quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
Walcott averaged 69 on the Windian pancakes and 40 elsewhere. Weekes it was 69 and 49. For Worrell, 55 and 45.

Weekes at least had a good tour of England in 1950. Walcott played one substantial innings in a meaningless situation - apart from that he was shocking. In 1957 it was the same again - one innings of substance, on a flat track. Weekes was of course unwell on the 1957 tour as we know.

Various people on here like to bash Matt Hayden for 'only' averaging 43 overseas, 20 less than his home average. How about 29 less than your home average?

Walcott is the only rival to Graeme Smith I've seen for the title of all-time FTB.

I'll grant you Weekes may be comparable to Peter May, though I still favour the Englishman myself. But not Walcott.

Leo, with all due respect - do you ever base an argument on anything other than statistics?

quote:

Originally posted by ojitarian:
Leo, with all due respect - do you ever base an argument on anything other than statistics?

Ojitarian, with all due respect - read what I've said about Peter May on this thread.

It might be good if you read what people post before you gob off.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:

quote:

Walcott only played 3 tests in Australia so its a bit tough to say he failed there anyway.

Interesting... it's fair to say Hayden failed against Ambrose on the basis of 2 matches, but not that Walcott failed in Australia on the basis of 3.

I think we've seen that May's home/away differential has little to do with conditions. His strong performances in Australia and also the West Indies contrast impressively with Walcott's subcontinental runs.

Who said that its fair to "say Hayden failed against Ambrose on the basis of 2 matches"? Certainly not me. I don't class Hayden as a FTB. Do you think its fair to label Walcott on the basis of 3 tests in Australia?

If you consider May's average of 35 in the Carribean a point in his favour then why is Walcotts average of 69 in the Carribean proof that he's a FTB?

I emphasise that i'm not knocking May here, just defending Walcott.

I think it was me that started the whole MtFTB.

BTW, Ambrose dismissed Hayden three times in less than 20 balls in three innings.

But how good was Fred?

quote:

Originally posted by ten years after:
Who said that its fair to "say Hayden failed against Ambrose on the basis of 2 matches"? Certainly not me. I don't class Hayden as a FTB. Do you think its fair to label Walcott on the basis of 3 tests in Australia?

If you consider May's average of 35 in the Carribean a point in his favour then why is Walcotts average of 69 in the Carribean proof that he's a FTB?

I emphasise that i'm not knocking May here, just defending Walcott.

I know you don't TYA - I was just having a dig. Pontoon bit.

I do think it's fair to label Walcott based on his contrasting performances against good attacks in England/Australia, and poor attacks in the subcontinent. I don't think that's unfair at all. Walcott's English test record seems very ordinary when examined closely.

Isn't May's Caribbean average affected by illness? Like Weekes' English average?

When comparing Walcott and May, I don't think it's unreasonable to recognise that May played in generally harder conditions, and was usually at his best against the best, where Walcott faltered when things were harder.

I'll throw in as an aside - Walcott never faced the fearsome South African attack of Heine, Adcock, Goddard and Tayfield that May triumphed over in 1955, but failed against in 1956-7. This is also true of Weekes.

I've previously tended to diminish Walcott's status as a great batsmen for the kind of reasons Leo has advanced here. However, a few moments of reflwction leads me to a kinder view of him.

You could note in Walcott's defence that his opponents, such as May, Bailey and Benaud rated him extremely highly. I think peer assessment is of as much significance as statistically based rating systems.

Secondly, two of his series triumphs - in 1954 against England then a year later against Australia - were achieved against pretty fine bowling attacks. Bedser rested from the England side, but it could still choose from Statham, Treueman, Bailey, Laker, Lock and Wardle.

For Australia it was the same attack that lost them no friends against Hutton's side a few months earlier, when it had been the batting that was Australia's weakness. Miller and Lindwall had series which look expensive only if no allowance is made for the perfection of some of the pitches and the strength of the batting. Benaud had his first decent bowling series.

Walcott absolutely pulverised thes bowlers over ten of the most prolific Test matched anyone bar Bradman can ever have experienced.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
I do think it's fair to label Walcott based on his contrasting performances against good attacks in England/Australia, and poor attacks in the subcontinent. I don't think that's unfair at all. Walcott's English test record seems very ordinary when examined closely.

I'll throw in as an aside - Walcott never faced the fearsome South African attack of Heine, Adcock, Goddard and Tayfield that May triumphed over in 1955, but failed against in 1956-7. This is also true of Weekes.

It seems a bit unfair to blame Walcott for not playing against South Africa.

Also, i repeat, he only played 3 tests in Australia so he cannot be labelled a failure there (his record against the states on that tour was good, though not spectacular).

It should also be remembered that his batting began to flourish at test level only after he gave up the keeping gloves in 51/52. Whether this is coincidence or not is hard to tell but he only played 1 overseas series after 51/52. This being, unfortunately, his failure in England in 57.

Also, Its not as if his average is particularly stoked up by his performances in India and NZ (averaging 65 from 7 tests).

This quote from Wisden 1951 should also be noted:
"Walcott specialised with the square cut and drive, and of the three [W's] he looked the best on wet wickets, for his defence was so sound"

So, although its true that he did not prove himself overseas this can probably be attributed to lack of opportunity rather than lack of ability. Given his reputation among his contemporaries, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Whilst Wisden might claim to be the highest cricket Authority.

I still tend to believe that it romanticises and looks favourably and fondly upon players.

You cannot take it as gospel.

quote:

Originally posted by Pontoon:
Whilst Wisden might claim to be the highest cricket Authority.

I still tend to believe that it romanticises and looks favourably and fondly upon players.

You cannot take it as gospel.

Its true that you have to read between the lines sometimes. It certainly romanticises players from previous eras.

But contemporary Wisdens can be very useful documents. It often very critical though you need to decipher the diplomatic style of writing sometimes.

They had no reason to romanticise Walcott in 1951 as this was still early in his career. Plus their praise was quite specific and fits in with other opinions i have heard/read over the years.

I don't 'blame' Walcott for not playing South Africa. But it is a relevant point when comparing him with Peter May. Also, Walcott's failure to prove himself overseas is of no small relevance in comparing him with May, who had consistent and convincing tours of Australia and the West Indies.

I'm not arguing Walcott was not a fine batsman, by the way. The Three W's were obviously very gifted players, as their performances and contemporary accounts make clear. But it's my view that the contemporary reports of May indicate that he was one of the finest batsmen ever to play test cricket, and his record against high-class opponents seems to me to demonstrate this.

Walcott had a splendid time in 1953-55, but the pitches were (as Peter notes) very flat. Based on what I know of them I would be inclined to rate Walcott & Weekes as comparable to Kanhai, but not his superior, and May as better than all three. Obviously it's perfectly reasonable to hold a differing view, as they are all very good players.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
I don't 'blame' Walcott for not playing South Africa. But it is a relevant point when comparing him with Peter May. Also, Walcott's failure to prove himself overseas is of no small relevance in comparing him with May, who had consistent and convincing tours of Australia and the West Indies.

I'm not arguing Walcott was not a fine batsman, by the way. The Three W's were obviously very gifted players, as their performances and contemporary accounts make clear. But it's my view that the contemporary reports of May indicate that he was one of the finest batsmen ever to play test cricket, and his record against high-class opponents seems to me to demonstrate this.

Walcott had a splendid time in 1953-55, but the pitches were (as Peter notes) very flat. Based on what I know of them I would be inclined to rate Walcott & Weekes as comparable to Kanhai, but not his superior, and May as better than all three. Obviously it's perfectly reasonable to hold a differing view, as they are all very good players.

I would agree that there's not much betweeen the 4 batsmen you mention. Of these four only Kanhai was succesful in Australia and only May had a record in England that matched their ability.

May's poor test record overseas is hard to explain (it IS a poor record though) and unlike Walcott, he did have plenty of opportunity in Australia. May was one of the most stylish batsmen England has ever produced and, like Walcott, did well against the state sides in Australia.

You did seem to be arguing that Walcott was not a fine batsman ('brutally embarrassing record' & 'the all-time FTB') so i felt inclined to put the record straight.

As you say, its all down to opinion in the end. I'm inclined to rate Weekes ahead of those mentioned with Walcott, May, Kanhai following.

The more I look into Barrington's record the higher he rises in my estimation. I'd originally placed him level with Walcott but maybe he should be level with Weekes.

I'd say the poverty of May's overseas record is more apparent than real, especially in Australia.
Here he averaged a tick below 40. His first tour was mostly a low scoring, intense series. It was swung by England's pace bowling but was much closer than the scoreline now suggests and Australia's bowlers were merely slower rather than less capable. May played the pivotal, series turning innings and averaged 39. Of batsmen who took part in all five games only Harvey had a higher aggregate, or bettter average.

In 1958-59 he had unusual burdens of captainy - not merely a badly losing side which had started a hot favourite and the need to deal diplomatically with a throwing controversy, but also personal attacks by tabloid English journalists as Allan detailed earlier.
Nonetheless he topped the English averages against an attack which featured Davidson and Benaud at their best, the difficult proposition of Meckiff's bent arm, plus a brief return by Lindwall.

He really only had two poor overseas series. The first in 1956-57 appears unaccountable since he was in sublime form the rest of the time. Presumably just one of those things. Most great players have at least one off season. Morever, SA had one of the stronger Test attacks of that decade.

On his final tour he was clearly a very sick man who spent the following year completely out of the game.

On balance I'd say it's a reasonable record. The bowlers he faced were rather better than those with whom Barrington so well, certainly in the latter half of his career.

quote:

Originally posted by ten years after:
You did seem to be arguing that Walcott was not a fine batsman ('brutally embarrassing record' & 'the all-time FTB') so i felt inclined to put the record straight.

Well I actually think Graeme Smith is a good batsman too... but he does have a habit of really focussing and piling it on against poor opposition and not quite being there for his team when it matters a bit more.

And I maintain the Windian pitches of the 1950s were a batting paradise, and that Walcott's runs on them need to be discounted - vide the stats for that 1954-5 series that I posted. I regard his performance in England as very poor considering the circumstances of his only 2 scores, and although in only 3 tests, he did nothing in Australia either. His good performances on tour in India and NZ suggest to me a man who had the Smith gift for piling it on when it was easier, though clearly a much better batsman than Smith overall.

For the record - I don't regard Matthew Hayden as being in the class of Peter May either. I would consider placing May in a top 15 of all time batsmen. Neither Hayden nor any of the others mentioned would have a chence of such a position.

Barrington was a very fine player, no doubts. Him v May is a tough one.

PS - I think May was successful in Australia, and not just successful but outstanding given the circumstances he faced. So that might be part of the difference in our views explained.

'Chence'... obviously I mean chance.

Richie picked Fred in his all time XI.

Would Peter May be Englands greatest ever captain?

No.

Mark Butcher?

I'm curious to know who history views as Englands greatest test captain?

Surely it can't be Jardine?

Neither Davidson nor Trueman appeared in Benaud's Eleven. The pace bowlers were Lillee, Barnes and Imran.

There are a few candidates to be considered among the best England captains, including Warner, Jackson, Chapman, Jardine, Hutton, Illingworth and Brearley.