Draft: 90s England Draft - It's Richard Blakey time

Ed Smith's Basement

1.8 Million Dollar Man
Moderator
ENG....
Wild Force
Joined
May 31, 2006
Location
Jos Buttler's Nightmares
Profile Flag
England
@blockerdave @Dale88 - So I've had a look through, and I'm honestly a bit confused why the selectors of the time had such a hard time selecting teams. I've come up with a sort of extended squad of players that would pretty much have done a job for the entire decade just fine.

View attachment 241334

Player|Span
Batsmen
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton|1990-2000
:eng: :bat: Graham Gooch|1990-1995
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart|1990-2000
:eng: :bat: Robin Smith|1990-1995
:eng: :bat: David Gower|1990-1992
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick|1990-2000
:eng: :bat: Allan Lamb|1990-1992
:eng: :bat: Nasser Hussain|1993-2000
:eng: :bat: Mark Ramprakash|1993-2000
:eng: :bat: Nick Knight|1995-1997
:eng: :bat: Graeme Thorpe|1995-2000
:eng: :bat: Mark Butcher|1998-2000
Keepers
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell|1990-2000
:eng: :wk: Paul Nixon|1990-1998
:eng: :wk: Chris Read|1999-2000
All-Rounders
:eng: :ar: Chris Lewis|1990-1992
:eng: :ar: Ian Botham|1990-1992
:eng: :ar: Craig White|1994-2000*
:eng: :ar: Paul Weekes|1995-2000
Seamers
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser|1990-1998*
:eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas|1990-1994
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm|1990-1996
:eng: :bwl: Neil Mallender|1990-1992
:eng: :bwl: Gladstone Small|1990-1991
:eng: :bwl: Martin Bicknell|1992-2000
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough|1993-2000
:eng: :bwl: Andy Caddick|1993-2000
:eng: :bwl: Dean Headley|1994-1999
:eng: :ar: Dominic Cork|1995-2000
:eng: :bwl: Alan Mullally|1997-2000
:eng: :bwl: Chris Silverwood|1999-2000
:eng: :bwl: Alex Tudor|2000-2000
Spinners
:eng: :ar: John Emburey|1990-1993
:eng: :bwl: Phil Tufnell|1990-2000
:eng: :bwl: Eddie Hemmings|1990-1991
:eng: :ar: Robert Croft|1992-2000
It's obviously not a perfect squad - going into a Test with one spinner and that spinner being Robert Croft is genuinely terrifying - but it's pretty much the best use of resources that England had available at the time. It's also one that doesn't resemble real-life England in the slightest. There's no Ian Salisbury, for example. And really, if the cookie had crumbled this way, would 90s England have produced such magical moments as Richard Blakey trying to bat against Anil Kumble? And am I just leaning on hindsight a lot or were the selectors really that incompetent at the time? I know for instance that given the opportunity, Gus Fraser would likely have carried on beyond 1998 and done so perfectly well.

I also completely forgot Craig White existed in the spreadsheet but I'm including him here.

The general approach would be to select a team that looked something like this:

1990
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Graham Gooch
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Robin Smith
:eng: :bat: David Gower
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: Chris Lewis
:eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
:eng: :bwl: Phil Tufnell
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm
1993
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Graham Gooch
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Robin Smith
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: John Emburey
:eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm
1996
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Nasser Hussain
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
:eng: :bat: Graham Thorpe
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: Robert Croft
:eng: :bwl: Andy Caddick
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm
1999
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Nasser Hussain
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
:eng: :bat: Graham Thorpe
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: Robert Croft
:eng: :ar: Dominic Cork
:eng: :bwl: Andy Caddick
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough
:eng: :bwl: Dean Headley

There are obviously some terrifying things about that side still, including Jack Russell, Test number 6 as well as Robert Croft, Test number 7 but those are the kind of sacrifices that I made to pick a team with the best chance of winning. Interested in what you guys think.

Often wondered about this since I started to notice just how random the selection seemed to be. And looking at it written like this, the selection policy makes even less sense.
 

Yash.

Staff Member
Moderator
India
Ireland
ENG....
SRH...
QG
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Melbourne Stars
Royal Mavericks
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Location
Bareilly
Profile Flag
India
Dominic Cork to be my first bowler...
 

blockerdave

ICC Chairman
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Location
London
Profile Flag
England
@blockerdave @Dale88 - So I've had a look through, and I'm honestly a bit confused why the selectors of the time had such a hard time selecting teams. I've come up with a sort of extended squad of players that would pretty much have done a job for the entire decade just fine.

View attachment 241334

Player|Span
Batsmen
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton|1990-2000
:eng: :bat: Graham Gooch|1990-1995
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart|1990-2000
:eng: :bat: Robin Smith|1990-1995
:eng: :bat: David Gower|1990-1992
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick|1990-2000
:eng: :bat: Allan Lamb|1990-1992
:eng: :bat: Nasser Hussain|1993-2000
:eng: :bat: Mark Ramprakash|1993-2000
:eng: :bat: Nick Knight|1995-1997
:eng: :bat: Graeme Thorpe|1995-2000
:eng: :bat: Mark Butcher|1998-2000
Keepers
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell|1990-2000
:eng: :wk: Paul Nixon|1990-1998
:eng: :wk: Chris Read|1999-2000
All-Rounders
:eng: :ar: Chris Lewis|1990-1992
:eng: :ar: Ian Botham|1990-1992
:eng: :ar: Craig White|1994-2000*
:eng: :ar: Paul Weekes|1995-2000
Seamers
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser|1990-1998*
:eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas|1990-1994
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm|1990-1996
:eng: :bwl: Neil Mallender|1990-1992
:eng: :bwl: Gladstone Small|1990-1991
:eng: :bwl: Martin Bicknell|1992-2000
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough|1993-2000
:eng: :bwl: Andy Caddick|1993-2000
:eng: :bwl: Dean Headley|1994-1999
:eng: :ar: Dominic Cork|1995-2000
:eng: :bwl: Alan Mullally|1997-2000
:eng: :bwl: Chris Silverwood|1999-2000
:eng: :bwl: Alex Tudor|2000-2000
Spinners
:eng: :ar: John Emburey|1990-1993
:eng: :bwl: Phil Tufnell|1990-2000
:eng: :bwl: Eddie Hemmings|1990-1991
:eng: :ar: Robert Croft|1992-2000
It's obviously not a perfect squad - going into a Test with one spinner and that spinner being Robert Croft is genuinely terrifying - but it's pretty much the best use of resources that England had available at the time. It's also one that doesn't resemble real-life England in the slightest. There's no Ian Salisbury, for example. And really, if the cookie had crumbled this way, would 90s England have produced such magical moments as Richard Blakey trying to bat against Anil Kumble? And am I just leaning on hindsight a lot or were the selectors really that incompetent at the time? I know for instance that given the opportunity, Gus Fraser would likely have carried on beyond 1998 and done so perfectly well.

I also completely forgot Craig White existed in the spreadsheet but I'm including him here.

The general approach would be to select a team that looked something like this:

1990
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Graham Gooch
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Robin Smith
:eng: :bat: David Gower
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: Chris Lewis
:eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
:eng: :bwl: Phil Tufnell
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm
1993
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Graham Gooch
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Robin Smith
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: John Emburey
:eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm
1996
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Nasser Hussain
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
:eng: :bat: Graham Thorpe
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: Robert Croft
:eng: :bwl: Andy Caddick
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough
:eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
:eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm
1999
:eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
:eng: :bat: Alec Stewart
:eng: :bat: Nasser Hussain
:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
:eng: :bat: Graham Thorpe
:eng: :wk: Jack Russell
:eng: :ar: Robert Croft
:eng: :ar: Dominic Cork
:eng: :bwl: Andy Caddick
:eng: :bwl: Darren Gough
:eng: :bwl: Dean Headley

There are obviously some terrifying things about that side still, including Jack Russell, Test number 6 as well as Robert Croft, Test number 7 but those are the kind of sacrifices that I made to pick a team with the best chance of winning. Interested in what you guys think.

There are a few reasons I think, beyond poor and capricious selectors. It could take a whole book to discuss. But a short summary would be:
  1. Poor player management. In the days before central contracts, the “county treadmill” was brutal, players could finish a test at one end of the country and expect to be playing at the other end of the country for their county the next day... The chance to keep bowlers especially injury free and in peak form was non-existent.

  2. The 90s saw a significant increase in international cricket with the rise of ODIs and the addition of Sri Lanka, South Africa and Zimbabwe to the Test roster. England suffered most as the only Northern Hemisphere side playing more or less year round, but other countries also increased their commitments, which exacerbated point 3.

  3. The decline of the West Indies and the reintegration of South Africa. In the 70s and 80s the strength of the West Indian side and South African isolation meant that there was a bevvy of World Class players in County Cricket. Also, the relative lack of international cricket meant that unless a country toured England, they were available all over the English summer. This tap was turned off in the 90s and the gap between County and International cricket was enormous. Even Atherton, Stewart and Hussain, players we think of as 90s stalwarts and the successes of the decade, took time to get established. Maynard, J Morris, H Morris, Lathwell, and others didn’t get the 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances they did.

  4. The rise of Australia. English cricket defines itself by the Ashes, the lows of the 80s are offset by a good Ashes record. But as the Aussies were building a generation-defining team, England were consumed with catching up. Players with decent records against others were discarded if they didn’t look great against Australia straight away.

  5. Botham and the balance factor. Think of the great Aussie side of the 90s/2000s or the West Indies of the 70s/80s and they had a simple pattern: 6 batsmen to score the runs, 4 bowlers to take the wickets and a good keeper to take the catches. England could never make peace with the post-Botham reality - if you’ve no world class all rounder, that template is always better than adding “bits and pieces” players for balance. Jack Russell should have played 100 tests, Alex Stewart should average 42+ as an opener/number three. Both players were compromised and England were weaker as a result. Players like Chris Lewis could have been good third seamers and handy lower order players, instead they might be opening the bowling some times when they weren’t strike bowlers, and are considered more “failed all rounders”. England would always (and still do) pick players mediocre in all disciplines than good to excellent in one and poor and in another. Phil Tufnell should have 100 tests and 400 wickets.

  6. Politics. Gooch and Gower both blossomed with age and should have been the cornerstone of English batting in the first half of the decade, instead due to their falling out Gower hardly played and was entirely jettisoned by 92. The gap from Gooch to Smith, then Smith to the others (until Athers, Stewie etc were established) was huge and put a massive burden on Gooch.
 
Last edited:

Aislabie

Black Belt in Statsguru
Moderator
Ireland
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
Wales
There are a few reasons I think, beyond poor and capricious selectors. It could take a while book to discuss. But a short summary would be:

Poor player management. In the days before central contracts, the “county treadmill” was brutal, players could finish a test at one end of the country and expect to be playing at the other end of the country for their county the next day... The chance to keep bowlers especially injury free and in peak form was non-existent.
Oh yeah, the county treadmill was and still is incredibly stupid. Obviously it's been moderated nowadays to an extent, but England still plays considerably more first-class cricket than anyone else in the world, then wonders why (a) its fast bowlers get injured every year if they bowl quicker than 130 kph and (b) its batsmen develop bad habits from playing on worn out wickets. First-class cricket is hard work - there's a reason that nowhere else in the world are players expected to play more than ten games of it in a season.

The 90s saw a significant increase in international cricket with the rise of ODIs and the addition of Sri Lanka, South Africa and Zimbabwe to the Test roster. England suffered most as the only Northern Hemisphere side playing more or less year round, but other countries also increased their commitments, which exacerbated point 3.
Yeah, this also rides on the ICC a little bit doesn't it - their inability to provide a meaningful and equitable tournament structure to Test cricket will lead to it being pretty much permanently uneven. And while it's great being able to watch Test cricket year-round, I imagine it is not so fantastic to be stuck in that environment year-round; draining both physically and emotionally if Trescothick, Harmison, Flintoff, Trott and Finn's accounts are anything to go by.

The decline of the West Indies and the reintegration of South Africa. In the 70s and 80s the strength of the West Indian side and South African isolation meant that there was a bevvy of World Class players in County Cricket. Also, the relative lack of international cricket meant that unless a country toured England, they were available all over the English summer. This tap was turned off in the 90s and the gap between County and International cricket was enormous. Even Atherton, Stewart and Hussain, players we think of as 90s stalwarts and the successes of the decade, took time to get established. Maynard, J Morris, H Morris, Lathwell, and others didn’t get the 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances they did.
Definitely agree with this. The addition of Durham in the 90s did also dilute the talent pool for a while until they got up to speed. That's not to say I'm opposed to the 18-county structure, not at all, but if you're going to have that many teams then limiting overseas talent is pretty silly. Out of about 350 players, you can accommodate a lot of non-English talent before it becomes an issue. If mediocre batsmen struggle to make it into a team that's already got two international openers is that a problem? Or is it better that he spend a year or two learning from said internationals before eventually displacing one?

The rise of Australia. English cricket defines itself by the Ashes, the lows of the 80s are offset by a good Ashes record. But as the Aussies were building a generation-defining team, England were consumed with catching up. Players with decent records against others were discarded if they didn’t look great against Australia straight away.
The whole Ashes obsession is always quite annoying, but again it's a pretty poor reflection on international cricket generally if we're prepared to tank all but one of our Test series in order to build towards the one. I think that's become less the case now but there's still a lot of hand-wringing about what kinds of bowlers will do well in Australia, even ahead of a winter in India and Sri Lanka.

Botham and the balance factor. Think of the great Aussie side of the 90s/2000s or the West Indies of the 70s/80s and they had a simple pattern: 6 batsmen to score the runs, 4 bowlers to take the wickets and a good keeper to take the catches. England could never make peace with the post-Botham reality - if you’ve no world class all rounder, that template is always better than adding “bits and pieces” players for balance. Jack Russell should have played 100 tests, Alex Stewart should average 42+ as an opener/number three. Both players were compromised and England were weaker as a result. Players like Chris Lewis could have been good third seamers and handy lower order players, instead they might be opening the bowling some times when they weren’t strike bowlers, and are considered more “failed all rounders”. England would always (and still do) pick players mediocre in all disciplines than good to excellent in one and poor and in another. Phil Tufnell should have 100 tests and 400 wickets.
Most definitely agreed about both Jack Russell and Alec Stewart. You don't improve any kind of team by weakening its strengths. As for Tufnell, I'm not sure. He was an alright spinner but not outstanding. Considerably better of a pure spinner than anyone else who was available, but it returns to my point about weakening strengths; in a bowling attack with Fraser, Malcolm, Gough and Caddick or DeFreitas, Tufnell would still only be the weakest or second weakest member so I think that unless the conditions were very spin-friendly, there wouldn't be enormous benefit in having him over an option that adds something with the bat.

Politics. Gooch and Gower both blossomed with age and should have been the cornerstone of English batting in the first half of the decade, instead due to their falling out Gower hardly played and was entirely jettisoned by 92. The gap from Gooch to Smith, then Smith to the others (until Athers, Stewie etc were established) was huge and put a massive burden on Gooch.
Oh yeah, fully agree. Five years of a Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Smith, Gower top five would have done English cricket a great deal more good than the actual reality did.
 

blockerdave

ICC Chairman
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Location
London
Profile Flag
England
Oh yeah, the county treadmill was and still is incredibly stupid. Obviously it's been moderated nowadays to an extent, but England still plays considerably more first-class cricket than anyone else in the world, then wonders why (a) its fast bowlers get injured every year if they bowl quicker than 130 kph and (b) its batsmen develop bad habits from playing on worn out wickets. First-class cricket is hard work - there's a reason that nowhere else in the world are players expected to play more than ten games of it in a season.


Yeah, this also rides on the ICC a little bit doesn't it - their inability to provide a meaningful and equitable tournament structure to Test cricket will lead to it being pretty much permanently uneven. And while it's great being able to watch Test cricket year-round, I imagine it is not so fantastic to be stuck in that environment year-round; draining both physically and emotionally if Trescothick, Harmison, Flintoff, Trott and Finn's accounts are anything to go by.


Definitely agree with this. The addition of Durham in the 90s did also dilute the talent pool for a while until they got up to speed. That's not to say I'm opposed to the 18-county structure, not at all, but if you're going to have that many teams then limiting overseas talent is pretty silly. Out of about 350 players, you can accommodate a lot of non-English talent before it becomes an issue. If mediocre batsmen struggle to make it into a team that's already got two international openers is that a problem? Or is it better that he spend a year or two learning from said internationals before eventually displacing one?


The whole Ashes obsession is always quite annoying, but again it's a pretty poor reflection on international cricket generally if we're prepared to tank all but one of our Test series in order to build towards the one. I think that's become less the case now but there's still a lot of hand-wringing about what kinds of bowlers will do well in Australia, even ahead of a winter in India and Sri Lanka.


Most definitely agreed about both Jack Russell and Alec Stewart. You don't improve any kind of team by weakening its strengths. As for Tufnell, I'm not sure. He was an alright spinner but not outstanding. Considerably better of a pure spinner than anyone else who was available, but it returns to my point about weakening strengths; in a bowling attack with Fraser, Malcolm, Gough and Caddick or DeFreitas, Tufnell would still only be the weakest or second weakest member so I think that unless the conditions were very spin-friendly, there wouldn't be enormous benefit in having him over an option that adds something with the bat.


Oh yeah, fully agree. Five years of a Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Smith, Gower top five would have done English cricket a great deal more good than the actual reality did.

Tufnell was an excellent spinner (in the context of English finger spinners of the era - he was no Murali or Warne, perhaps not even a Swann) and streets ahead of Hemmings, Such, Illingworth, Salisbury and the post-ban Emburey. Tufnell should have been the main English spinner through the decade.

Add Tufnell to a 3-man seam attack of any of the sets below and England would have been a vastly better side.

Start of decade: Malcolm, Fraser, Small, Watkin, Lewis

Middle of Decade: Malcolm, Fraser, Gough, Watkin, Caddick, Bicknell

End of Decade: Gough, Caddick, Headley, Bicknell, Tudor
 

ahmedleo414

The Real Universe Boss
PAK...
LQ
Avengers
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Location
Toronto
Profile Flag
Canada
Okay so here is the write up on my team so far.

Michael Atherton


Stats||Matches||Runs||HS||:bat: Ave||100s/50s
First-Class| |336| |21,929| |268*| |40.83| |54/107
Test| |115| |7,728| |185*| |37.69| |16/46

His bio from cricinfo:

"Gutsy and stubborn, single-minded and sledger-proof, Mike Atherton was an opener in the classic English tradition, making batting look like trench warfare. Defence was his forte, but when his bad back wasn't playing up, he hooked freely and timed the ball sweetly through point. In opponents' eyes, he was England's most wanted man for the seven years until his retirement at the end of the 2001 Ashes. Thrust into the captaincy at the age of 25, he proved more durable than successful, but after finally resigning in 1998, he slipped comfortably into the role of elder statesman."

Andrew Flintoff


Stats||Matches||Runs||HS||:bat: Ave||100s/50s||Wkts||BBI||BBM||:bwl: Ave||Econ||5w/10w
First-Class| |183| |9,027| |167| |33.80| |15/53| |350| |5/24| |?| |31.59| |2.91| |4/0
Test| |79| |3,845| |123| |31.77| |5/26| |226| |5/58| |8/156| |32.78| |2.97| |3/0

His bio from cricinfo:

"Future generations might look at Andrew Flintoff's career figures and wonder what all the fuss was about. In Tests he averaged 31 with bat, and 32 with ball. For all the talk of fearsome fast bowling, only three five-fors featured among his 226 wickets. His one-day figures were good without being outstanding, and his Lancashire ones nothing special. But what the stats don't show is his presence, and the uplifting effect that Flintoff at his finest had on his team-mates, and crowds. The game treasures few things more than an all-action allrounder. Flintoff became one of English cricket's iconic figures and his presence helped to gain the game popularity as the new century developed."

Nasser Hussain


Stats||Matches||Runs||HS||:bat: Ave||100s/50s
First-Class| |334| |20,698| |207| |42.06| |52/108
Test| |96| |5,764| |207| |37.18| |14/33

His bio from cricinfo:

"Brought up by his Indian-born, Essex-based coach of a father with the ambition to represent England, Nasser Hussain's desire was such that he was prepared to forgo his natural style - opening the face of the bat, running the ball to third man - to succeed at Test level. His success was a triumph of willpower over several technical deficiencies including a dominant bottom hand and unorthodox leg and head positions which led him to lean back in the drive.

Taking over from Alec Stewart in July 1999, Hussain established himself as the best and - not coincidentally - the most articulate England captain since Mike Brearley. Under Hussain, England won four Test series in a row for the first time since Brearley, and rose to third place in the ICC Test Championship table when it was launched, after being ninth and last in the prototype Wisden World Championship in September 1999. Hussain's style of captaincy was a reflection of his personality, never static, always full of energy and ideas."

And my pick for this turn

John Crawley


Stats||Matches||Runs||HS||:bat: Ave||100s/50s||Cts/Sts
First-Class| |351| |24,364| |311*| |46.49| |54/133| |222/1
Test| |37| |1,800| |156*| |34.61| |4/9| |29/0

His bio from cricinfo:

"After becoming the leading run-scorer for England Under-19s in youth Tests - and the first player to pass 1,000 runs - several big scores for Cambridge, Lancashire and England A paved the way for his Test debut, against South Africa in 1994, but he was undone by the Lord's slope, and never quite shook off the accusation that he didn't know where his off stump was. Crawley was in and out of the Test team after that, despite caressing consecutive hundreds against Pakistan in 1996 and hitting out freely to score 156 not out in Muttiah Muralitharan's Oval Test of 1998."


So here is my team so far:

  1. ?
  2. :eng: :bat: Michael Atherton
  3. ?
  4. :eng: :bat: Nasser Hussain
  5. :eng: :ar: Andrew Flintoff
  6. :eng: :wkb: John Crawley
  7. ?
  8. ?
  9. ?
  10. ?
  11. ?

@Dale88 you have the next pick
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ahmedleo414

The Real Universe Boss
PAK...
LQ
Avengers
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Location
Toronto
Profile Flag
Canada
honestly, I had too many to do, so i didn't have time to proof read them all. I just copied and pasted
 

Ed Smith's Basement

1.8 Million Dollar Man
Moderator
ENG....
Wild Force
Joined
May 31, 2006
Location
Jos Buttler's Nightmares
Profile Flag
England
Cant have Beefy without Lamby. A man who's facial hair and perm combo almost rivals his batting average as his best feature. I'm on for one hell of a 90s barnet XI with Lamb, Botham and Russell. And we can run this advert back as a pre match gee up

68250b6e935e71a888b1edb39b6c7941.jpg




5.:eng: Allan Lamb:bat:
6.:eng: Ian Botham :ar:
7.:eng: Jack Russell:wkb:
11.:eng: Andy Caddick:bwl:[DOUBLEPOST=1609182957][/DOUBLEPOST]@Aislabie
 

Aislabie

Black Belt in Statsguru
Moderator
Ireland
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
Wales


:eng: :bat: Graeme Hick

90s Tests - 3,005 runs @ 34.14 (5 centuries, best 178) and 22 wickets @ 57.09 (best 4/126) in 54 matches
Test career - 3,383 runs @ 31.32 (6 centuries, best 178) and 23 wickets @ 56.78 (best 4/126) in 63 matches
First-class career - 41,112 runs @ 52.23 (136 centuries, best 405*) and 232 wickets @ 44.43 (5 5WI, best 5/18) in 526 matches

England never got the best out of Graeme Hick, and for that they will never be forgiven. I'm not setting my sights too high, but if he'd been told that the number four spot was his own, and that he needn't worry about exhausting himself toiling for Worcestershire to regain his place in the side every month or so, his batting average could and should have been up around the 40 mark. Hick was another player who was surprisingly silent and sensitive, and who would not have been at home in the deeply political England dressing room.

@Aislabie's XI so far:
1.
2.
3.
4. :eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
5. :eng: :bat: David Gower
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. :eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
11. :eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm

@blockerdave
 

blockerdave

ICC Chairman
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Location
London
Profile Flag
England
Well, I said Tufnell was a class above any other English spinner of the decade and I stand by it, hence I will very gladly snap him up now.

  1. Graham Gooch
  2. -
  3. -
  4. Robin Smith
  5. -
  6. -
  7. -
  8. -
  9. Darren Gough
  10. Dean Headley
  11. Phil Tufnell
[DOUBLEPOST=1609188395][/DOUBLEPOST]Back to @Aislabie
 

Aislabie

Black Belt in Statsguru
Moderator
Ireland
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
Wales


:eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas

90s Tests - 730 runs @ 16.22 (best 88) and 114 wickets @ 29.85 (3 5WI, best 7/70) in 31 matches
Test career - 934 runs @ 14.82 (best 88) and 140 wickets @ 33.57 (4 5WI, best 7/70) in 44 matches
First-class career - 10,991 runs @ 22.75 (10 centuries, best 123*) and 1,248 wickets @ 27.89 (61 5WI, best 7/21) in 372 matches

When Phillip DeFreitas arrived in the England side as a mere 20-year-old, he wasn't quite ready, and by the end of 1989 his early-career numbers were bad. Throughout the early to mid 1990s though, he was a crucially dependable cog in the English bowling attack. He was an accurate seamer who could swing the ball both ways as opposed to a tearaway quick - but as a third seamer behind the new ball options o Fraser and Malcolm, he's absolutely ideal.

@Aislabie's XI so far:
1.
2.
3.
4. :eng: :bat: Graeme Hick
5. :eng: :bat: David Gower
6.
7.
8. :eng: :ar: Phillip DeFreitas
9.
10. :eng: :bwl: Angus Fraser
11. :eng: :bwl: Devon Malcolm

@Dale88
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top