From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: The Naenae express
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:02:38 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct14.164827.801@news.columbia.edu>, pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis) writes:
> In article <199210140337.AA19351@circa.comp.vuw.ac.nz> warren@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Warren Turner) writes:
>>
>>
>>Alright, alright ...
>>
>>No-ones trying to compare Ewan Chatfield with the Windies or Aussie, or
>>any other great fast bowler. That's because he wasn't fast. He was
>>at best medium-fast-medium (as opposed to medium). He certainly wasn't
>>mediocre though. 
>>   His style was ideally suited to NZ conditions - sluggish,
>>seaming wickets, where batsmen have to work for runs, and more than one
>>visiting fast bowler has met their match - I have seen a few (Windies, Aus,
>>Pakistani, English) fast bowlers toil away for days on some NZ wickets - 
>>hurling the ball into the pitch only to see it lazily lurch off & dollop
>>into the keepers gloves at ankle height.
>>
>>(N.B. I have also seen Malcolm Marshall bowl at the basin reserve - well,
>>I did see him charge in and bowl - I don't think I actually saw the ball
>>until Dujon lobbed it to 1st slip!! One of the fastest spells of bowling
>>ever seen in NZ, I am sure. NZ were shot out by Garner (6w) in the 1st
>>innings, but batted for 2.5 days to save the match)
>>
>> Chatfield didn't try to blast batsmen out, his main weapon was to try
>>to frustrate them out, and there were few tighter bowlers in world
>>cricket than him. He has many prize scalps by this method, and he did
>>take over 100 test wickets.
>>
>>He did complement Hadlee very well. Perhaps not as feared as other well-known
>>bowling partnerships, but often had match-winning results.
>>
>>Maybe hard-core statistics could be dug up to assist comparisons between
>>bowling partnerships??
>>
>>Comments???
>>
>>W.T.
>>
> Thank you!  At last someone has articulated what I've been fuming 
> incoherently about for days.  Many people have mistakenly said

I didn't realise I had you fuming!  As the Brits say, "Sorry old chap.." -:)

> that NZ were a one-man side through the "Hadlee era", only to eat
> their words later on.  Mike Gatting compared NZ w/o Hadlee to the
> "Ilford 2nd XI", only to lose to them...  NZ were virtually 

But England were the Ilford 2nd X1 back then.

> unbeatable at home for many years, largely due to bowlers like
> Chatfield, Sneddon and Watson bowling appropriately for local 
> conditions.  The much vaunted WIndies pace quartets struggled 
> on the last 2 tours to NZ, losing one series, and drawing the next.

The 1980 series was full of acrimony over Mr. Goodall, but I don't want to
start a debate on umpiring there.  In 1986/87, WI had just lost Lloyd and the
other players from that era and were rebuilding.  I seem to remember in between
that NZ coming to WI and getting thrashed in a 4 match series 2-0, in 1984-85.

> I would say more, but I fear for McBeans sides, which must have
> ruptured by now :-)

I'm still laughing-:).  To give NZ their due they were
the last side to beat the WI in a series way back when, something the
pretenders to the world #1 spot have yet to achieve since 1980.

> 
> Cheers, Paul
> 
> 

McBean