Gifford Vivian

[Aditya Basrur]

I've been trying to hone my knowledge on forgotten Cricketers over the past
several months, from C T Studd to Lionel Palairet to some closer to home. I've
also been flicking through "The Picador Book of Cricket" from time to time when
I've had a moment spare. I thought I knew who most of New Zealand's decent
batsmen had been, until I chanced upon the name of Gifford Vivian in a piece by
Ray Robinson entitled "Southern Southpaws". Some of the observations therein
were thought-provoking, to say the least.

Vivian, according to Robinson, was the youngest player New Zealand had sent
abroad until 1956 (when the piece was written). Three months after notching up
87 in his first match for Auckland, he was sent on New Zealand's 1931 tour of
England - this was New Zealand's first tour of Britain. He replaced an injured
Stewie Dempster in the second, Oval, Test. While Gubby Allen wreaked havoc
against a hapless Kiwi side, an 18 year-old Vivian scored 51 in the second
innings. (He may have been New Zealand's youngest selection, at 18 years and 267
days, until Daniel Vettori.) New Zealand lost by an innings and 26, while weak
attack bullies like Duleepsinhji, Sutcliffe and Hammond took advantage of the
Kiwi attack.

His test career as a whole should not be judged solely on an average of 42 from
a meagre seven tests. His sole century came at Wellington in 1931. He was 19. It
was his first test in New Zealand. (Neither side boasted any great names at the
time - though Dempster and Vivian are remembered and Xenophon Balaskas sounds
exotic.) To top this off, he took 4 for 58 in 30 overs and made 73 in the second
innings. Surely one of the best performances by a teenager on record. He may
have been the youngest Test centurion at the time - I'm not sure. New Zealand
still lost by 8 wickets.

Interestingly, five of his seven tests were played on the 1931 and 1937 tours of
England. In 1937, he made 2 50s from 3 tests. (As with many present teams, the
English batting boasted some great names, while the bowlers were not so
impressive. The third test did feature Alf Gover.) More interesting still are
his first-class feats in England. In 1931, he hit 135 against Oxford in under
three hours. Yorkshire's bowlers were hit for 101 in 100 minutes. He followed
this with five Lancashire wickets with his left-arm orthodox spin. He was known
to spend much time seeking tips from older players and older English players.

Vivian played his last test at age 25. His career was ended by the second world
war. His ship, the Georgic, was thought to have been sunk by a U boat. His
family did not know his whereabouts until he came home to Auckland one fine day.
He did not play another test. Nonetheless, I believe Ray Robinson is correct to
mark him out as the first in a line of talented New Zealand left-handers. His
spiritual descendants include Martin Donnelly (with whom he played in his last
test), Bert Sutcliffe, and, I suppose to a lesser extent, John Wright and
Stephen Fleming. New Zealand has often had talented left-handed batsmen of whom
to boast. Vivian is almost forgotten as having started the trend.

Aditya

[Shishir S. Pathak]

<Snipped OT BS>

Why don't you write some more on bomb attacks in Assam, bagpipers, buggery
in English schools, Bangalore rsc meets, Rani M. etc. instead?

Cheers, Shishir

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Shishir S. Pathak
<Snipped OT BS>
Why don't you write some more on bomb attacks in Assam, bagpipers,
buggery in English schools, Bangalore rsc meets, Rani M. etc. instead?

Pisof Shishar. Young adults are talking Cricket.

Aditya

[Gafoor]

Post by Aditya Basrur
Pisof Shishar. Young adults are talking Cricket.

This must be the billionth time you have used this.
At the bare minimum, try to graduate from being a
Recycled Mahabore to being a Original Mahabore.
Try a little harder.

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Gafoor

Post by Aditya Basrur
Pisof Shishar. Young adults are talking Cricket.

This must be the billionth time you have used this.
At the bare minimum, try to graduate from being a
Recycled Mahabore to being a Original Mahabore.
Try a little harder.

This must be the billionth time you have accused me of being a Recycled
Mahabore. You obviously haven't been reading my original posts, despite your
defective killfile. Don't expect your comments to be seen as authoritative when
you operate from selective knowledge.

But then again, you've admitted that your primary purpose here is trolling and
flaming. Why anyone would see you as authoritative on any other subject is a
complete mystery.

Aditya

[Ram Prasad Sharma]

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Gafoor

Post by Aditya Basrur
Pisof Shishar. Young adults are talking Cricket.

This must be the billionth time you have used this.
At the bare minimum, try to graduate from being a
Recycled Mahabore to being a Original Mahabore.
Try a little harder.

This must be the billionth time you have accused me of being a Recycled
Mahabore.

You just don't get anything ever the first time, do you?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=APKlc.24029%24QZ.18111%40newssvr22.news.prodigy.com&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dbasrur%2B%252B%2B%2522don%27t%2Bget%2Bit%2522
RP Sharma

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Ram Prasad Sharma
You just don't get anything ever the first time, do you?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=APKlc.24029%
24QZ.18111%40newssvr22.news.prodigy.com&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26
ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dbasrur%2B%252B%2B%2522don%27t%2Bget%2Bit%2522

Post by Ram Prasad Sharma
RP Sharma

Good post, Dharavi.

Aditya

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Ram Prasad Sharma

Post by Ram Prasad Sharma
You just don't get anything ever the first time, do you?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=APKlc.24029%
24QZ.18111%40newssvr22.news.prodigy.com&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26
ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dbasrur%2B%252B%2B%2522don%27t%2Bget%2Bit%2522

Post by Ram Prasad Sharma
RP Sharma

Good post, Dharavi.
Aditya

My apologies on this. I mistakenly thought the above post was made by
Ravi Iyengar/Arjun Pandit. It patently wasn't, and I made an error in
ascribing it to him. My apologies for any offence caused.

Aditya

[gokrix]

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Gafoor

Post by Aditya Basrur
Pisof Shishar. Young adults are talking Cricket.

This must be the billionth time you have used this.
At the bare minimum, try to graduate from being a
Recycled Mahabore to being a Original Mahabore.
Try a little harder.

This must be the billionth time you have accused me of being a Recycled
Mahabore. You obviously haven't been reading my original posts, despite your
defective killfile. Don't expect your comments to be seen as authoritative when
you operate from selective knowledge.
But then again, you've admitted that your primary purpose here is trolling and
flaming. Why anyone would see you as authoritative on any other subject is a
complete mystery.
Aditya

Why do't you two lovebirds take it elsewhere? In short, GET A ROOM if
you can't keep your hands off each other in public.

Thanks,
--GS

[Tim Scrivens]

Post by Aditya Basrur
I've been trying to hone my knowledge on forgotten Cricketers over the past
several months, from C T Studd to Lionel Palairet to some closer to home. I've
also been flicking through "The Picador Book of Cricket" from time to time when
I've had a moment spare. I thought I knew who most of New Zealand's decent
batsmen had been, until I chanced upon the name of Gifford Vivian in a piece by
Ray Robinson entitled "Southern Southpaws". Some of the observations therein
were thought-provoking, to say the least.

Thanks for this. My grandfather, of sainted memory (and who looked
astonishingly like a gorilla) always rated Giff Vivian. Saw him play a
couple of times, as a young lad.

[Andrew Dunford]

Post by Aditya Basrur
I've been trying to hone my knowledge on forgotten Cricketers over the past
several months, from C T Studd to Lionel Palairet to some closer to home. I've
also been flicking through "The Picador Book of Cricket" from time to time when
I've had a moment spare. I thought I knew who most of New Zealand's decent
batsmen had been, until I chanced upon the name of Gifford Vivian in a piece by
Ray Robinson entitled "Southern Southpaws". Some of the observations therein
were thought-provoking, to say the least.
Vivian, according to Robinson, was the youngest player New Zealand had sent
abroad until 1956 (when the piece was written). Three months after notching up
87 in his first match for Auckland, he was sent on New Zealand's 1931 tour of
England - this was New Zealand's first tour of Britain. He replaced an injured
Stewie Dempster in the second, Oval, Test. While Gubby Allen wreaked havoc
against a hapless Kiwi side, an 18 year-old Vivian scored 51 in the second
innings. (He may have been New Zealand's youngest selection, at 18 years and 267
days, until Daniel Vettori.) New Zealand lost by an innings and 26, while weak
attack bullies like Duleepsinhji, Sutcliffe and Hammond took advantage of the
Kiwi attack.
His test career as a whole should not be judged solely on an average of 42 from
a meagre seven tests. His sole century came at Wellington in 1931. He was 19. It
was his first test in New Zealand. (Neither side boasted any great names at the
time - though Dempster and Vivian are remembered and Xenophon Balaskas sounds
exotic.) To top this off, he took 4 for 58 in 30 overs and made 73 in the second
innings. Surely one of the best performances by a teenager on record. He may
have been the youngest Test centurion at the time - I'm not sure. New Zealand
still lost by 8 wickets.
Interestingly, five of his seven tests were played on the 1931 and 1937 tours of
England. In 1937, he made 2 50s from 3 tests. (As with many present teams, the
English batting boasted some great names, while the bowlers were not so
impressive. The third test did feature Alf Gover.) More interesting still are
his first-class feats in England. In 1931, he hit 135 against Oxford in under
three hours. Yorkshire's bowlers were hit for 101 in 100 minutes. He followed
this with five Lancashire wickets with his left-arm orthodox spin. He was known
to spend much time seeking tips from older players and older English players.
Vivian played his last test at age 25. His career was ended by the second world
war. His ship, the Georgic, was thought to have been sunk by a U boat. His
family did not know his whereabouts until he came home to Auckland one fine day.
He did not play another test. Nonetheless, I believe Ray Robinson is correct to
mark him out as the first in a line of talented New Zealand left-handers. His
spiritual descendants include Martin Donnelly (with whom he played in his last
test), Bert Sutcliffe, and, I suppose to a lesser extent, John Wright and
Stephen Fleming. New Zealand has often had talented left-handed batsmen of whom
to boast. Vivian is almost forgotten as having started the trend.

An enjoyable recollection: I have just a few points to add.

Vivian scored 37 & 81 on his first-class debut at Christmas, 1930. However
that match is best remembered for Canterbury scoring 473/6 in the fourth
innings to win (a record which stood for more than 60 years).

He was indeed the youngest Test centurion when scoring 100 against South
Africa in 1931/32. At 19 years and 121 days, he was one month younger than
the previous record holder, Archie Jackson. That record stood until 1960/61
(Mushtaq Mohammad - 17 years 78 days). Vivian had earlier been the youngest
NZ Test debutant in 1931 (although of course they had only been a Test
nation for five minutes), although that record was taken by leg-spinner Doug
Freeman in 1932/33.

Giff Vivian's son Graham was also one of a small band of teenage debutants
for NZ at Test level. Graham made his first-class debut in a Test match (at
Eden Gardens in 1964/65), scoring a useful 43 in the second innings but
being somewhat upstaged by fellow-debutant Bruce Taylor.

The full list of NZ teenage Test debutants is:

18y 10d DL Vettori 1996/97
18y 197d DL Freeman 1932/33
18y 267d HG Vivian 1931
18y 295d RO Collinge 1964/65
18y 316d BP Bracewell 1978
19y 5d GP Vivian 1964/65
19y 145d JEF Beck 1953/54
19y 154d KR Rutherford 1984/85
19y 157d MD Crowe 1981/82
19y 163d AC Parore 1990
19y 164d CL Cairns 1989/90
19y 173d V Pollard 1964/65
19y 186d WR Playle 1958
19y 252d MP Donnelly 1937
19y 340d DG Sewell 1997/98
19y 344d JT Sparling 1958

Andrew

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Andrew Dunford
Vivian scored 37 & 81 on his first-class debut at Christmas, 1930. However
that match is best remembered for Canterbury scoring 473/6 in the fourth
innings to win (a record which stood for more than 60 years).

Interesting. I was going by Robinson's figure of 87 in his debut match (in his
defence, the error could have been typographical). The scorecard is at
http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1930S/1930-31/NZ_LOCAL/PS/CANT_AUCK_PS_25-29DE
C1930.html. I imagine Vivian spent a fair portion of his career playing
alongside Lindsay ("Dad") Weir, who passed away in October last year. They were
teammates for Auckland and on the 1931 tour of England.

Post by Andrew Dunford
He was indeed the youngest Test centurion when scoring 100 against South
Africa in 1931/32. At 19 years and 121 days, he was one month younger than
the previous record holder, Archie Jackson. That record stood until 1960/61
(Mushtaq Mohammad - 17 years 78 days). Vivian had earlier been the youngest
NZ Test debutant in 1931 (although of course they had only been a Test
nation for five minutes), although that record was taken by leg-spinner Doug
Freeman in 1932/33.

Without wanting to appear all superior, I get the feeling that 17 for Mushtaq
Mohammad may not have been his legitimate age. Through recent discussions with
family and friends, it seems as though in many parts of the subcontinent, the
year of birth is altered so as to allow the child to enter school earlier or
later. Often the birthday is not known at all, and made up at a convenient
juncture. The situation may have changed over the past ten years, but I'd regard
Mushtaq Mohammad's age with some suspicion. Also interesting to note that
Freeman's record stood until Daniel Vettori's emergence, so I wasn't far off.

<snip>

Aditya
P.S. What's the number of characters at which people here in general set their
line wraps? I'm at 80 at the moment, and finding that people who quote my text
have one line going into two. Without wanting to police the newsgroup, could a
standard be set so as to enable consistent formatting?

[Gafoor]

Post by Aditya Basrur
P.S. What's the number of characters at which people here in general
set their line wraps?

Try to set it at 5 chars per line & try not to write more than 5
lines per post.

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm at 80 at the moment, and finding that
people who quote my text have one line going into two. Without
wanting to police the newsgroup, could a standard be set so as to
enable consistent formatting?

[John Hall]

Post by Aditya Basrur
P.S. What's the number of characters at which people here in general set their
line wraps? I'm at 80 at the moment, and finding that people who quote my text
have one line going into two. Without wanting to police the newsgroup, could a
standard be set so as to enable consistent formatting?

My short-sightedness means that I'm using a font and font size (Fixedsys
- which I find the clearest font - 11 point) that requires horizontal
scrolling for any lines of more than 77 characters.

[Andrew Dunford]

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Andrew Dunford
Vivian scored 37 & 81 on his first-class debut at Christmas, 1930.

However

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Andrew Dunford
that match is best remembered for Canterbury scoring 473/6 in the fourth
innings to win (a record which stood for more than 60 years).

Interesting. I was going by Robinson's figure of 87 in his debut match (in his
defence, the error could have been typographical). The scorecard is at

http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1930S/1930-31/NZ_LOCAL/PS/CANT_AUCK_PS_25-29DE

Post by Aditya Basrur
C1930.html. I imagine Vivian spent a fair portion of his career playing
alongside Lindsay ("Dad") Weir, who passed away in October last year. They were
teammates for Auckland and on the 1931 tour of England.

Indeed. The obituary of Vivian published in the 1983 Cricket Almanack of
New Zealand relates an incident in which the two (plus Paul Whitelaw) were
travelling from Auckland to Christchurch for the first Test against England
in 1932/33. Apparently the overnight train was derailed by a washout just
north of Taumaranui and they only just arrived in Christchurch in time for
the match. Vivian was then injured in the field and didn't bat or play in
the second Test, which I suppose was one way of avoiding seeing Hammond's
show.

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Andrew Dunford
He was indeed the youngest Test centurion when scoring 100 against South
Africa in 1931/32. At 19 years and 121 days, he was one month younger than
the previous record holder, Archie Jackson. That record stood until 1960/61
(Mushtaq Mohammad - 17 years 78 days). Vivian had earlier been the youngest
NZ Test debutant in 1931 (although of course they had only been a Test
nation for five minutes), although that record was taken by leg-spinner Doug
Freeman in 1932/33.

Without wanting to appear all superior, I get the feeling that 17 for Mushtaq
Mohammad may not have been his legitimate age. Through recent discussions with
family and friends, it seems as though in many parts of the subcontinent, the
year of birth is altered so as to allow the child to enter school earlier or
later. Often the birthday is not known at all, and made up at a convenient
juncture. The situation may have changed over the past ten years, but I'd regard
Mushtaq Mohammad's age with some suspicion. Also interesting to note that
Freeman's record stood until Daniel Vettori's emergence, so I wasn't far off.

Let's for the sake of argument assume that dates of birth are unreliable for
India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Plus throw in Zimbabwe because
they backed India over the Denness affair. We can then safely ignore the
efforts of Hamilton Masakadza, Imran Nazir, Saleem Matchfixer, Shahid
Afridi, Javed Miandad, Mushtaq Mohammad, Mohammad Ilyas, Mohammad Wasim,
Mohammad Ashtrayful and a bloke named Tendulkar (I forget his first name,
but it's probably Mohammad).

That leaves Giff Vivian unchallenged to this day as the youngest centurion
in Test cricket, apart from the minor irritation that he shares the record
with Neil Harvey, who was also 19 years and 121 days when he hit 153 against
India at the MCG in 1947/48. Perhaps we'll also discard Harvey because
records set by batsmen against the Indian attack are worthless.

Andrew

[Narayanan]

Post by Andrew Dunford
Let's for the sake of argument assume that dates of birth are unreliable for
India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Plus throw in Zimbabwe because
they backed India over the Denness affair. We can then safely ignore the
efforts of Hamilton Masakadza, Imran Nazir, Saleem Matchfixer, Shahid
Afridi, Javed Miandad, Mushtaq Mohammad, Mohammad Ilyas, Mohammad Wasim,
Mohammad Ashtrayful and a bloke named Tendulkar (I forget his first name,
but it's probably Mohammad).

No wonder you call it as Denness affair.

Post by Andrew Dunford
That leaves Giff Vivian unchallenged to this day as the youngest centurion
in Test cricket, apart from the minor irritation that he shares the record
with Neil Harvey, who was also 19 years and 121 days when he hit 153 against
India at the MCG in 1947/48. Perhaps we'll also discard Harvey because
records set by batsmen against the Indian attack are worthless.

with lavish help from racist and unplayable Aussie umpiring as well

N-

[Allan Lazrado]

Post by Aditya Basrur
Vivian, according to Robinson, was the youngest player New Zealand had sent
abroad until 1956 (when the piece was written). Three months after notching up
87 in his first match for Auckland, he was sent on New Zealand's 1931 tour of
England - this was New Zealand's first tour of Britain. He replaced an injured
Stewie Dempster in the second, Oval, Test. While Gubby Allen wreaked havoc
against a hapless Kiwi side, an 18 year-old Vivian scored 51 in the second
innings. (He may have been New Zealand's youngest selection, at 18 years and 267
days, until Daniel Vettori.) New Zealand lost by an innings and 26, while weak
attack bullies like Duleepsinhji, Sutcliffe and Hammond took advantage of the
Kiwi attack.

It's interesting that you call Hammond, Sutcliffe and Duleepsinhji
"weak-attack bullies". Would Len Hutton also be classified as a weak
attack bully? What's your opinion on his batting?

Post by Aditya Basrur
Vivian played his last test at age 25. His career was ended by the second world
war. His ship, the Georgic, was thought to have been sunk by a U boat. His
family did not know his whereabouts until he came home to Auckland one fine day.
He did not play another test. Nonetheless, I believe Ray Robinson is correct to
mark him out as the first in a line of talented New Zealand left-handers. His
spiritual descendants include Martin Donnelly (with whom he played in his last
test), Bert Sutcliffe, and, I suppose to a lesser extent, John Wright and
Stephen Fleming. New Zealand has often had talented left-handed batsmen of whom
to boast. Vivian is almost forgotten as having started the trend.

A rather tragic end to what could have been a fabulous cricketing
career. If you consider that most of England's batsmen make their Test
match at the age of 25, the fact that Gifford Vivian played his last
Test at age 25, is terribly ironic.

Allan.

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Allan Lazrado

Post by Aditya Basrur
Vivian, according to Robinson, was the youngest player New Zealand
had sent abroad until 1956 (when the piece was written). Three
months after notching up 87 in his first match for Auckland, he was
sent on New Zealand's 1931 tour of England - this was New Zealand's
first tour of Britain. He replaced an injured Stewie Dempster in the
second, Oval, Test. While Gubby Allen wreaked havoc against a
hapless Kiwi side, an 18 year-old Vivian scored 51 in the second
innings. (He may have been New Zealand's youngest selection, at 18
years and 267 days, until Daniel Vettori.) New Zealand lost by an
innings and 26, while weak attack bullies like Duleepsinhji,
Sutcliffe and Hammond took advantage of the Kiwi attack.

It's interesting that you call Hammond, Sutcliffe and Duleepsinhji
"weak-attack bullies". Would Len Hutton also be classified as a weak
attack bully? What's your opinion on his batting?

That's one.

The weak-attack bully was a throwaway line - a passing troll in an otherwise
serious piece. I have the highest regard for Hammond (best before Bradman, I
think) and Sutcliffe, as stolid and stubborn an opener who never made a
double-hundred you could hope to find. A model of consistency who should be
rated right alongside, and a tremendous average to boot. I don't know as much
about Duleep, but his Test career - in an era where Tests *were* played
frequently - wasn't long enough for me to be able to really rate him. A lot of
promise, certainly. His 173 at Lord's against Grimmett (and no-one else of note,
really) was probably a great knock. (The track looks to have been rather flat,
though - or maybe Bradman scoring 254 on a pitch makes it look that way.) I'm
sure his deeds for Sussex and Cambridge were superlative; I'm just a little wary
of rating a player who had the bulk of his Tests against New Zealand, and only
against Australia in one series too highly. He probably get some credit for
having been Ranji's nephew, too.

I'm about to start Hutton's autobiography shortly, and will get back to you on
him if you're still interested. Sutcliffe rated him very highly even in the
mid-1930s, closing his "For England and Yorkshire" with a prediction that he
would be tremendous for England. From what I know of his career thus far, I'm
not overly impressed with the 1938-model Hutton - he who was very good on
Oval-type shirtfronts, and Crawleyesque on much else. Post-war, he appears to
have been a model of consistency against Lindwall and Miller and most other
comers, and indeed one of England's greatest ever batsmen. He was probably very
different in style to Compton. The Yorkshire school of opening batsmen, perhaps
including Vaughan, appears to eschew florid strokes in the favour of prods,
nudges, and the occasional drive or flick for four. Hutton was, from what I know
thus far, no different. Compton has a huge reputation as a dashing strokemaker
who could bring the crowds to their feet - I like to think of him as carrying
England on his shoulders, a modern-day Richard the Lionheart when smiting
Australia's fiercest and finest everywhere in the park. Hutton seems to have
been more the sort of player you could count on when your back was to the wall,
and thus probably suffers in contrast with Compton. I probably wouldn't want to
watch him as much as I would Compton, had I lived in the 1930s and 1940s, but I
would have been glad to have him in my side as an English supporter.

Again, I will reserve more detailed judgment till I complete the book, but he
certainly ranks very high in my estimation.

Aditya [ Worcestershire doesn't get the props it deserves. ] Basrur

[Mad Hamish]

On Sat, 8 May 2004 21:31:07 +1200, "Aditya Basrur"

Post by Aditya Basrur
The weak-attack bully was a throwaway line - a passing troll in an otherwise
serious piece. I have the highest regard for Hammond (best before Bradman, I
think) and Sutcliffe, as stolid and stubborn an opener who never made a
double-hundred you could hope to find. A model of consistency who should be
rated right alongside, and a tremendous average to boot. I don't know as much
about Duleep, but his Test career - in an era where Tests *were* played
frequently - wasn't long enough for me to be able to really rate him. A lot of
promise, certainly. His 173 at Lord's against Grimmett (and no-one else of note,
really) was probably a great knock. (The track looks to have been rather flat,
though - or maybe Bradman scoring 254 on a pitch makes it look that way.) I'm
sure his deeds for Sussex and Cambridge were superlative; I'm just a little wary
of rating a player who had the bulk of his Tests against New Zealand, and only
against Australia in one series too highly. He probably get some credit for
having been Ranji's nephew, too.
I'm about to start Hutton's autobiography shortly, and will get back to you on
him if you're still interested. Sutcliffe rated him very highly even in the
mid-1930s, closing his "For England and Yorkshire" with a prediction that he
would be tremendous for England. From what I know of his career thus far, I'm
not overly impressed with the 1938-model Hutton - he who was very good on
Oval-type shirtfronts, and Crawleyesque on much else.

He played 4 innings for 2 100s in 1938, hard to rate him down on that.

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm about to start Hutton's autobiography shortly, and will get back to you on
him if you're still interested. Sutcliffe rated him very highly even in the
mid-1930s, closing his "For England and Yorkshire" with a prediction that he
would be tremendous for England. From what I know of his career thus far, I'm
not overly impressed with the 1938-model Hutton - he who was very good on
Oval-type shirtfronts, and Crawleyesque on much else.

He played 4 innings for 2 100s in 1938, hard to rate him down on that.

It's kind of hard to say that the 1938 series made him out to be a future great,
though. There are plenty of players who've had auspicious beginnings and not
gone on to do much - names like Nick Knight and Matthew Sinclair and Vinod
Kambli. Again, I reserve more detailed judgment till, say, a fortnight from now.
However, a quick glance through the Holy Scriptures shows that Hutton, pre-war,
had rather deceptive figures. His average for this period is 67.25, but this is
bolstered by big knocks against average teams from South Africa, the WI and NZ,
as well as that shirt-front 364.

There *were* signs of weakness. He was undone by Jack Cowie for very little in
his first test in both innings, for instance. His ton at Manchester in his
second test looks to have been a better performance, and one of the glimmers in
this period that he could one day be great on anything against anyone. (I do
rate Cowie as a bowler, I'm not so sure about the rest of the attack.) As for
the two tons against Australia, I suppose they should be given paramount
consideration. The 364 was of course awesome, but are you really trying to tell
me the track was challenging or the bowlers taxing (beyond perhaps Grimmett and
Fleetwood-Smith)? Verity seems to have been demonic in the 1938 series, and was
probably the major reason for England managing to beat Australia at the Oval.
Certainly a batsman taking advantage of "an Oval-type shirtfront", which was my
original contention.

That leaves, I guess, the 1938 Trent Bridge test as the major indicator of
Hutton's class in the pre-war period. 100 out of a score of 658 does not look
like the conditions were overly taxing. (I remember reading, perhaps in Charles
Williams, that the 1938 summer was one of the driest on record, with extremely
high temperatures.) The presumption of a flat track may go against him when you
see Australia was forced to follow on when McCabe hit his 232. But I'm still not
entirely convinced that the track had any major demons in it, especially when no
side failed to make 400. (Mitigated by McCabe's awesome performance.) It's an
occasion when the scorecard may still be deceptive, and every run worth its
weight in gold, so I decided to look it up in some of my sources.

Plum Warner calls it, after noting England won the toss, "a perfect wicket on
which the bowlers could neither make the ball turn nor rise higher than the top
of the stumps". Apparently Hutton "played a ball, of O'Reilly's, on to the
stumps without the bail moving in its groove" early in the piece ("Cricket
Between Two Wars", p. 223). In a book published in 1942, incidentally, Warner
does not praise Hammond a great deal, but bestows some compliments on Compton.
His description of the track suffices for me.

This is not to say that the pre-war Hutton was not rather good on easy tracks,
and God knows a side needs batsmen who can make hay when the sun shines. But the
comment on his pre-war stature wasn't pulled out of nowhere. I do remember
reading it in some source which I considered eminent at the time (but can't for
the life of me remember now). It's one of the situations where a mere look at
the scorecard doesn't tell you anything. I do think much Cricketing enquiry,
particularly of the past, relies excessively on scorecards where deeper
knowledge is lacking. The information is out there, if you're willing to look
for it. And I add the proviso once more that I've not covered as much on Hutton
and Compton as I would like. These are very much prima facie comments. But I'm
not - yet - shaken in my belief that Hutton, pre-war, wasn't all that great. I
remember reading somewhere - perhaps the same piece - that one of his arms ended
up shorter than the other in the War as a result of a misadventure and Hutton
had to remodel his batting. I suppose this might suit Mike's thesis of "the
event" that caused Hutton to go from being merely a rather good weak attack good
pitch bully to one of the greatest the game has seen.

Aditya [ Time for Mike to make an appearance, surely. ] Basrur

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Aditya Basrur
In a book published in 1942, incidentally, Warner
does not praise Hammond a great deal, but bestows some compliments on Compton.

Read "Hutton" for Hammond above, of course. Inadvertent slip. I often mix them
up, while knowing they're quite different players.

Post by Aditya Basrur
His description of the track suffices for me.

Aditya

[John Hall]

Post by Aditya Basrur
As for
the two tons against Australia, I suppose they should be given paramount
consideration. The 364 was of course awesome, but are you really trying to tell
me the track was challenging or the bowlers taxing (beyond perhaps Grimmett and
Fleetwood-Smith)?

O'Reilly rather than Grimmett. And when an attack contains even one
truly great bowler, then it can't be too bad. Certainly the pitch was
one of the best for batting ever prepared.

Going on to your main point, of how good Hutton was pre-war, remember
that he was only 23 when war broke out. Now in some countries that may
amount almost to being a veteran, but English batsmen tend to mature
comparatively slowly. He only had two years in Test cricket prewar. But
just about everyone who had seen him in county cricket was convinced
that here was a great player in the making.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm about to start Hutton's autobiography shortly, and will get
back to you on him if you're still interested. Sutcliffe rated him
very highly even in the mid-1930s, closing his "For England and
Yorkshire" with a prediction that he would be tremendous for
England. From what I know of his career thus far, I'm not overly
impressed with the 1938-model Hutton - he who was very good on
Oval-type shirtfronts, and Crawleyesque on much else.

He played 4 innings for 2 100s in 1938, hard to rate him down on that.

It's kind of hard to say that the 1938 series made him out to be a
future great, though. There are plenty of players who've had
auspicious beginnings and not gone on to do much - names like Nick
Knight and Matthew Sinclair and Vinod Kambli. Again, I reserve more
detailed judgment till, say, a fortnight from now. However, a quick
glance through the Holy Scriptures shows that Hutton, pre-war, had
rather deceptive figures. His average for this period is 67.25, but
this is bolstered by big knocks against average teams from South
Africa, the WI and NZ, as well as that shirt-front 364.

iirc, fred trueman maintains that in 50 years of playing and watching test
cricket, len hutton is the best batsman he has ever seen.
i don't know if he ever saw bradman play.

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Spaceman Spiff
iirc, fred trueman maintains that in 50 years of playing and watching
test cricket, len hutton is the best batsman he has ever seen.

When did this fifty years start? He was about 8 at the outbreak of WW 2. (I'm
not disagreeing, by the way; just wondering if Hutton was all that good
pre-war.)

Post by Spaceman Spiff
i don't know if he ever saw bradman play.

Even if he had, he'd be loathe to say anyone was better than a Yorkshireman. He
also considers himself to be the "finest fast bowler ever drew breath", and
demands that everyone he knows intimately affirms his opinion. Nothing wrong
with that, of course.

Aditya

[Spaceman Spiff]

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Spaceman Spiff
iirc, fred trueman maintains that in 50 years of playing and watching
test cricket, len hutton is the best batsman he has ever seen.

When did this fifty years start? He was about 8 at the outbreak of WW
2. (I'm not disagreeing, by the way; just wondering if Hutton was all
that good pre-war.)

i would guess from the late 30's thru now- so it's actually now 65 years or so.
but my comment was from hearing him on tms during the 80's (and early 90s, i
think).

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Spaceman Spiff
i don't know if he ever saw bradman play.

Even if he had, he'd be loathe to say anyone was better than a
Yorkshireman. He also considers himself to be the "finest fast bowler
ever drew breath", and demands that everyone he knows intimately
affirms his opinion. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

his credentials are pretty good for being the finest fast bowler, despite what
pranshu might say- so he's not just blowing smoke out of his ass.

[Mad Hamish]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 02:39:12 +1200, "Aditya Basrur"

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm about to start Hutton's autobiography shortly, and will get back to you

on

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Aditya Basrur
him if you're still interested. Sutcliffe rated him very highly even in the
mid-1930s, closing his "For England and Yorkshire" with a prediction that he
would be tremendous for England. From what I know of his career thus far, I'm
not overly impressed with the 1938-model Hutton - he who was very good on
Oval-type shirtfronts, and Crawleyesque on much else.

He played 4 innings for 2 100s in 1938, hard to rate him down on that.

It's kind of hard to say that the 1938 series made him out to be a future great,
though. There are plenty of players who've had auspicious beginnings and not
gone on to do much - names like Nick Knight and Matthew Sinclair and Vinod
Kambli.

Sure, but considering what he did after 8 years including war service
and having an operation on his arm that required adjustments suggests
that writing him off as a flat track bully pre-war based on 2 failures
is harsh if not quite at the level of suggesting dumping Laxman...

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Aditya Basrur
It's kind of hard to say that the 1938 series made him out to be a future great,
though. There are plenty of players who've had auspicious beginnings and not
gone on to do much - names like Nick Knight and Matthew Sinclair and Vinod
Kambli.

Sure, but considering what he did after 8 years including war service
and having an operation on his arm that required adjustments suggests
that writing him off as a flat track bully pre-war based on 2 failures
is harsh if not quite at the level of suggesting dumping Laxman...

It's not an opinion I necessarily adhere to strictly, just one I've read and not
seen a whole lot of evidence to negate. As I said, I do think it was from a
reasonably auspicious source who had actually *seen* Hutton bat. (You might be
ten years older than I am, but Hutton had still retired a good 15 to 20 years
before you were born, AFAIK.) I am in the throes of reading a bit more on him
over the next few weeks, and am happy to come back both to Hutton and Sutcliffe.

I was also trying to illustrate that mere stats can be deceptive. Did you catch
Plum Warner's description of the track before conveniently snipping it?

Aditya

[John Hall]

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm about to start Hutton's autobiography shortly, and will get back to
you on him if you're still interested. Sutcliffe rated him very highly
even in the mid-1930s, closing his "For England and Yorkshire" with a
prediction that he would be tremendous for England. From what I know of
his career thus far, I'm not overly impressed with the 1938-model
Hutton - he who was very good on Oval-type shirtfronts, and
Crawleyesque on much else. Post-war, he appears to have been a model of
consistency against Lindwall and Miller and most other comers, and
indeed one of England's greatest ever batsmen. He was probably very
different in style to Compton.

Yep. I think it was Cardus, though it may have been AA Thomson, who said
that batsmen - like composers - could be divided into the "classical"
and the "romantic" (though of course there is a lot of overlap). Hutton
was an exemplar of the classical, Compton of the romantic. That isn't
quite the same thing as defensive and attacking, BTW.

Post by Aditya Basrur
The Yorkshire school of opening batsmen, perhaps including Vaughan,
appears to eschew florid strokes in the favour of prods, nudges, and
the occasional drive or flick for four.

Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last year or
two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown that he has most
of the attacking strokes.

Post by Aditya Basrur
Hutton was, from what I know thus far, no different. Compton has a
huge reputation as a dashing strokemaker who could bring the crowds to
their feet - I like to think of him as carrying England on his
shoulders, a modern-day Richard the Lionheart when smiting Australia's
fiercest and finest everywhere in the park.

Compton's two hundreds against Australia in 1948 were two of the
greatest innings ever played IMO.

Post by Aditya Basrur
Hutton seems to have been more the sort of player you could count on
when your back was to the wall, and thus probably suffers in contrast
with Compton. I probably wouldn't want to watch him as much as I would
Compton, had I lived in the 1930s and 1940s, but I would have been glad
to have him in my side as an English supporter.

I would rate Hutton and Compton as equals, though - like you - I should
rather watch Compton. Hutton was capable of attacking if he chose, and
his off and cover driving were I believe supposed to have been
particularly fine. But he generally saw his role for England as being
the sheet anchor - with some justification. Even then, he was never
quite so defensive in outlook as Bailey, for instance.

But, as befits a Yorkshireman, Mike Holmans knows a lot more about
Hutton than I do, and I doubt that he'll be able to resist contributing
to this thread.

[CiL]

On Sat, 8 May 2004 10:59:35 +0100, John Hall
<***@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Post by John Hall
Yep. I think it was Cardus, though it may have been AA Thomson, who said
that batsmen - like composers - could be divided into the "classical"
and the "romantic" (though of course there is a lot of overlap). Hutton
was an exemplar of the classical, Compton of the romantic. That isn't
quite the same thing as defensive and attacking, BTW.

Post by Aditya Basrur
The Yorkshire school of opening batsmen, perhaps including Vaughan,
appears to eschew florid strokes in the favour of prods, nudges, and
the occasional drive or flick for four.

Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last year or
two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown that he has most
of the attacking strokes.

Yep.. Adi, I think you should start 'watching' some matches to
appreciate real cricket stuff..! Vaughan has been pleasant to the
eye, strokeful always, his cover drive is a beauty, leans forward and
into the stroke really well.

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by CiL
Yep.. Adi, I think you should start 'watching' some matches to
appreciate real cricket stuff..! Vaughan has been pleasant to the
eye, strokeful always, his cover drive is a beauty, leans forward and
into the stroke really well.

OK, if you say so. I do live in New Zealand, you know, where we don't get to see
very much except highlights from England each year. And there are so many
sitcoms on that I enjoy watching. Vaughan seems to be very steady at the start
of an innings, from what I've seen, before starting to play more strokes a
little later on.

If you're willing to send me tapes, I'll gratefully take them ...

Aditya

[CiL]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 01:16:19 +1200, "Aditya Basrur"

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by CiL
Yep.. Adi, I think you should start 'watching' some matches to
appreciate real cricket stuff..! Vaughan has been pleasant to the
eye, strokeful always, his cover drive is a beauty, leans forward and
into the stroke really well.

OK, if you say so. I do live in New Zealand, you know, where we don't get to see
very much except highlights from England each year. And there are so many
sitcoms on that I enjoy watching. Vaughan seems to be very steady at the start
of an innings, from what I've seen, before starting to play more strokes a
little later on.

My objection was cos u wrote he just pushes n prods,, not true at all,
a elegant batsman to watch.

CiL
In chennai where one wanted to go to a pub after months and after
that balaji darshan but the damn election on monday means that weekend
no watering holes. Dammit..... will have to drink at ghar only....
maybe I shud pick up some good movie cd.... Hmm...

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by CiL

Post by Aditya Basrur
OK, if you say so. I do live in New Zealand, you know, where we don't get to see
very much except highlights from England each year. And there are so many
sitcoms on that I enjoy watching. Vaughan seems to be very steady at the start
of an innings, from what I've seen, before starting to play more strokes a
little later on.

My objection was cos u wrote he just pushes n prods,, not true at all,
a elegant batsman to watch.

I thought my statement was equivocal. I said perhaps he fit into this school.
Much of what I've seen of Vaughan has been in highlights - even when England
last toured here, I think I was overseas. It's difficult to get a real sense of
an innings from these things, you know. And when talking about the school of
Yorkshire openers, I meant nothing like pushing and prodding. Boycott probably
was a rather defensive player, but I don't think Hutton and Sutcliffe were -
just safe, really, rather than senseless dashers. If you suggest that he's a
quick starter who pulls, hooks, and cuts as well as drives, I'm happy to take
your word for it.

Post by CiL
CiL
In chennai where one wanted to go to a pub after months and after
that balaji darshan

Don't worry. It didn't bring me any luck. I've just been out for a couple of
hours of drinks - and actually had some tonight. All the best women were taken.
All the handsome men weren't gay.

Aditya

[Shishir S. Pathak]

"Aditya Basrur" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c7ip84$i32$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...

<snip>

Post by Aditya Basrur
If you suggest that he's a
quick starter who pulls, hooks, and cuts as well as drives, I'm happy to take
your word for it.

What do you think is the difference between the hook and the pull shot?

Cheers, Shishir

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Shishir S. Pathak
What do you think is the difference between the hook and the pull shot?

Very broadly, I'd say the hook connects with the ball around about shoulder to
head height. When controlled, it should be played down the ground. The ball can
land anywhere in the arc from midwicket to fine-leg. (The height is not a fixed
rule - just an indication.) In general, the hook is a "scooping" motion - the
ball is picked up and hit across the field. It's a bit risky - can't always be
controlled.

The pull generally connects with the ball around about the height of the torso -
anywhere between the waist and the rib-cage. I'd guess it can be played in the
air as well as down the ground; I prefer to see it down the ground rather than
hoicked through the air .The ball generally lands around midwicket - because
it's played lower down, the follow-through on the shot isn't quite as long -
i.e. the arc in which the ball can land isn't as great. The motion is more
dragging than scooping.

I hope that helps. Bhuvan's education should now be complete, but since he's
incapable of comprehending anything not in BASIC or C++ format, he's probably
still in the dark. Maybe you can help him out.

Check
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fe23ec8f.0401130706.1a42e93c%40posting.goog
le.com for more.

HTH,

Aditya

[Narayanan]

Post by Aditya Basrur
<snip>

Post by Aditya Basrur
If you suggest that he's a
quick starter who pulls, hooks, and cuts as well as drives, I'm happy to

take

Post by Aditya Basrur
your word for it.

What do you think is the difference between the hook and the pull shot?

You should be expelled from Dravid fan club for this question,
even if you meant it to be a joke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/cricket/skills/newsid_3265000/3265477.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/cricket/skills/newsid_3267000/3267129.stm

N-

[Sandaas]

Post by Narayanan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/cricket/skills/newsid_3265000/3265477.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/cricket/skills/newsid_3267000/3267129.stm
N-

Great links. Now Bhuvan will have no excuse - he can read the webpages
in HTML source code, and might even understand them.

Aditya

[Ramakrishnan G]

Post by CiL

Post by John Hall
Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last year or
two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown that he has most
of the attacking strokes.

Yep.. Adi, I think you should start 'watching' some matches to
appreciate real cricket stuff..! Vaughan has been pleasant to the
eye, strokeful always, his cover drive is a beauty, leans forward and
into the stroke really well.

I thought he does better with that one-legged pull shot of his. Some sort of
a Nataraja shot - I believe it is called? I consider myself lucky to have
watched him in full flow in the last Ashes. At one stage, McGrath had 3
fielders on the boundary behind square on the onside and still got pulled
for 4 regularly through the gaps. Too bad he didnt really fire against the
West Indies in the recent ODOs. I didnt have coverage for the tests and this
was my only chance to play catch up.

[Andrew Dunford]

Post by Ramakrishnan G

Post by CiL

Post by John Hall
Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last year or
two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown that he has most
of the attacking strokes.

Yep.. Adi, I think you should start 'watching' some matches to
appreciate real cricket stuff..! Vaughan has been pleasant to the
eye, strokeful always, his cover drive is a beauty, leans forward and
into the stroke really well.

I thought he does better with that one-legged pull shot of his. Some sort of
a Nataraja shot - I believe it is called? I consider myself lucky to have
watched him in full flow in the last Ashes. At one stage, McGrath had 3
fielders on the boundary behind square on the onside and still got pulled
for 4 regularly through the gaps. Too bad he didnt really fire against the
West Indies in the recent ODOs. I didnt have coverage for the tests and this
was my only chance to play catch up.

Closer inspection of Vaughan's odo record confirms that he fires rarely
against any opposition.

Andrew

[Gafoor]

Post by Andrew Dunford

Post by Ramakrishnan G

Post by CiL

Post by John Hall
Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last
year or two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown
that he has most of the attacking strokes.

Yep.. Adi, I think you should start 'watching' some matches to
appreciate real cricket stuff..! Vaughan has been pleasant to the
eye, strokeful always, his cover drive is a beauty, leans forward
and into the stroke really well.

I thought he does better with that one-legged pull shot of his. Some
sort of a Nataraja shot - I believe it is called? I consider myself
lucky to have watched him in full flow in the last Ashes. At one
stage, McGrath had 3 fielders on the boundary behind square on the
onside and still got pulled for 4 regularly through the gaps. Too
bad he didnt really fire against the West Indies in the recent ODOs.
I didnt have coverage for the tests and this was my only chance to
play catch up.

Closer inspection of Vaughan's odo record confirms that he fires
rarely against any opposition.
Andrew

*PLONK*

Statrat, Please do a closer inspection of his play & not his statistics.

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Gafoor

Post by Andrew Dunford
Closer inspection of Vaughan's odo record confirms that he fires
rarely against any opposition.
Andrew

*PLONK*
Statrat, Please do a closer inspection of his play & not his statistics.

You're comparing yourself with Dunford? The idiom is probably wrong, but I'm
tempted to ask "Kahan Raja Bhoj, kahan Raghu Jetley?"

Aditya

[Yuk Tang]

Post by Ramakrishnan G
I thought he does better with that one-legged pull shot of his.
Some sort of a Nataraja shot - I believe it is called? I consider
myself lucky to have watched him in full flow in the last Ashes.
At one stage, McGrath had 3 fielders on the boundary behind square
on the onside and still got pulled for 4 regularly through the
gaps.

Novel way of stopping boundaries, by ensuring that every ball is a no
ball.

[Ramakrishnan G]

Post by Yuk Tang

Post by Ramakrishnan G
I thought he does better with that one-legged pull shot of his.
Some sort of a Nataraja shot - I believe it is called? I consider
myself lucky to have watched him in full flow in the last Ashes.
At one stage, McGrath had 3 fielders on the boundary behind square
on the onside and still got pulled for 4 regularly through the
gaps.

Novel way of stopping boundaries, by ensuring that every ball is a no
ball.

Does having 3 fielders on the boundary constitute a no-ball? Maybe it was 2
then.

Post by Yuk Tang
--
Cheers, ymt.

[Shishir S. Pathak]

Post by Ramakrishnan G

Post by Yuk Tang

Post by Ramakrishnan G
I thought he does better with that one-legged pull shot of his.
Some sort of a Nataraja shot - I believe it is called? I consider
myself lucky to have watched him in full flow in the last Ashes.
At one stage, McGrath had 3 fielders on the boundary behind square
on the onside and still got pulled for 4 regularly through the
gaps.

Novel way of stopping boundaries, by ensuring that every ball is a no
ball.

Does having 3 fielders on the boundary constitute a no-ball? Maybe it was 2
then.

You can have only up to 2 fielders behind square on the onside. No
restrictions on whether they stand close to the bats or on the boundary line
or anywhere else.

Cheers, Shishir

[Shishir S. Pathak]

Post by Ramakrishnan G

Post by CiL

Post by John Hall
Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last year or
two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown that he has most
of the attacking strokes.

Yep.. Adi, I think you should start 'watching' some matches to
appreciate real cricket stuff..! Vaughan has been pleasant to the
eye, strokeful always, his cover drive is a beauty, leans forward and
into the stroke really well.

I thought he does better with that one-legged pull shot of his. Some sort of
a Nataraja shot - I believe it is called? I consider myself lucky to have
watched him in full flow in the last Ashes. At one stage, McGrath had 3
fielders on the boundary behind square on the onside and still got pulled
for 4 regularly through the gaps.

Who the Bucknor were the umps who didn't call no-ball(s) for these?

Cheers, Shishir

<snip>

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by John Hall
Yep. I think it was Cardus, though it may have been AA Thomson, who
said that batsmen - like composers - could be divided into the
"classical" and the "romantic" (though of course there is a lot of
overlap). Hutton was an exemplar of the classical, Compton of the
romantic. That isn't quite the same thing as defensive and attacking,
BTW.

Oh, of course. I think there's some overlap between the "defensive" and the
"classical" school; ditto between "attacking" and "romantic". I'm trying to
think of current exemplars. I think Dravid is about as close as you could get to
'classical' at present. I'm more loathe to attach the romantic tag to a current
player - I have this image of someone who comes out all guns blazing, but plays
everything very correctly (perhaps Laxman, of those I've seen lately; certainly
Gower, Ranji, Azhar and Woolley stretching further back, if we're on the same
wavelength). There are plenty of attacking players around, however: Hayden,
Sehwag, Gilchrist, plenty of others. The high noon of defensive players was
probably the 1950s, with guys like Bailey playing. Where would you place
Boycott?

I'm not sure what your thoughts are, but I'd probably characterise a 'defensive'
player as one reluctant to play many shots at all. He's the sort of player whose
first instinct is to block, or even better, leave the ball. Gavaskar's 36* in
the World Cup seems to have been the archetypal defensive knock, however
misplaced it was. Something I always recall when I think 'defence', with a
smile, is Geoff Allott spending 101 minutes at the crease at Auckland against
South Africa in March 1999. It actually followed a then-familiar NZ collapse. On
a glued pitch, Cullinan made a frightfully boring 275. NZ responded strongly at
first, with two wickets down when the score was 200. We ended up at 352, with
Allott contributing nought but actually helping us avert defeat. Calling him a
batsman is a rather liberal definition of the term, however. (His innings did
remind me of my greatest innings however, which I recounted at
http://tinyurl.com/36r72 in some depth.)

I'd say a 'classical' bat is one who respects every ball on the stumps, leaves
risky balls outside off or leg, and only really plays shots to the rank bad
balls - the long-hops, the half-volleys. He probably has all the strokes but
doesn't play them much. A 'romantic' bat is more attacking still, cover-driving
the bad ball outside off, perhaps shuffling to leg to play a cut at times as
well. But I'd say a cross-bat shot on the leg-side would be rare from a
classical player; you certainly would not see a reverse-sweep. I'd say such a
batsman would be my favourite to watch - probably the McCabe in his pomp, too,
from the way I classify things. The attacking player doesn't necessarily follow
the rule-book at all - he is likeliest to play and miss, but also as likely to
hit sixes. He'll pull bad balls from outside off, play reverse-sweeps if he sees
the occasion, and come down the track to hit the bowler back over his head. (My
personal preference is the batsman doesn't take risks. With some players, it's
not really a risk to do the above things, as their hand-eye co-ordination is
that good.) Would you say my definitions are somewhere close to yours.

The Tendulkars, Sobers, Bradmans and Hobbs of this world defy and transcend
these definitions. Their techniques may not be classical, but they defend well
and attack even better. And there's always a romance about the way they play the
game.

Post by John Hall
Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last year
or two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown that he
has most of the attacking strokes.

All right. By the way, has Vaughan always opened for Yorkshire? I seem to recall
reading that he was a middle-order bat at some point, which may well colour his
play. Dickie Bird once made 181, opening for Yorkshire, I seem to remember. I
wouldn't quite rate him with Hutton, Sutcliffe and Boycott, I think.

Aditya [ Chris Martin is all these things, and none. ] Basrur

[John Hall]

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by John Hall
Yep. I think it was Cardus, though it may have been AA Thomson, who
said that batsmen - like composers - could be divided into the
"classical" and the "romantic" (though of course there is a lot of
overlap). Hutton was an exemplar of the classical, Compton of the
romantic. That isn't quite the same thing as defensive and attacking,
BTW.

Oh, of course. I think there's some overlap between the "defensive" and the
"classical" school; ditto between "attacking" and "romantic". I'm trying to
think of current exemplars. I think Dravid is about as close as you could get to
'classical' at present. I'm more loathe to attach the romantic tag to a current
player - I have this image of someone who comes out all guns blazing, but plays
everything very correctly (perhaps Laxman, of those I've seen lately; certainly
Gower, Ranji, Azhar and Woolley stretching further back, if we're on the same
wavelength).

Yep, pretty much. I'd say that the classical player plays each ball on
its merits. If it's a bad ball he will hit it for four; if it's a good
ball then he will defend. The romantic player, on the other hand, has
the ability to extemporise. He may play what is theoretically an unsound
stroke for a particular ball but will somehow make it work for him. Of
current players, I'd suggest Lara as an example of the romantic school.

Post by Aditya Basrur
There are plenty of attacking players around, however: Hayden,
Sehwag, Gilchrist, plenty of others. The high noon of defensive players was
probably the 1950s,

It's certainly remarkable how the speed of scoring has increased in
Tests since the 1950s and 1960s. Just as well, given the way over rates
have been declining.

Post by Aditya Basrur
with guys like Bailey playing. Where would you place
Boycott?

Classical and often - but not always - defensive. Occasionally he would
cut loose, most notably in the 1965 Gillette Cup Final.

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm not sure what your thoughts are, but I'd probably characterise a 'defensive'
player as one reluctant to play many shots at all. He's the sort of player whose
first instinct is to block, or even better, leave the ball. Gavaskar's 36* in
the World Cup seems to have been the archetypal defensive knock, however
misplaced it was.

He was obviously making a point of some sort, but even all these years
later what it might have been is lost on me.

Post by Aditya Basrur
Something I always recall when I think 'defence', with a
smile, is Geoff Allott spending 101 minutes at the crease at Auckland against
South Africa in March 1999. It actually followed a then-familiar NZ collapse. On
a glued pitch, Cullinan made a frightfully boring 275. NZ responded strongly at
first, with two wickets down when the score was 200. We ended up at 352, with
Allott contributing nought but actually helping us avert defeat. Calling him a
batsman is a rather liberal definition of the term, however. (His innings did
remind me of my greatest innings however, which I recounted at
http://tinyurl.com/36r72 in some depth.)
I'd say a 'classical' bat is one who respects every ball on the stumps, leaves
risky balls outside off or leg, and only really plays shots to the rank bad
balls - the long-hops, the half-volleys. He probably has all the strokes but
doesn't play them much. A 'romantic' bat is more attacking still, cover-driving
the bad ball outside off, perhaps shuffling to leg to play a cut at times as
well. But I'd say a cross-bat shot on the leg-side would be rare from a
classical player; you certainly would not see a reverse-sweep.

Pretty much agreed.

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'd say such a
batsman would be my favourite to watch - probably the McCabe in his pomp, too,
from the way I classify things. The attacking player doesn't necessarily follow
the rule-book at all - he is likeliest to play and miss, but also as likely to
hit sixes. He'll pull bad balls from outside off, play reverse-sweeps if he sees
the occasion, and come down the track to hit the bowler back over his head. (My
personal preference is the batsman doesn't take risks. With some players, it's
not really a risk to do the above things, as their hand-eye co-ordination is
that good.) Would you say my definitions are somewhere close to yours.
The Tendulkars, Sobers, Bradmans and Hobbs of this world defy and transcend
these definitions. Their techniques may not be classical, but they defend well
and attack even better. And there's always a romance about the way they play the
game.

Post by John Hall
Not including Vaughan I should say, on the evidence of the last year
or two, in which he has been remarkably dominant and shown that he
has most of the attacking strokes.

All right. By the way, has Vaughan always opened for Yorkshire? I seem to recall
reading that he was a middle-order bat at some point, which may well colour his
play.

His first full season for Yorkshire was 1995, when he opened with Moxon.
I think he may have had a spell down the order subsequently.

Post by Aditya Basrur
Dickie Bird once made 181, opening for Yorkshire, I seem to remember. I
wouldn't quite rate him with Hutton, Sutcliffe and Boycott, I think.

Nor did Yorkshire, who IIRC gave him the sack, whereupon he went to
Leicestershire.

[Narayanan]

Post by Aditya Basrur
Oh, of course. I think there's some overlap between the "defensive" and the
"classical" school; ditto between "attacking" and "romantic". I'm trying to
think of current exemplars. I think Dravid is about as close as you could get to
'classical' at present.

One thing I always admired about Dravid was he has a wide
vareity of strokes and he plays all of them to perfection. IMO,
no other Indian batsman past/present comes close in variety of
shots he plays. Defensive, that he may be. But when he plays his
shots, he certainly is very watchable. You would hardly see him
indulging in ugly midwicket hoiking or cover driving sans movement
of his feet. I don't mind watching defensive batting. But I do mind
watching midwicket hoikes, ugly square cuts and such. Romantic is
something I would say Laxman is. IMO he is more artistic than Azhar,
Waugh and Hooper. Very wristy. He can be murderous. At the same
time, one wouldn't complain about the quality of his shots. Azhar after
1994 or so more of a slogger. Plus I hated him play the short deliveries.
Quite unwatchable, the way he evaded them. Prior to 1994 he was very
artistic. The WC game against Aussies in 1992 is a prime example of
vintage Azhar. After 1994, he became less watchable and more of a
slogger.

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm more loathe to attach the romantic tag to a current
player - I have this image of someone who comes out all guns blazing, but plays
everything very correctly (perhaps Laxman, of those I've seen lately; certainly
Gower, Ranji, Azhar and Woolley stretching further back, if we're on the same
wavelength). There are plenty of attacking players around, however: Hayden,
Sehwag, Gilchrist, plenty of others. The high noon of defensive players was
probably the 1950s, with guys like Bailey playing. Where would you place
Boycott?

I watched Boycott in 1981-82. The series itself was unwatchable for
unsportsmanly defensive play wherein sides used to bowl 60 overs
a day and spinners taking more than 5 minutes to complete one over.
Boycott was at his defensive best. But, Tavare was worse than him.
In the chennai test Gooch made a strokeful 127, Tavare played 330
minutes for his 35 runs. Delhi test saw Boycott and Tavare score 100s
each sharing a boring (as hell) partnership. Even Botham's 5 sixers
couldn't make the game interesting.

Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm not sure what your thoughts are, but I'd probably characterise a 'defensive'
player as one reluctant to play many shots at all. He's the sort of player whose
first instinct is to block, or even better, leave the ball. Gavaskar's 36* in
the World Cup seems to have been the archetypal defensive knock, however
misplaced it was. Something I always recall when I think 'defence', with a
smile, is Geoff Allott spending 101 minutes at the crease at Auckland against
South Africa in March 1999.

Didn't Allott create a record of sorts by not scoring for 70 odd balls?
I thought the test was quite interesting(So was Danny Morrison's last
test btw).


N-

[Mike Holmans]

Post by John Hall

Post by Aditya Basrur
Hutton seems to have been more the sort of player you could count on
when your back was to the wall, and thus probably suffers in contrast
with Compton. I probably wouldn't want to watch him as much as I would
Compton, had I lived in the 1930s and 1940s, but I would have been glad
to have him in my side as an English supporter.

I would rate Hutton and Compton as equals, though - like you - I should
rather watch Compton. Hutton was capable of attacking if he chose, and
his off and cover driving were I believe supposed to have been
particularly fine. But he generally saw his role for England as being
the sheet anchor - with some justification. Even then, he was never
quite so defensive in outlook as Bailey, for instance.
But, as befits a Yorkshireman, Mike Holmans knows a lot more about
Hutton than I do, and I doubt that he'll be able to resist contributing
to this thread.

Assuming I found out about it. I've been in Florida this past week,
delivering my wild and wacky presentation on "Surviving the Setup of
WLM Stored Procedures" to a rapt audience of database administrators,
but without Usenet access.

The first comment in this thread which got me going was the ludicrous
characterisation of Sutcliffe, one of the most elegant batsmen to have
graced the opening spot, as "stolid". It was he who did most of the
forcing of the pace during his partnerships with Hobbs, and he was the
acknowledged master of the hook amongst English batsmen of the day,
outclassing even Hendren.

Compton himself was very disappointed by Hutton because of his
defensive cast of mind. Had Hutton played his shots the way Compton
knew he could - because he'd seen it while out in the middle with the
man - Compton was convinced that he would have outstripped Bradman.
And Compton knew a fair bit about Bradman as well as Hutton from
personal observation. Since May was nearly as good but wasn't as
inhibited, Compton in fact rated May above Hutton, though I think
there are very few who would agree with him.

Even so, the question that always hangs in the background about Hutton
is what if? What if there hadn't been the war and he'd gone on from
the 364 to 7 consecutive years of cricket instead of war service
resulting in surgery which shortened one of his arms? What if he
hadn't felt that the entire English batting effort depended on him and
him alone (at least, most of the time)? All time great though Hutton
undoubtedly was, there is still more of a sense of unfulfilled
potential about him than about anyone else of similar stature (with
the possible exception of Compton of those who had full careers, owing
to The Knee, and those prematurely cut off such as Archie Jackson and
Collie Smith).

The 364 was no spectacular, though. Sidney Barnes reckoned he'd never
been so bored on a cricket field as fielding through that, which was
on the flattest track he ever played on (according to his book "It's
Not Cricket", in which he reveals he was born in Queensland but was
unsure of the year - and on being told he'd have to inquire of the
Brisbane authorities to get it cleared up, decided not to because it
was indisputable that "most of the worst cricket decisions in the
world come from Brisbane" and he wasn't going to let people from
Brisbane decide how old he was).

Cheers,

Mike

[Aditya Basrur]

Post by Mike Holmans
Assuming I found out about it. I've been in Florida this past week,
delivering my wild and wacky presentation on "Surviving the Setup of
WLM Stored Procedures" to a rapt audience of database administrators,
but without Usenet access.

Tragic. Did you go see the places where Hemingway spent time during his latter
years? Did you find an opportunity to go to Kokomo and sing Beach Boys songs?

Post by Mike Holmans
The first comment in this thread which got me going was the ludicrous
characterisation of Sutcliffe, one of the most elegant batsmen to have
graced the opening spot, as "stolid". It was he who did most of the
forcing of the pace during his partnerships with Hobbs, and he was the
acknowledged master of the hook amongst English batsmen of the day,
outclassing even Hendren.

Quite. However, that was a long time ago, and the person who made that
characterisation is still recovering from listening to some English DJs of Asian
extraction till half four this morning. Hence he can't really be arsed going
back and looking for a context to his comment. He might add, however, that his
intention with the word "stolid" was not to be pejorative, but to convey the
sense that Sutcliffe was a reasonably dependable batsman. Perhaps if one removes
the "t" from the word, one might better understand what he meant. English is his
second language, after all (possibly third), and he's liable to mangle words
from time to time.

What's your view on Hutton's pre-war performance? Good, bad or not really
especially indicative of anything?

<snip>

Aditya

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 11:05:06 +1200, "Aditya Basrur"

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Mike Holmans
Assuming I found out about it. I've been in Florida this past week,
delivering my wild and wacky presentation on "Surviving the Setup of
WLM Stored Procedures" to a rapt audience of database administrators,
but without Usenet access.

Tragic. Did you go see the places where Hemingway spent time during his latter
years? Did you find an opportunity to go to Kokomo and sing Beach Boys songs?

No. I got the opportunity to go to a restaurant about 8 miles from the
hotel, but otherwise all I saw of Florida was the road between Orlando
airport and the Marriott World Center. (and for the Spiffster's
benefit, I had no Usenet access because my laptop fell to bits so I
couldn't connect from my room, and I had far better things to do
socialising with friends I see about once every five years than to
waste time using groups.google.com from the conference's internet
cafe).

Post by Aditya Basrur

Post by Mike Holmans
The first comment in this thread which got me going was the ludicrous
characterisation of Sutcliffe, one of the most elegant batsmen to have
graced the opening spot, as "stolid". It was he who did most of the
forcing of the pace during his partnerships with Hobbs, and he was the
acknowledged master of the hook amongst English batsmen of the day,
outclassing even Hendren.

Quite. However, that was a long time ago, and the person who made that
characterisation is still recovering from listening to some English DJs of Asian
extraction till half four this morning. Hence he can't really be arsed going
back and looking for a context to his comment. He might add, however, that his
intention with the word "stolid" was not to be pejorative, but to convey the
sense that Sutcliffe was a reasonably dependable batsman. Perhaps if one removes
the "t" from the word, one might better understand what he meant. English is his
second language, after all (possibly third), and he's liable to mangle words
from time to time.
What's your view on Hutton's pre-war performance? Good, bad or not really
especially indicative of anything?

There were some old-timers at Yorkshire who reckoned he would never
amount to anything unless he gave up the ridiculous idea of playing
horizontal bat shots before tea on the first day. It wasn't so much
that he got out doing it, because he didn't, but that it was not how a
Yorkshire opening batsman was supposed to play. It was all right for
Sutcliffe, as a very senior and respected player, but not for a young
Tyke. Everyopne else who saw him knew that he was a great player in
the making from about the age of 15.

Of course, the old-timers nodded their approval at the 364 because it
wsa boring and responsible while everyone else snored until they could
marvel at the statistical mountain.

Cheers,

Mike

[Spaceman Spiff]

[snip]
Assuming I found out about it. I've been in Florida this past week,
delivering my wild and wacky presentation on "Surviving the Setup of
WLM Stored Procedures" to a rapt audience of database administrators,
but without Usenet access.
[snip]

doesn't surprise me that a bunch of db2 dbas don't have usenet access. ;-)