The first Cricket sheep thread

NM said:
1 Hunte
2 Edrich/??
3 Edrich/??
4 Crowe
5 Lloyd
6 Ames
7 Hooper
8 Mahmood
9 Hall
10 Mahmood
11 Donald

Thoughts? Can go for an opener or middle order bat.

Happy with 3 quicks and a spinner, with part time support from hooper
Click to expand...

Did you miss someone there?

In regards to opener/MO,You got plenty of option to those spots.
 
Aldo said:
Oh there are solid arguments against him as well if you want to go there. Like anyone else.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of arguments against him, yes, but most of it would equally apply to all players of that era and yet all statistics suggest he was far ahead of his contemporaries.
 
Why did I go for Vaughan earlier? So many better options here that won't get picked. :mad:
 
Akash said:
There are plenty of arguments against him, yes, but most of it would equally apply to all players of that era and yet all statistics suggest he was far ahead of his contemporaries.
Click to expand...
That's the main argument, that the statistical evidence doesn't directly correlate to the quality of his contemporaries.
The game was much different then, and it was called the Gentlemen's game for a reason. At times it stopped being a competitive sport, even at the biggest stages.
To give an example, Jack Hobbs used to deliberately throw away his wicket as soon as he reached a century to the best opposition bowler as a mark of respect for his hard work. Bradman was actually frowned upon as he was one of the first few who would continue hammering bowlers even after getting a century.
Now how do you take any stats and records seriously after reading stuff like this?
 
Aldo said:
That's the main argument, that the statistical evidence doesn't directly correlate to the quality of his contemporaries.
The game was much different then, and it was called the Gentlemen's game for a reason. At times it stopped being a competitive sport, even at the biggest stages.
To give an example, Jack Hobbs used to deliberately throw away his wicket as soon as he reached a century to the best opposition bowler as a mark of respect for his hard work. Bradman was actually frowned upon as he was one of the first few who would continue hammering bowlers even after getting a century.
Now how do you take any stats and records seriously after reading stuff like this?
Click to expand...

I very much doubt Jack Hobbs gave his wicket each and every time he got a hundred. That seems suspiciously like a urban legend that has grown from a one-off incident.
 
Akash said:
I very much doubt Jack Hobbs gave his wicket each and every time he got a hundred. That seems suspiciously like a urban legend that has grown from a one-off incident.
Click to expand...
It is his own account and verified by journalists and writers of the time.
But yes obviously who knows if he said that to undermine the statistical side of the game, specially when an Aussie was at the top.
 
Aldo said:
Cricket especially has gone through such massive changes over the years that if you sit down to objectively compare the players 100 years apart you'll end up nowhere.

Since this is over and no new names can be picked, what about W G Grace? There is literally no way, not a single one, to put him in comparison to a modern cricketer. He's as close to what you will get to a 'father' of cricket.
Click to expand...
I desperately regretted picking Smith when I realized Grace was still around. Was very surprised no one picked him up. Would have been a top choice as far as I'm concerned. The only way to compare players across eras is to see how they matched up against their peers, and Grace was head and shoulders above the others of his generation.
 
RedTiger said:
Considering this is a competition and it's a sport based on statistics, I'd say the batting position will be important:)
Click to expand...
It may not be as clear cut as you think.

I mean if you stick an opener in the middle order, it obviously won't work. But someone like Laxman who played majority of his cricket at no.6 for India, could easily have played at no. 3 if not for Dravid. His 281 at Eden Gardens was while playing at no.3. Also, I don't think there would be much of a difference if a batsman who played majority of his career at no. 5 is picked to play at no. 6 in a team.
 
Akshay said:
I desperately regretted picking Smith when I realized Grace was still around. Was very surprised no one picked him up. Would have been a top choice as far as I'm concerned. The only way to compare players across eras is to see how they matched up against their peers, and Grace was head and shoulders above the others of his generation.
Click to expand...
That's true and great, but can you imagine this guy coming in to face Michael Holding and Malcolm Marshall?

WG-Grace_794838a.jpg


There's never going to be an answer about the true greatness of past legends in any sport. Just have fun, no point in dwelling into it.
 
Akash said:
I very much doubt Jack Hobbs gave his wicket each and every time he got a hundred. That seems suspiciously like a urban legend that has grown from a one-off incident.
Click to expand...

There is a quote attributed to Wilfred Rhodes: He was the greatest batsman of my time. I learned a lot from him when we went in first together for England. He had a cricket brain and the position of his feet as he met the ball was always perfect. He could have scored thousands more runs, but often he was content to throw his wicket away when he had reached his hundred and give someone else a chance. He knew the Oval inside out and I know that A.P.F. Chapman was thankful for his advice when we regained the Ashes from Australia in 1926.
 
Aldo said:
Cricket especially has gone through such massive changes over the years that if you sit down to objectively compare the players 100 years apart you'll end up nowhere.

Since this is over and no new names can be picked, what about W G Grace? There is literally no way, not a single one, to put him in comparison to a modern cricketer. He's as close to what you will get to a 'father' of cricket.
Click to expand...

Agree on the main.

My original point wasn't so much modern era vs bygone era. We have these discussions all the time in sport. I was just commenting on the ambiguity of selections and did provide some both ways.

My immediate thought on Shane Watson was how someone considered an underachiever makes it in an all time team. Having watched him get chance after chance for years and fluff them it seemed odd.

Then seeing his stats which are all round fairly good it seems not so bad. At 5/6/7 his stats compliment nicely.

From my own team, Nathan Astle ordinarily should not be near this draft. I knew him as a solid player when watching him but again his stats surprised me enough to pick him

Other guys like Ken Barrington and Everton Weekes are statistical monsters who frankly I'd never heard of. They're not even on ESPN's Legends of Cricket!

I enjoyed researching these guys and other all timers and delved into history I never knew.

Just for the purpose of judgement nonetheless, these old timers have ridiculous stats, giants of the time but also little to no footage. We're only picking them because Cricinfo statsguru tell us they're awesome.

Other less statistically dominant players have footage to point to as well as opinion pieces.

I'm not complaining since I went after a few. As long as it's not like top trumps then fair do's.
 
Since we're talking about the Golden Oldies, here's a bit on Our Lohmann. Horrible shame he passed so young.


image_20130602105736.jpg

George Lohmann took a mind-boggling 112 wickets in 18 Tests at an average of 10.75 and a strike rate of 34.1 and both stand as the best among those who have captured at least 15 Test wickets

He was charming, tall, fair-haired and handsome — irresistible to the ladies. The Surrey crowd loved to call him ‘Our George’. He was 26 when he went on his last Australian tour, and the Bulletin reported, “[Andrew] Stoddart and [George] Lohmann are the best-looking men in the English eleven.” On the same tour, captain WG Grace remarked that all the ladies were in love with Lohmann.

He had a wonderful sense of humour too. There is the tale of a match against All England, with a village fair going on in the adjacent field. The game was close, the last pair in, and he had been fielding in the deep, with the stall of cocoa-nut shies just behind him on the fair ground. The ball was hit towards him, and in came his throw, straight into the wicketkeeper’s gloves, running the batsman out and winning the match. What was kept a well-guarded secret was that the bails had been taken off not with the ball, but the cocoa-nut Lohmann had sent streaking in from the deep!

And in his time, he was also the best bowler of England — and perhaps in the whole world. Grace was not only eloquent about his obvious attractions that bewitched the ladies. Although he did have some conflicts with Lohmann during the tour to Australia, the grand old man had nothing but praise for his bowling. “He has no superior as a bowler… He bowls above medium pace —indeed he might almost be classed as fast — has a beautiful action and keeps a splendid length. He alters his pace without altering his action… Today, it is simply ludicrous to watch batsman after batsman walk into [his] trap … it is a triumph of the bowler’s art”

According to CB Fry, who was a teammate in South Africa with Lohmann during the latter’s last — and supremely successful — tour, “He made his own style of bowling and a beautiful style it was — so beautiful that none but a decent cricketer could fully appreciate it … owing to his naturally high delivery, the ball described a pronounced curve and dropped sooner than expected.”

Had he been blessed with sturdier constitution and had not been over-bowled, George Lohmann could have achieved much more than the already mind-boggling 112 wickets in 18 Tests matches. The tally was acquired with a monster average of 10.75 and a strike rate of 34.1 — and both stand as the best among those who have captured at least 15 Test wickets. Batsmen who faced him unanimously marked him out as the most difficult to play. He could seam both ways, pitch them with uncanny precision on the proverbial coin, and experiment with flight, pace and angle without compromising on length and accuracy. More often than not he was unplayable, as borne out by his incredible figures.

Fifteen of those 18 Tests were played against Australia. And after the first two in the summer of 1886, his figures stood at one measly wicket for 87 runs. The avalanche commenced with the third Test at The Oval, where he routed the tourists for 68 with figures of 30.2-17-36-7. In the second innings Australia did a little better, scoring 149. Lohmann took five for 68 in another 37 overs.

On three tours to Australia, he captured 41 wickets at an average of just over 11. This included two mesmerising spells at Sydney, amounting to eight for 35 in 1886-87 and eight for 58 in 1891-92.
In all, England won 12 of the matches against Australia with Lohmann in the team, and lost just three. Against South Africa Lohmann left no other option but for them to win all three.

As luck would have it

However, the very association of Lohmann with cricket was fortuitous. He was born in Campden Hill Road, Kensington. The place gained fame down the years after Violet Hunt and Ford Maddox Ford set up a salon during the turn of the century, a few yards away from the house where Lohmann spent his early years. It is now famed as a meeting place of HG Wells, Arnold Bennett, Joseph Conrad, Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis and John Galsworthy.

During his early days, Lohmann played for the Upper Tooting Church Institute, the educational, social and sporting arm of the Anglican Church of St Mary Magdalene. And he spent a fair amount of time as a kid at The Oval, watching the stars of the day engage in cricketing encounters.

Yet, he did not play very seriously after his boyhood and his introduction to Surrey was purely accidental – like so many of our life changing incidents. A friend of his was chosen for a Colt’s match at The Oval and Lohmann had accompanied him to the ground. He had been batting as his friend was turning his arm over at the nets when the head groundsman asked him to leave since he was not playing in the match. Lohmann later wrote: “I was dreadfully disappointed, so I walked disconsolately away. In a few minutes Dick Humphrey came up and asked ‘Will you kindly go to the nets again — the Hon. Robert Grimston wants to see you bat.’ I did as I was asked and went through a sort of test performance — and through this I afterwards played for Surrey, for I was asked to play in the colts’ match in 1884.”

Yes, Lohmann was a handy batsman too — and ended up with three hundreds in First-Class cricket. In the late 1880s, he was considered the best all-round cricketer of England. Yet, it was soon his bowling that caught the eye. His first wicket was illustrious, WG Grace caught at gully. And in the last match of the season, against Sussex, his figures were four for 23 and five for 35. He had arrived.

The first case of burnout?

By the end of the Australian summer of 1891-92, Lohmann had played 14 Tests and had captured 74 wickets at 12.83. He was just 26, and his career promised to sail past every known and unknown horizon.
In 1887, he had bowled Surrey to the championship with 154 wickets. From 1888 to 1890, he had captured more than 200 scalps each summer. However, he was perhaps one of the first bowlers to suffer burnout.

From 1886 to 1891-92, Lohmann had bowled the equivalent of roughly 1500 six-ball overs per season. And he was well above medium pace. It was not a fault of his captains. Even when WG Grace himself had offered to give him a break, Lohmann had responded, “You mean to put me on from the other end?” To Lohmann, a break meant change of ends. His zest for the game kept him perennially itching to have a go at the batsmen. He revelled at being in the thick of things. And even when taking a breather from First-Class and Test cricket, he played continuously in village games, festive matches and exhibitions.
The first indication of breakdown became apparent in early June, 1892, when he bowled sparingly against Nottinghamshire and sat out against Cambridge University due to ‘a touch of pleurisy’.

And then in the autumn of 1892, fate inserted a deadly spoke in the joyous wheel of his cricketing and other fortunes. He was diagnosed with tuberculosis, or consumption as it was known in those days. It would be three and a half years before he would play First-Class cricket again.

Following the instructions of the physicians of the day, he spent his winters in South Africa. Yet, when he occasionally returned for the summers he was far from a healthy man, a mere shadow of the youth he had once been.
Click to expand...
 
The last Tests

He did turn out for Western Province and on the matting wickets of South Africa, he proved more unplayable than ever. When a second string England side toured under Sir Tim O’Brien in 1896, he joined forces with his countrymen and tormented the South African batsmen. The country had cared for him, provided the warmth to counter the cold viciousness of tuberculosis. Yet, Lohmann did not return the on the cricket field.

The first Test was played at Port Elizabeth — a three day fixture. England’s first innings total of 185 hardly looked daunting. By the end of the first day, South Africa had been demolished. Opening the attack and bowling unchanged for 15.4 five ball overs, Lohmann had picked up seven for 38. He used the matting wicket to diabolical effect – all his seven victims had their stumps rattled. South Africa managed just 93. The English second innings amounted to 226 set an almost impossible target of 319, but importantly, the Englishmen batted long enough to make it almost inevitable that the match would spill into the third day.

But, Lohmann did not think so. He needed just 49 balls to skittle out eight batsmen for seven runs. South Africa managed 30 in 18.4 overs, and the match ended with some time to spare on the second day. In his 16th over, Lohmann bowled Frederick Cook and Bonnor Middleton, and then had Joseph Willoughby caught by Tom Hayward, to end the match with a hat-trick.

Fifteen wickets as cheap as they come was not enough for this young man starved of international cricket for half a decade. In the next Test at Old Wanderers, Johannesburg, brought on as first change, he took nine for 28 in the first innings. It stood as the best analysis in the history of Test cricket until Jim Laker went past it at Old Trafford in 1956 by capturing all ten.

And in the last Test at Cape Town he captured seven for 42 in the first innings. Lohmann ended the series with 35 wickets at 5.80 apiece.

Yet, fate allowed him just one more Test match. He appeared at Lord’s against Australia and Grace asked him to open the bowling alongside young Tom Richardson. Lohmann was hardly at his peak, and struggled to get into rhythm. However, he managed to bowl unchanged for figures of 11-6-13-3. Tom Richardson took six and Australia were skittled out for 53
Click to expand...
 
Astle did play one of the most mind boggling innings you're ever likely to see in Tests, though I don't think he did much else.
 
Akash said:
Astle did play one of the most mind boggling innings you're ever likely to see in Tests, though I don't think he did much else.
Click to expand...

I wanted Damien Martyn to get a free flowing batsman in. Think Samid took him though.

After that I was looking at players with lower batting quality but provided a handy bowling change.

It was a toss up between Astle and Collingwood and in the end I felt Paul was a tad ungainly. With my top 3 I needed some flair!
 
Boycott said:
I wanted Damien Martyn to get a free flowing batsman in. Think Samid took him though.

After that I was looking at players with lower batting quality but provided a handy bowling change.

It was a toss up between Astle and Collingwood and in the end I felt Paul was a tad ungainly. With my top 3 I needed some flair!
Click to expand...
I was going to go with either collingwood or watson
 
RedTiger said:
I was going to go with either collingwood or watson
Click to expand...

You've got Kallis - the greatest all rounder statistically. And then quality batsmen like Miandad, Taylor and Ganguly. Is Watson going to be a lower order basher?
 
Boycott said:
You've got Kallis - the greatest all rounder statistically. And then quality batsmen like Miandad, Taylor and Ganguly. Is Watson going to be a lower order basher?
Click to expand...
Was going to play him at 6 but the main reason I picked him was because he swung the ball well and would of complimented Merv with kallis and klusener adding pace support.
 
Boycott said:
You've got Kallis - the greatest all rounder statistically. And then quality batsmen like Miandad, Taylor and Ganguly. Is Watson going to be a lower order basher?
Click to expand...
??

Sobers has better stats (adjusted for his era) and Imran had like a 10 year run averaging 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball. I love Kallis but he doesn't have that peak
 
Aldo said:
Cricket especially has gone through such massive changes over the years that if you sit down to objectively compare the players 100 years apart you'll end up nowhere.

Since this is over and no new names can be picked, what about W G Grace? There is literally no way, not a single one, to put him in comparison to a modern cricketer. He's as close to what you will get to a 'father' of cricket.
Click to expand...

I considered him but Grace has close to a 1000 runs and 10 wickets in his test career. FC record was exceptional but not test
 
I'll be travelling for the next couple of days. Is there somebody I could tell who/what position I'd like to pick for the next two rounds as long as this one doesns't go through? @zing maybe?
 
If we had known our opponents before this round we coulda fecked with them. Adds another dynamic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.