G is for Gower

culinary arts

Agree with the selection, to the extent that Trevor Goddard was the unluckiest to be left out, once the Gavaskar-Greenidge-Gooch trio had been whittled down to 2. (The teamsheet I'd previously posted can be accounted for by the fact that I'd forgotten about Tom Graveney and not heard of Jack Gregory). The captaincy is a tricky one, even if the Doctor provides a certain temptation (one that ought correctly to be resisted). Personally, I think Greig's combativeness seals it over Gower's public school charm and savoir-faire. I would argue for Greig to go in above Gilchrist, though. Not that I think the former was a better batsman (there's a case to be made, based on quality of opposition and changes in the game between the two players, but it's not a case that I ultimately find convincing), but rather because in facing this team I'd be more scared seeing Gilchrist coming in at 5 down than Greig. Whether the top order batsmen have set a good foundation or got themselves into a hole, I'd want Gilly coming in, in the first instance to accelerate the scoring, in the second to stick around and accumulate more circumspectly. I don't think he's as dangerous at 6. However, if you're going to pick Flintoff in Fry's XI, I don't think there's any excuse for leaving out Gooch. If you want to, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that there was a point at in both Greenidge and Gavaskar's careers when they were better than the Leytonstone bore in 1990 and 1991.

Shippers

Let's be clear. Really clear. I mean translucently demonstrably shatteringly transparent. I HATE GRAHAM GOOCH I agree with every word you have written about the dry weave top sheet hairdoed pratt. Of all the things that have occurred during my sports watching career, the thing I most despise is the way dry weave ended the career of David Ivon Gower, the man who first introduced me to a love of cricket, with characteristically lackadaisical brilliance at Trent Bridge in 1983, when he flicked 60 odd in next to no time shortly after Chris Tavare ground out 4 runs in an hour or so. There frankly might have died my interest in cricket and Gower revived it. And Gooch killed him. He is a contemptible human being who never understood the transcendental majesty of sport. But to deny him a place in this XI, I fear is caprice. And I know, because it is a caprice that is seared into my soul. When tasked with selecting his best England XI of the post war world, CMJ gave himself only Hutton, Boyvott and Gooch to chose from as openers. And he was right. Gavaskar is regarded by many as the greatest batsman since Bradman. I think that overstated but he is clearly the first batsman on the team sheet here. Greenidge to me was the greater attacking batsman. Certainly in 1984 he was Richards' superior as the greatest batsman in the world--and you know that praise comes no higher from me. Viv was undoubtedly the greatest cricketer of all time, with the generational challenges of Grace and Bradman acknowledged... But unlike most batsmen, Gooch had his moment in the sun as the world's greatest batsman. I watched that 154 against the Windies on an unfriendly track. While his 333 was flat track bullying of the sort that will rightly put Matt Hayden in next week's 2nd XI, the 154 was one of the 3 or 4 greatest innings I have ever seen. Wisden judges it the second finest in history, based on the state of the series, the wicket and the opposition. This is a serious business or it is nothing, and much as I despise what Gooch came to represent for English cricket, most impartial observers would find him a place, I suspect ahead of Greenidge. One could find a place for Cuthbert Gordon at No 4 if one so chose, but to me Gooch is a perfect clobbering No 5. I originally picked Greig but then dropped him. I think if he plays he should certainly skipper ahead even of Grace, certainly of Gower, who frankly was not much of a captain. Leading by example, as he did in that glorious summer of 1985 (when he was the premier batsman on the planet) is not the same thing at all. Greig was to English cricket everything that Gooch was not. But he was hardly Gooch or Graveney with the bat; Gregory or Garner with the ball. Admit to the righteousness of Gooch, whose worst attributes need not assert themselves in a team skippered by an aggressive bastard like Grace, and we don't need Greig. A Gower fact: unreliable offstump wafter he may have been. He still holds the record for the number of consecutive test innings without a duck... Either way, this is a very, very strong side. H clearly has the best batting, with 4 of the 6 best batsmen who ever lived in the top order and L has 6 of the best 12 best bowlers that ever let rip. M, T and W have their strengths. But G is a very strong side. Certainly one of the 2 or 3 strongest. One only casts a sigh for Grout, Giffen and Goddard, in particular, who would have strolled into most teams. We all look forward to a prompter display of H magnificence. I'll start you off now Hobbs Hutton Hammond Headley WOW! ohmigod! It makes you sweat with excitement... to be continued...

Shippers

Having initially posted my team in the comments page to your F team, I am in almost complete agreement, but--following your belief in specialists--I would take Gooch for Greig. Which leaves... Gavaskar Greenidge Gower Grace (cpt) Gooch Graveney Gilchrist (wkt) Gregory Garner Grimmett Gibbs

Shippers

And as another taster, I offer this as a 2nd XI for next week... Desmond Haynes Matt Hayden Clem Hill (most unlucky to miss out) Mike Hussey Lindsay Hassett Patsy Hendren/Vijay Hazare Jackie Hendricks (wkt) Hedley Howarth Merv Hughes Steve Harmison (at his best) David Harris

culinary arts

Shippiers, I think you've actually weakened the team in a desire to strengthen the batting. I don't think you can expect Grace to be a reliable third seamer on modern wickets. And while bringing Greig in still doesn't make the pace attack as daunting as, say, the Hs or Ts, it beefs it up considerably, especially when kept out in the field on the first day.

Only Michael Vaughan, among England batsment since, has come close to Gower in terms of elegance or natural timing.

tommyt

Funny how one of letters which provides the richest seam of talent also leads to one of the easiest selections. It is very difficult to disagree with any of the selections, Gillespie in my view coming closest to a pick (200-odd wickets whilst playing with a pair that have taken 1200-odd, and for that matter Brett Lee and Stuey MacGill, is an excellent return). The captaincy is a bit of a thorny issue, I appreciate what Alex is trying to display here by picking Gower but Gavasker & Greig were far superior captains. Greigs selection is an interesting but justified one. Were it not for WSC he might well have joined the elite 2000 run 200 wicket crew (mebbe even 3000/300) and I cant imagine any of the other all rounders in the same club being left out. Which brings almost inevitably to Gooch CMJ was probably right to say that there are only three openers he would consider for an all time England xi. Gooch merits consideration but , as with the G XI, he would just miss out. Gavaskar in terms of average and runs scored blows Gooch out of the water and its inconceivable to leave such an agressive and accomplished opener as Greenidge (who also has a better average than old rug head) out of, what is after all, a 2008 team. So can we fit Gooch in elsewhere ? It does seem churlish to leave someone who has scored 8900 test runs out. But he is not supplanting Gower (only a handful of runs behind the captian who, just whisper it, may have ended his career to take his record) or Grace. Always good to have three seam up bowlers so Greig seems safe - there is also the feeling that watching Gooch trudge in at number 6 would numb the soul. Greigs West Lothian roots are always likely to win a tie-breaker on this blog too ! So Graveney vs Gooch then. One question is could we have Gooch at 5 when clearly the fluent strokeplay of Graveny is better suited to the position than the block and bully tactics which made Gooch's name. Also ,yet again, when you look at the figures you see that Graveney had a higher average (both overall and away from home) which to my mind seals Goochs fate. An entirely specious point was made about Gooch's scintillating brillaince over 2 years. He was undoubtedly the top batsman in the world for around a 12 month spell, but that doesnt quite beat the all time greats with whom he is in direct competition. Comparisons with Flintoff are all very well but Fred doesnt have to compete with Fotham and Fadlee for the all rounders slot in his side. So I am afraid the moustachieod one will have to serve the drinks to Gower and his mates. Whether it is Gatorade, Lucozade or Chateau Laffite is up to him.

culinary arts

And I suspect that my H XI looks very similar to that of Shippers. Although I suspect that in 5 or 10 years time, Hussey might well have forced his way out of the 2nd XI.

culinary arts

And it's Lafite.

Shippers

I suspect you are right. I am prepared to concede the Greig point, primarily because he is demonstrably the best captain here. But also if one believes in true specialists, then Graveney is a superior No 5 to Gooch. I only advanced his case so vociferously since my inclination is to play devil's advocate, I knew of Massie's feelings on the matter and it makes for better exchanges on these pages. Perhaps for the first time we are all in broad agreement.

Alex

Yes, I suppose Greig perhaps should be the skipper. But I like being able to remember DI Gower holding up that little urn at the Oval in 1985...Of course it would have been even better if he'd been Ivon Gower, not David... Next week's team may be up as early Saturday, if only because at least eight of the places are pretty much automatic selections. Even the L's might not fancy bowling at the H batting line-up.

tommyt

Dear culinary arts Your comment reminds me of the scene in Local Hero where one guy who is trying to schmooze (sp?) Burt Lancaster asks "Are there two r's in Ferrari" to be met with the impeccable "I don't know but there are two g's in bugger off"

Dave K

Yeesh, the fact that there are several commenters who think Gooch should be on the 1st XI just shows that too many Brits read your blog. Unless you play him down the order, there's no way Gooch makes this team above Gavaskar or even Greenidge. I guess you can make a case that he should be on the team over Greenidge, but not only is Greenidge's record slightly better, he should get props for being a vital part of one of the most dominant teams in history, the 80s West Indies. I can't believe Culinary Arts suggested that Gooch should make the team over Gavaskar! Gooch can certainly consider himself unlucky not to make the cut, but thems the breaks. Needless to say, he'd be the star of his team if his name was Fooch. Otherwise, this is a very strong team, and a very strong second XI too. Also, I don't remember your criteria for selection, but I assume you don't count ODI performance as a relevant factor? I know I've seen several selections that have factored in the player's first class records. The reason I bring this up is that Saurav Ganguly is perhaps one of the five best one-day batsmen of all time (or at least top ten), though I agree he certainly doesn't make the First XI on a test team. Finally, cross-sports comparison of the day. David Gower: cricket = John McEnroe: tennis. Discuss.

Alex

Dave K, You're right: ODI performances play no role in this series. These are teams to play test matches, not knockabout stuff. First class records are used too of course, especially for players who, for one reason or another, didn't have the opportunity to play much test cricket. I agree that Ganguly can be a thrilling ODI player and he's a player I've always enjoyed watching in test match cricket. TommyT: I know you're joking, but let's be civil, eh? The player most unlucky not to get in may in fact be Trevor Goddard who may well be the Best Overlooked All-Rounder of the last 60 years.

culinary arts

Dave K, please show me where I've suggested that I wanted to pick Gooch. (It may help to look at the comments on the F-thread, in which I wrongly thought that Ganguly and Gillespie should be included, but made what is clearly the only correct decision on opening batsmen.) My only argument is over consistency of reasoning, my implication being that Flintoff probably shouldn't be in the F-team, based on either batting or bowling. Alex: I know it's your joint, but I have no objection to incivility directed towards me, especially if I've earned it.

Dave K

Culinary (if I may refer to you by your first name) -- my apologies. I read the last line of your post to suggest that you thought Gooch should be picked ahead of Gavaskar, not connecting the history of your comments for the F team or realizing that you were really making an anti-Flintoff argument. Fair enough. Again, my apologies. In fact, upon closer reading, I realize that no one really suggested including Gooch over Gavaskar. I grew up in India idolizing Gavaskar, and am apparently oversensitive to the possibility that others may not see his greatness as a batsman.

Dave K

A random thought -- remember when Lance Gibbs held the world record for most wickets in test cricket hostory? Seems like a LONG time ago, especially as Warne and Murali have been going back and forth with a record of more than twice as many wickets as Gibbs had ....

culinary arts

no: he retired a fair while before I was born.

tommyt

The time when i take advice from you, Alex, on how to behave in civilised company is some way off. That said explaining this spat would go something like. Whilst debating the merits of test cricketers whose surname begins with G I was upbraided about my spelling of chateau lafite which I met with a rejoinder citing Bill Forsyth's seminal (sp?) 1983 work Local Hero. Gower & McEnroe isnt a great comparison in my view. I see where this starts, both lovely to watch, both achieved much but left us with a feeling that there talent deserved more. However the attitude of the men seemed to differ hugely, you always got the feeeling McEnroe would kill his granny to win whereas with Gower the aesthetics (sp?) seemed paramount

Political Umpire

"Only Michael Vaughan, among England batsment since, has come close to Gower in terms of elegance or natural timing. Two words: Ian Bell." One word: neither. Gooch deserves expulsion on the ground of services to cricket; disservice in his case for buggering off to Saffa and having the cheek to omit Gower. Arse of a man. Don't select him on grounds of age.

tommyt

I might just be a digit or two out here but when I was growing up the all time wicket takers ran Gibbs 309 Trueman 302(ish) Underwood 297 Bedi 266 They were overtaken by Lillee 326 & then Botham 355 (ish) Funny how the slow left armers had a dominace then were supplanted by quicks and then spinners (who can turn it the same way as lefties but use the other arm)

Tim

I think you're unnecessarily harsh on Gooch, who was England's best batsman for years. Was England under Gooch really more depressing than the 1989 Ashes under Gower, or the 184 and 1986 blackwashes? Plus his glum cricket was only displayed in facial expressions - he scored at a pretty bloody good lick, and according to Gower was one of the few players that would fill a players' balcony when he was batting.

culinary arts

Next week's team may be up as early Saturday,

Sri

Gavaskar lacked team spirit - imo a crucial part of the cricketing character. His petty clashes with Kapil hurt the Indian team a lot in the 80s- how much weightage is given to skill vs character?