From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Best england XI since 1970
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:48:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Sep30.194836.16287
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

vnesiah@usc.edu (Deep Third Man) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.133741.9480@gserv1.dl.ac.uk> atb@gserv1.dl.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>After the worst England XI since 1970 here's the best one (IMHO)

>>1. Geoff Boycott (Yorkshire)
>>2. Graham Gooch (Essex)
>>3. David Gower (Leicestershire/Hampshire)
>>4. Derek Randall (Nottinghamshire)
>>5. Tony Greig (Sussex)
>>6. Ian Botham (Somerset/Worcestershire/Durham)
>>7. Alan Knott (Kent) (wk)
>>8. Ray Illingworth (Yorkshire/Leicestershire) (captain)
>>9. Derek Underwood (Kent)
>>10. John Snow (Sussex/Warwickshire)
>>11. Bob Willis (Surrey/Warwickshire)
>>12th man Mike Gatting (Middlesex)

>Gooch over Amiss?
Definitely, yes.  While Amiss was undoubtedly, he never laid claim to
being considered one of the best bats of his time.  It was perhaps
unfair, but the presence of Boycott surely detracted from him, as was
the fact that Gavaskar (another opener) was at his peak at the same
time.  Gooch on the other hand seems to have flourished at a time when
there are few great bats around --- in the period 1988-90 you may not
think Gooch was the best around, but it would easy to make a case for
him being in the top 5 or top 8 at least at least.

Yet, I think Amiss should also make the team..

>Did Cowdrey play in the early 70s? 

Yes, but he was at the end of a great, great career.  You have to
consider the post 1970 Cowdrey, not Cowdrey at his peak.   Still
pretty good after 1970, but a shadow of his earlier self.

>I say make Randall the 12th man and put a specialist bat in there.

Agree -- Randall would no way be good enough -- too much made of his
177 in the Centenary Test, though it was an absolutely superb knock.
I remember him being recalled by Rod Marsh when the ball didn't carry;
that was real sportsmanship because with Randall there England looked
like they could win.  About 10 runs later, Randall walked instantly
when the umpire hesitated on a brilliant diving Gilmour catch (did he
take any other types -- I seem to recall one highlight reel after
another).  A cliche, but that WAS cricket.

Anyway, sorry Derek, out you go...

>Push Gooch down a peg if you have to.

And in comes Amiss -- Goochie can go 1 drop, and Gower at two down.

>Willis is also not a good choice IMHO. 
>No better than Lever.
 
Surely, you jest.  Bob Willis may have had a horrible action, but
after Botham, he was England's best bowler from 1978-1987 -- 10 years
of excellence should count.

>Pringle (Derek) at his best (mid 80s) would have been a better choice.

Arrrrgggh, I don't believe this.  Pringle has never been anything, and
never will be anything more than a poor hack -- an effort by the
selectors to get a second Botham (with blue blood -- what fun:-); a
perfectly useful cricketer, but no way in the class of the rest of
this bunch.

>No arguement with your other selections.

I was not too sure about Illy, but he was a damn good captain and a
good spinner.  Yet the team is too bottom heavy; with Grieg being a
Test class 5th bowler, and Botham, Willis, Snow and Underwood, Illy
becomes replacable.  I would bring in a better bat to shore up the
side...

>- Vaseeharan

Bharat

--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217)-244-1263 (O) 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket