long standing perspectives of the wider cricketing community. And this seems to be yet another....