The Australian attack in 1958-9 was spearheaded by two bowlers who can reasonably be compared to the modern McWarne combo, with support from various illegals like Meckiff and Rorke and the veteran Lindwall. In terms of difficulty facing them, probably the best all-round attack Australia produced between 1948 and 2000.

In the midst of a 4-0 thrashing, I reckon May's 405 runs are a mighty performance, constituting over 20% of England's runs off the bat. His 113 in the second test was a particularly splendid innings, starting at 3/8 on the first morning with Davidson on fire. Cowdrey took 208 balls over his 44 at the other end - that says something about the difficulty of batting.

PS - With the Ashes gone, he failed in the final test, finally cracking under the strain one suspects. Up to that point he had 390 runs @ 48.75 in the series.

quote:

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

Pete, what do you think to Freddie Brown? It seemed he did wonders with a poor, war-torn team.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
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.

Benaud's side was a personal one though, and I doubt you would ever get a consensus of which three fast bowlers to include in such a selection, especially if you require one of them to be an all rounder! Also, Barnes inclusion as a prewar bowler narrows the field sharply. For the record, my personal choice would be Marshall, Trueman and either Lillee or McGrath, with the last replaced by Imran or Miller if we are looking for an all rounder.

As for England captains, I'd add Vaughan to your list of potentials, but would probably go for either Brearley or Hutton.

We're all entitled to our own view HCC, and I would not greatly dissent from your list - only the bowler you name second would be out of my top four or five.

Possibly the requirement that one choice must be an all rounder would simplify matters, since I'd guess most people would incline towards Imran, who was a better batsman than Davidson and Hadlee, who were both better bowlers than Miller.
Hadlee was possibly the best bowler out of all of them, but would rival Davidson as the least strong batsman [I'd suggest he was the weakest in this regard, whilst Davidson was the best fielder of them all].

On Freddie Brown, he was a player of courage who came to Australia originally as a wrist spinner on Jardine's tour, then captained in 1950.

He seems to have been treated rather chivalrously by Lindwall and Miller until late in the series. Hassett possibly out-thought him in one game.

Brown was very popular in Australia, where crowds had tired of Australian dominance and the still recent war had mostly drawn the countries closer. There are reports of Australia's narrow victory in Melbourne, which put them 2 - nil up, was received by the crowd almost in silence.

That England side was badly chosen with too many inexperienced players who mostly failed badly. Some memoirs suggest that Brown did not understand some of these youngsters, notably Brian Close, and handled them poorly.

Edrich and Les Jackson, unaccountably left behind, would have strengthened the team immeasurably. As it was, the series was moderately well contested and England won the last game easily.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
On Freddie Brown, he was a player of courage who came to Australia originally as a wrist spinner on Jardine's tour, then captained in 1950.

He seems to have been treated rather chivalrously by Lindwall and Miller until late in the series. Hassett possibly out-thought him in one game.

Brown was very popular in Australia, where crowds had tired of Australian dominance and the still recent war had mostly drawn the countries closer. There are reports of Australia's narrow victory in Melbourne, which put them 2 - nil up, was received by the crowd almost in silence.

That England side was badly chosen with too many inexperienced players who mostly failed badly. Some memoirs suggest that Brown did not understand some of these youngsters, notably Brian Close, and handled them poorly.

Edrich and Les Jackson, unaccountably left behind, would have strengthened the team immeasurably. As it was, the series was moderately well contested and England won the last game easily.

Cheers Peter, that's a quality insight. All I have is biased EWS's account and a smattering of words in a Northants book. Heard he was a decent man-manager and brought a sullen, shattered team together. Expect his win record wasn't good enough to deserve a mention.

We have all read many tributes to Fred Trueman in the last week or so, many with vivid descriptions of his model action, bowling style and versatile skills.

I thought I'd balance matters by finding a non partisan description of Davidson. It comes from one of Alan Ross's excellent tour books from the period, "Australia 63" which is a fascinating document for social as well as cricket historians, and better written than most other sports books.

He begins with Davidson's bowling in the Third Test of the 1962-63 series, and then to a more general assessment:

"Davidson, getting life from the wicket of a kind Statham and Trueman never hinted at, swung away and into Barington like a magnetic compass gone beserk. It was bowling altogeher unnerving in its vitality, its violent lateness of movement...

"Davidson, yet again, showed that, fresh and with the new ball, he remained the master. No bowler of pace has so swung the ball since the war nor cut it so sharply off the seam...

"This Australian triumph had not been a team one; it belonged to Davidson alone"
--------------------------------------------------------
"Davidson, for long deprived of the new ballby lindwall and Miller, both for NSW and Australia - for Australia Bill Johnston also got earlier use of it - emerged finally as the greatest exponent of fast left arm bowling since the war. During his Test apprenticeship he fielded at leg slip so magnificently - his particular yen was for Hutton, whose leg glances he intercepted from positions that seemed in no way involved - and battted at Number 8 with such dash that it seemed of little consequence whether he bowled or not.
In fact, he was always primarily a bowler and once Lindwall and Miller were out of the way he quickly established himself. He learned from Johnston the angles at the disposal of the left hander, the use of the crease and the way to slant the ball across the body or cut it off the seam. But where Johnston bowled with nagging accuracy at fast-medium, Davidson was able, over short periods, to produce bursts of real speed. He had a nasty bouncer, his in-swing was sharp and late, he got the ball to go with the arm outside the off stump and lif devastatingly..."


In his tour summary, he makes this observation of Trueman and Davidson:

"On the same side, with their contrasting methods, they would have made a glorious combination. Trueman had a slight edge in pace, Davidson exploited the more bewildering swing"



Another fine cricket writer, Ian peebles [a former talented Test legspinner for England" wrote in the Barclay's World of Cricket {1980 edition] that Davidson had:

"fair claims to be the best new ball bowler in the world by...1958-59...[he]bowled genuinely fast without quite equalling the speed of Lindwall and Miller. He ran a lively 15 yards, a modest distance...culminating in a strong, wheeling action. His delivery lacked classical grace, as he made less use of his right arm than the purist would demand, but gave an impression of immense, resilient strength. The new ball he could move very late in the air, and off the pitch in either direction...in the field his ability to move imediately and astonishingly fast enabled him to bring off many spectacular catches close to the wicker, while in the deep he was just as sure, and a fine thrower..."

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
"On the same side, with their contrasting methods, they would have made a glorious combination. Trueman had a slight edge in pace, Davidson exploited the more bewildering swing"

Spreading more envy for that cricket library of yours peterg!

The above quote pretty well sums the debate up. A BEST OF team from the early 60s would have a new ball spearhead competitive with any other period.

As an addendum to peterg's piece on Freddie Brown, he started out as a promising all-rounder for Surrey, coming with a great reputation from The Leys and Cambridge, where he headed both the batting and bowling averages in both seasons that he played there. He didn't disappoint, doing the double in his first full season for Surrey in 1932 (although he had appeared in two Tests against New Zealand the previous season). It obviously helped that his county captain, Jardine, was also England captain. He did not play in any of the "Bodyline" Tests against Australia, Hedley Verity and the Derbyshire leg-spinner, Mitchell, being preferred but he played in both Tests against New Zealand when Hammond made his double- then triple-century.

However he hadn't appeared in a Test for 12 years when asked to become England captain halfway through the series against New Zealand in 1949 when George Mann, the Middlesex captain, (who had succeeded Normanm Yardley) decided to give up the England captaincy because of the pressure of running the family brewery. In the meantime he had gone through six years' war service which included three years in a POW camp with a colleagure from the "Bodyline" tour, the Yorkshire fast bowler, Bill Bowes.

He had allowed his registration with Surrey to lapse and had moved to Northampton for business reasons and was invited to captain the county in the same season as he captained England. He managed to revitalise a county side that untilhis arrival had been moribund. There was no England tour after the 1949 season and Yardley was brought back as Test captain in the first 3 matches against the West Indies in 1950 but was dropped for the last Test at the Oval in favour of Brown and despite suffering the heaviest defeat of the series, losing by an innings and 56 runs after being made to follow-on (which I find rather inexplicable as England were only 159 runs behind the Windies' first innings- it was a five-day match- although completed in four- and England had trailed by 175 at Lord's and not been forced to follow-on) he had done enough to be given the nod for the Ashes tour.

Brown was the last of the old-fashioned amateur captains, eager to play shots and always seeking a result. He was famed for wearing meticulously tied silk cravats when in the field. Whilst he modelled his appearance on that of Jardine (whom, like all the players Jardine ever captained, he admired greatly)
his manner was totally different. Thickening out somewhat towards the end of his career and with a ruddy appearance he resembled the archetype of the MCC amateur.

Although he captained England to a 3-1 win over South Africa on his return from Australia the England selectors had determined that a new era should be inaugurated with the appointnment of a professional captain, with the exception of the Indian tour the following winter when a virtual England 'A' side was sent out. They had signalled their intention earlier when Compton was appointed Brown's vice-captain on the Australian tour of 1950-1. However Compton's failure and Hutton's success on that tour had tipped the scales in Hutton's favour and he was duly appointed at the beginning of the 1952 series against India.

However Brown's Test career was not quite over. As Chairman of the Test selectors in 1953 he made the unusual, if not unique, decision of picking himself for the Lord's Test of 1953 against the Australians famed for the Watson-Bailey partnership which salvaged England from a possible defeat. Brown, at the age of 42, made a creditable 22 in the first innings and an even more valuable 28 in the second innings when coming in after both Watson and Bailey had been dismissed he put on an invaluable 36 for the 8th wicket with Godfrey Evans which finally put the game beyond Australia's reach before typically holing out (literally as Graeme Hole caught him) off Benaud when the game was dead. It was perhaps the only occasion in Test history when a Chairman of Selectors has played any useful function!

He later managed the England sides to South Africa in 1956-7 and Australia in 1958-9 which were not successful. He cropped again, though, managing and selecting the Rest of the World side which replaced the cancelled South African tour in 1970 when a side consisting mainly of west Indians and South Africans overwhelmed England 4-1.

I remember him chiefly, however, as one of two summarisers (the other being his predecessor as England captain, Norman Yardley) on Test Match Special on BBC Radio during the 1960s. When Robert Hudson and Alun Gibson were commentating and Brown and Yardley were summarising it sounded more like the occupants of the masters' room of a minor public school discussing the
academic merits or otherwise of the lower sixth!

One story I can rember is an interview he gave to Peter Walker, the Glamorgan and England all-rounder, during the break in innings in one of the early seasons of the Sunday League in the early 1970s. Brown was bitterly complaining about the influx of overseas players into the English counties (special registration had been introduced in 1968) reducing the pool from which the England team could be drawn and he wanted restrictions brought in. The following exchange (to the best of my memory) then took place:

Walker: "So, Freddie, you want the counties to field more players born in England like you were?"

Brown: "No, actually I was born in Peru!"

which he was.

Was Brown a great captain? He certainly revived England after a post-war slump but I doubt he would have been selected after WWII had it not been for his captaincy (although he did do the double again in his recall season of 1949). As far as the greatest England captain goes, there are only two real candidates, as I don't think we can really judge Jackson on the basis of one series when, like their successors a century later, the Australian side of 1905 played slightly under-par in an era when they were totally dominant. The choice must lie between Jardine and Hutton. Sadly, because of politics, Jardine was never given the chance to defend the Ashes at home for which he had fought so hard away whilst Hutton did at least capture and defend them both home and away. I think the determining factor must be that Hutton must always appear in any list of an all-time England XI so Hutton it must be.

quote:

Originally posted by Allan D:

As far as the greatest England captain goes, there are only two real candidates. The choice must lie between Jardine and Hutton. Sadly, because of politics, Jardine was never given the chance to defend the Ashes at home for which he had fought so hard away whilst Hutton did at least capture and defend them both home and away. I think the determining factor must be that Hutton must always appear in any list of an all-time England XI so Hutton it must be.

Thanks for that Allan D - very interesting.

England have tended to chop and change skippers over the years giving very few the chance to establish themselves as great captains. Warner, Jackson and Chapman gave the appearance of being great captains.

Jackson had little chance to captain Yorkshire during his prime because of the presence of Lord Hawke so there is too little evidence to go on. (Hutton, likewise, rarely captained his county but did captain England for a long period).

Warner was possibly the most loved county captain in history. At test level a skillfully managed Ashes victory and an embarassing defeat in SAF are not enough to judge by.

Chapman was a very popular captain with his own players, opponents and the public. The only doubt over his captaincy is that he leant very heavily on his senior players (notably Hobbs) for advice.

Jardine showed genius in 32/33 but that was his only opportunity against the toughest opponents. Its enough to make him my favourite England captain but not enough to judge him the best.

Brearley must be considered, he certainly showed great tactical awareness - the failure in 79/80 casts some doubts however.

WG Grace must also be considered. I've not read much about his captaincy but he defeated the Aussies in 4 series out of 5. The only reason he is not an automatic selection in England's BEST XI is because his peak as an a batsman and bowler came prior to his test career.

Jardine had a great team, an abnormal strategy and a short career.

Hutton also had a powerful team, especially strong in bowling. He slowed down the over rate to preserve his bolwer's stamina, frustrate opposition batsmen and retain control. He xaptained over a reasonable stretch of time.

Brearley had a side that was relatively powerful given his frequently weakened and divided opposition.

I'm interested to examine whether there are any candidates who didn't have a particularly strong side, and hence did not have a string of notable victories, but might nonetheless be regarded as good captains.




Perhaps a criterion might be that when they met powerful sides they held their own for large parts of many games, or were beaten by lesser margins than might have been expected.

What about Norman Yardley? MJK Smith? Or is this being too fanciful?

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
Perhaps a criterion might be that when they met powerful sides they held their own for large parts of many games, or were beaten by lesser margins than might have been expected.

What about Norman Yardley? MJK Smith? Or is this being too fanciful?

Possibly a little! MW Gatting? He certainly enjoyed the respect of his players and won the Ashes, in Australia, with one of the weakest touring teams in recent history.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:

I'm interested to examine whether there are any candidates who didn't have a particularly strong side, and hence did not have a string of notable victories, but might nonetheless be regarded as good captains.

Perhaps a criterion might be that when they met powerful sides they held their own for large parts of many games, or were beaten by lesser margins than might have been expected.

What about Norman Yardley? MJK Smith? Or is this being too fanciful?

Until WW2 England generally had sufficiently strong sides to be disqualidfied on your first criterion. Chapman, for instance, captained as good a side as has ever taken the field. With similar quality Archie Maclaren managed to lose heavily.

Those that had poorer teams to lead pretty well failed to meet your second criterion. JWHT succeeded with a great team and failed miserably against one.

After WW2:
Yardley probably didn't do quite enough against the invincibles to qualify (obviously a fine captain at county level though).

MJK Smith, Dexter and Illingworth all exceeded expectations on Ashes tours so they would be worth exploring more (i've never liked Dexter though).

Atherton probably lost by less than expected on several of occasions with as weak a team as England have ever possessed.

Then there's Vaughan who, it has to be said, did a pretty good job in his 33 tests as captain and looked the part too - shame about his batting.

quote:

Originally posted by ten years after:
Then there's Vaughan who, it has to be said, did a pretty good job in his 33 tests as captain and looked the part too - shame about his batting.

Its hard to tell how good of a job Vaughan did - he certainly made an excellent start and winning back the Ashes is a big plus, but he was also fortunate with injuries and blessed with comfortably the best coach and squad of players England have seen in recent times; one wonders what some of the other contenders might have done with the same tools?

quote:

Originally posted by HCC2005:
... one wonders what some of the other contenders might have done with the same tools?

Instead of the tools that played in 1989, for example ...

quote:

Originally posted by lardbucket:

quote:

Originally posted by HCC2005:
... one wonders what some of the other contenders might have done with the same tools?

Instead of the tools that played in 1989, for example ...

Vaughan had the best and best balanced England side in years. Gower had a reasonable batting side too, but no bowling to speak of.

I'd put in a word for Yardley.

England may not have won the Third Test but they were clearly well ahead when rain greatly shortened the game.

In the famous Headingley match England could well have won had they selected a wrist spinning specialist, or even if Evans had not had a horror day.

With better weather and another twist of fate it might have been two all entering the Oval.

I call this doing better than expected against what's ususally considered one of the greatest sides. And he did it with about two Test standard bowlers.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
I'd put in a word for Yardley.

England may not have won the Third Test but they were clearly well ahead when rain greatly shortened the game.

In the famous Headingley match England could well have won had they selected a wrist spinning specialist, or even if Evans had not had a horror day.

With better weather and another twist of fate it might have been two all entering the Oval.

I call this doing better than expected against what's ususally considered one of the greatest sides. And he did it with about two Test standard bowlers.

Interesting idea. Given Bradman's lack of success at Manchester an England win was distinctly possible there. I don't think there was much chance of a win at Headingley though, but a draw should have been achieved.

I've heard that Yardley left it a bit late to push back the field and England bowled an absurd number of overs - 114 in somewhat less than 5 hours. It was obvious fairly early on that Australia were on top. Yardley could have slowed this down to give Aus 110 overs in the day and made victory difficult - or forced risks.

Also, maybe a factor in being a great captain is having luck on your side. This Yardley didn't have.

Bradman never conceded that Australia would have lost at Manchester, given better weather.

But then he wouldn't, would he?

The facts are that, after three days, England led by 316 with seven second innings wickets standing. It's not unreasonable to assume that, given no rain, Australia might have been given in excess of 400, perhaps 450, to chase in some 8 or 9 hours, which in those days meant around 170 overs.

For this match Australia had weakened their batting by dropping Bill Brown for the all rounder Loxton, presumably to give support to Miller and Lindwall, each of whom had been unable to bowl for significant portions of the first half of the series.[Neither of Compton's centuries had been scored against both these bowlers.]
Loxton was scheduled to bat at No 6, followed by a tail which looked better at the time than it now does...

Even more tellingly, Barnes, a cornerstone of the Australian post-war order, was seriously injured in hospital and would not have batted.

I find it plausible that the balance of probablities lies towards an England victory, if there been no rain, or had it been a timeless match.

Bump, just for fun.
Is there life in this place?

Ah the good old days.

Pity the hierarchy closed the southern hemisphere down.