On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 8:31:01 AM UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:16:03 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > OK. So let us suppose that for the fifth game of an Ashes series with the series 2-1 in England's favour , you would not support England batting again if a similar situation to that of the Test just concluded arose ?
> Are you talking about the 4th innings?

Nope, the third innings . RH
>
> Only Root batted Bazball style.

In message <3a944f5b-6452-4230-ac72-cbc1112e1db7n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 6:16:330 >> In message <625cd435-19c5-4691...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:12:310 >> On Tuesday, 28 February
>> >2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:27:010 >> > > On Tuesday, 28
>> >> >February 2023 at 11:17:31 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> >> > > > That they failed
>> >> > > > to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the
>> >> > > >doesn't
>> >> > > > invalidate the decision.
>> >> > > It takes a special type of plank to think that a 1-run defeat
>> >> > >somehow invalidates a decision.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Richard
>> >> > The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
>> >> >batted again DOH!!!! RH
>> >> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
>> >>calculate.
>> >
>> >
>> >At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England. They could
>> >have batted for two thirds of a day, scored 300 and left themselves 4
>> >sessions to bowl NZ out. The chances of NZ scoring 500 or so would
>> >have been minuscule.
>> >RH
>> >
>> As we should all know by now, guaranteeing a draw is not what this
>> England side are about.
>
>OK. So let us suppose that for the fifth game of an Ashes series with
>the series 2-1 in England's favour , you would not support England
>batting again if a similar situation to that of the Test just concluded
>arose ?

In that instance I would support England batting again. I'm not sure
whether Stokes and McCullum would, though. It would be nice if England
were in that position coming to the Oval this summer and we could find
out.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

In message <f9fe12de-e23c-415a-959f-3f47f29205f2n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:16:030 >> OK. So let us suppose that for the fifth game of an Ashes series with
>>the series 2-1 in England's favour , you would not support England
>>batting again if a similar situation to that of the Test just
>>concluded arose ?
>
>Are you talking about the 4th innings?
>
>Only Root batted Bazball style.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the decision to
enforce the follow-on.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:03:04 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> >Only Root batted Bazball style.
> That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the decision to
> enforce the follow-on.

Yeah. I was speed reading!

I don't support England enforcing the follow-on *this* time. I'd certainly not support it in the scenario he described.

In message <k6as78FbpalU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 27/02/2023 16:37, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <5770347a-e7d7-4ece-9f03-cc38d2b73960n@googlegroups.com>,
>>mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>>> I read that 198 is the highest winning score by a side after
>>>enforcing the
>>> follow on, which makes me feel rather more nervous than you, since
>>> you know england wont want to hang about but take plenty of risks. we
>>> saw that from 450-5 NZ suddenly fell away very quickly. Plus Stokes
>>> hurt his knee again fielding the ball which led to bracewells strange
>>> runout.
>> How often have sides needed to chase more than 198 after making the
>>opposition follow on, though? It can't be a very frequent occurrence.
>
>This was the 8th.
>
>> And how many of those matches were drawn because time ran out, rather
>>than lost?
>
>6, and only 2 of those saw more than 1 wicket fall in the 4th innings.
>Apart from Australia at Kolkata, the only side that came close to
>losing was NZ at Bombay in 1964/65.
>
>https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fieldi
>ng_first=1;class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=4;orderby=target;qualm
>in1=199;qualval1=target;size=200;template=results;type=team;view=innings
>

Thanks David. I'm glad to see that the data seems to support the point
that I was making.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

In message <k6b02cFbpaoU2@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 28/02/2023 18:17, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <960fdbcc-c7d6-40c1-8fc3-7c6388540a36n@googlegroups.com>,
>>mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> My main concern is that Stokes may have crocked his knee again.
>>>Collingwood said he had a problem at the end of the 3rd day, so i
>>>would have expected to see stokes at 1st or 2nd slip for the rest of
>>>innings not charging about the outfield. But that is the nature of
>>>the man. If he cant play in the ashes that will make the decision to
>>>follow on much more regrettable than this loss to NZ.
>> The last England cricketer's knee to cause so much concern must have
>>been Denis Compton's.
>
>I'm not sure that Syd Lawrence or Simon Jones would agree.
>

Admirable players though both were - in particular Jones might have
become a true great given a few more years - I'd argue neither had the
huge appeal of Compton and Stokes to the casual cricket follower.
Between those two, it may be that only Trueman, Dexter, Milburn, Botham
and Flintoff have done. That's not to say that there weren't other
England cricketers just as good or even better, just that they weren't
quite as dashing and charismatic as those few I've mentioned. (Gower and
Willis would come close. Gooch was lacking in charisma.)
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:03:43 AM UTC, David North wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 18:17, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <960fdbcc-c7d6-40c1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >> My main concern is that Stokes may have crocked his knee again.
> >> Collingwood said he had a problem at the end of the 3rd day, so i
> >> would have expected to see stokes at 1st or 2nd slip for the rest of
> >> the NZ innings not charging about the outfield. But that is the nature
> >> of the man. If he cant play in the ashes that will make the decision
> >> to follow on much more regrettable than this loss to NZ.
> >
> > The last England cricketer's knee to cause so much concern must have
> > been Denis Compton's.

Compton damaged his knee playing professional football just before the war,.. He never fully recovered. However he was still pretty nifty about a football pitch in 195o when he played his ;ast professional football , match the Cup Final in 1950, see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY5cmuNfENs

RH

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:10:50 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:30:06 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On 28/02/2023 14:25, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>>> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
> >>>> batted again DOH!!!! RH
> >[Najeeb ybo:]
> >>> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
> >>> calculate.
> >> At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England.
> >
> > Not so, see below. But in any case, guaranteeing a[t least] a
> >draw is not the same as maximising the probability of winning. Further,
> >playing to avoid defeat is a bad frame of mind to be in; smacks of fear,
> >and England have no need to fear anyone at the moment.
> And there we see the difference between the 1950s mentality and
> Stokes's.
>
> In the 1950s, the object was to avoid defeat, and the play was
> accordingly focused on defence, with a side-effect of extreme boredom.
> Nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play or what you
> want to watch. As we saw thoughout the 50s and 60s, its main effect in
> Test cricket is to make the draw the default result. It's the
> conservative risk-averse mentality which has held the UK back for the
> last century or so.
>
> Stokes is only interested in winning and isn't going to try and stave
> off defeat until it's impossible to win. With this approach we win
> more matches and lose more matches. A side-effect is that the games
> are much more competitive and a lot more interesting to watch, unless
> stolid defence and innocuous medium pace is your thing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Below is the record of England Tests in the 1950. It emphatically gives the lie to the idea that cricket was not draw heavy:

England series in the 1950s

1950 England 1 Windies 3

1950/51 Australia 4 England 1

1951 England 3 SA 0

1951/52 India 1 England 1

1952 England 3 India 0

1953 England 1 Australia 0

1953/4 Windies 2 England 2

1954 England 1 Pakistan 1

1954/5 Australia 1 England 3
NZ 0 England 2

1955 England 3 SA 2

1956 England 2 Australia 1

1956/7 SA 2 England 2

1957 England 3 West Indies 0

1958 England 4 NZ 0

1958 /9 Australia 4 England 0
NZ 0 England 1
1959 England 5 India 0
1959/60 West Indies 1 England 1

RH

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 11:00:15 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:10:50 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:30:06 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >On 28/02/2023 14:25, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >>>> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
> > >>>> batted again DOH!!!! RH
> > >[Najeeb ybo:]
> > >>> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
> > >>> calculate.
> > >> At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England.
> > >
> > > Not so, see below. But in any case, guaranteeing a[t least] a
> > >draw is not the same as maximising the probability of winning. Further,
> > >playing to avoid defeat is a bad frame of mind to be in; smacks of fear,
> > >and England have no need to fear anyone at the moment.
> > And there we see the difference between the 1950s mentality and
> > Stokes's.
> >
> > In the 1950s, the object was to avoid defeat, and the play was
> > accordingly focused on defence, with a side-effect of extreme boredom.
> > Nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play or what you
> > want to watch. As we saw thoughout the 50s and 60s, its main effect in
> > Test cricket is to make the draw the default result. It's the
> > conservative risk-averse mentality which has held the UK back for the
> > last century or so.
> >
> > Stokes is only interested in winning and isn't going to try and stave
> > off defeat until it's impossible to win. With this approach we win
> > more matches and lose more matches. A side-effect is that the games
> > are much more competitive and a lot more interesting to watch, unless
> > stolid defence and innocuous medium pace is your thing.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> Below is the record of England Tests in the 1950. It emphatically gives the lie to the idea that cricket was not draw heavy:

Ignoring the 'not' in that sentence, the proportion of draws (26.5%) was nowhere near as high as in the following decade, but still significantly higher than in the 2010s (18.3%) and 2020s (17.1%).

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=percentage_drawn;team=1;template=results;type=team

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 06:01:00 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 11:00:15 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:10:50?PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:30:06 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> > >On 28/02/2023 14:25, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> > >>>> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
>> > >>>> batted again DOH!!!! RH
>> > >[Najeeb ybo:]
>> > >>> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
>> > >>> calculate.
>> > >> At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England.
>> > >
>> > > Not so, see below. But in any case, guaranteeing a[t least] a
>> > >draw is not the same as maximising the probability of winning. Further,
>> > >playing to avoid defeat is a bad frame of mind to be in; smacks of fear,
>> > >and England have no need to fear anyone at the moment.
>> > And there we see the difference between the 1950s mentality and
>> > Stokes's.
>> >
>> > In the 1950s, the object was to avoid defeat, and the play was
>> > accordingly focused on defence, with a side-effect of extreme boredom.
>> > Nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play or what you
>> > want to watch. As we saw thoughout the 50s and 60s, its main effect in
>> > Test cricket is to make the draw the default result. It's the
>> > conservative risk-averse mentality which has held the UK back for the
>> > last century or so.
>> >
>> > Stokes is only interested in winning and isn't going to try and stave
>> > off defeat until it's impossible to win. With this approach we win
>> > more matches and lose more matches. A side-effect is that the games
>> > are much more competitive and a lot more interesting to watch, unless
>> > stolid defence and innocuous medium pace is your thing.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Mike
>> Below is the record of England Tests in the 1950. It emphatically gives the lie to the idea that cricket was not draw heavy:
>
>Ignoring the 'not' in that sentence, the proportion of draws (26.5%) was nowhere near as high as in the following decade, but still significantly higher than in the 2010s (18.3%) and 2020s (17.1%).
>
>https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=percentage_drawn;team=1;template=results;type=team

Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8gdovt53ad0ubma6kk0@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.

I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

In message <QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8gdovt53ad0ubma6kk0@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
>>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
>>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
>
>I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
>time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
>players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
>Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
>a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.

To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
colapsed to 143 all out.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 16:59:42 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8gdovt53ad0ubma6kk0@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
>>>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
>>>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
>>
>>I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
>>time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
>>players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
>>Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
>>a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
>
>To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
>full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
>Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
>chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
>colapsed to 143 all out.

Presumably it was their T20 mentality and lack of technique which let
them down. It's caused every England collapse in the last 15 years,
and it seems likely that it would have caused problems even 70 years
ago.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:43 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
> >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
> >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
> >
> >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
> >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
> >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
> >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
> >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
> To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
> full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
> Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
> chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
> colapsed to 143 all out.

Ir was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes.

Hutton,
Simpson
May
Compton
Graveny
Evans at 6
Wardle
Tyson
McConnon
Statham
Loader

The only England regulars were Hutton and , Compton

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:39:27 PM UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:43 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> > <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> > >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> > ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> > >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
> > >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
> > >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
> > >
> > >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
> > >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
> > >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
> > >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
> > >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
> > To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
> > full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
> > Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
> > chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
> > colapsed to 143 all out.

It was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes. This was the actual England side :

Hutton,
Simpson
May
Compton
Graveny
Evans at 6
Wardle
Tyson
McConnon
Statham
Loader

The only England regulars were Hutton, Evans and Compton RH

In message <bebcb473-cd13-45e6-b3ed-a5ca06ae99dcn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:430 >> In message <QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>> >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
>> >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
>> >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
>> >
>> >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
>> >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
>> >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
>> >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
>> >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
>> To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
>> full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
>> Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
>> chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
>> colapsed to 143 all out.
>
>Ir was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser
>sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes.
>
>Hutton,
>Simpson
>May
>Compton
>Graveny
> Evans at 6
>Wardle
>Tyson
>McConnon
>Statham
>Loader
>
>The only England regulars were Hutton and , Compton

May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
strong side, apart from being a batsman light. Also Tyson and Loader,
relying more on great pace rather than seam movement or swing, were
perhaps not the right pace bowlers for the conditions but, as you
suggested, were probably picked with the Ashes in mind.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:22:19 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
>played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
>Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
>England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
>strong side, apart from being a batsman light.

England lost, but Pakistan were a weak side. Therefore it was a
weakened England side. Next!... RH

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:23:46 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <bebcb473-cd13-45e6...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:430 >> In message <QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> >> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >> >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> >> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >> >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
> >> >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
> >> >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
> >> >
> >> >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
> >> >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
> >> >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
> >> >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
> >> >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
> >> To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
> >> full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
> >> Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
> >> chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
> >> colapsed to 143 all out.
> >
> >Ir was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser
> >sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes.
> >
> >Hutton,
> >Simpson
> >May
> >Compton
> >Graveny
> > Evans at 6
> >Wardle
> >Tyson
> >McConnon
> >Statham
> >Loader
> >
> >The only England regulars were Hutton and , Compton
>

May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
> played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
> Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
> England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
> strong side, apart from being a batsman light. Also Tyson and Loader,
> relying more on great pace rather than seam movement or swing, were
> perhaps not the right pace bowlers for the conditions but, as you
> suggested, were probably picked with the Ashes in mind.

May was in and out . I left Evans out as regular simply because the screen locked on me . I amended those missed out because of the technological problem. in another post.. The only players who could reasonably have been called England regulars in the lost Test XI were Hutton, Compton and Evans. The rest were either making their Test debuts or had been in or out of the England side over the previous 5 years.
RH

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 2:13:49 PM UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:23:46 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <bebcb473-cd13-45e6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:430 >> In message <QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> > >> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> > >> >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> > >> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> > >> >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
> > >> >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
> > >> >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
> > >> >
> > >> >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
> > >> >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
> > >> >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
> > >> >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
> > >> >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
> > >> To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
> > >> full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
> > >> Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
> > >> chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
> > >> colapsed to 143 all out.
> > >
> > >Ir was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser
> > >sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes.
> > >
> > >Hutton,
> > >Simpson
> > >May
> > >Compton
> > >Graveny
> > > Evans at 6
> > >Wardle
> > >Tyson
> > >McConnon
> > >Statham
> > >Loader
> > >
> > >The only England regulars were Hutton and , Compton
> >
>
> May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
> > played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
> > Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
> > England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
> > strong side, apart from being a batsman light. Also Tyson and Loader,
> > relying more on great pace rather than seam movement or swing, were
> > perhaps not the right pace bowlers for the conditions but, as you
> > suggested, were probably picked with the Ashes in mind.
> May was in and out . I left Evans out as regular simply because the screen locked on me . I amended those missed out because of the technological problem. in another post.. The only players who could reasonably have been called England regulars in the lost Test XI were Hutton, Compton and Evans. The rest were either making their Test debuts or had been in or out of the England side over the previous 5 years.
> RH

The full list of England debuts in the series was

Roy Appleyarrd
J McConnon
Jim Parks
P Loader
F Tyson

Based on all the England players who appeared in the series this was probably the best XI which could be made on them

Hutton
Simpson
Sheppard
May
Compton
Bailey
Evans
Bedser
Wardle
Applelyard
Tyson

RH

In message <e6808371-43ec-4a5a-9742-79d605c0da81n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:23:460 >> In message <bebcb473-cd13-45e6...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:430 >> In message
>> ><QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>> >> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>> >> >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> >> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> >> >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
>> >> >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
>> >> >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
>> >> >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
>> >> >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's tour of
>> >> >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling brilliantly on
>> >> >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
>> >> To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
>> >> full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
>> >> Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been 109-2
>> >> chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
>> >> colapsed to 143 all out.
>> >
>> >Ir was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser
>> >sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes.
>> >
>> >Hutton,
>> >Simpson
>> >May
>> >Compton
>> >Graveny
>> > Evans at 6
>> >Wardle
>> >Tyson
>> >McConnon
>> >Statham
>> >Loader
>> >
>> >The only England regulars were Hutton and , Compton
>>
>
> May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
>> played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
>> Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
>> England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
>> strong side, apart from being a batsman light. Also Tyson and Loader,
>> relying more on great pace rather than seam movement or swing, were
>> perhaps not the right pace bowlers for the conditions but, as you
>> suggested, were probably picked with the Ashes in mind.
>
>
>May was in and out . I left Evans out as regular simply because the
>screen locked on me . I amended those missed out because of the
>technological problem. in another post.. The only players who could
>reasonably have been called England regulars in the lost Test XI were
>Hutton, Compton and Evans. The rest were either making their Test
>debuts or had been in or out of the England side over the previous 5
>years.
>RH

Not true in the cases of Graveney and Statham, as I pointed out. And
whether or not you regard May as an England regular by that point, you
will struggle to convince me that his presence weakened the batting. At
this point, Hutton, Compton and May were arguably the three best batsmen
in England, even though the last two were no longer quite the force they
had been.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

In message <o9m30i5521udasgq9a9et8u16aks9hbj4f@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:22:19 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
>>played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
>>Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
>>England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
>>strong side, apart from being a batsman light.
>
>England lost, but Pakistan were a weak side. Therefore it was a
>weakened England side. Next!... RH

False logic. Occasionally a strong side will lose to a much weaker one.
We've had a couple of examples in the FA Cup this week. And while
Pakistan were overall far weaker than England, Fazal Mahmood was a fine
bowler ideally suited by the conditions.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:52:56 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <o9m30i5521udasgq9a9et8u16aks9hbj4f@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:22:19 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
>>>played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
>>>Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
>>>England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
>>>strong side, apart from being a batsman light.
>>
>>England lost, but Pakistan were a weak side. Therefore it was a
>>weakened England side. Next!... RH
>
>False logic.

What else would you expect?... RH
>Occasionally a strong side will lose to a much weaker one.
>We've had a couple of examples in the FA Cup this week. And while
>Pakistan were overall far weaker than England, Fazal Mahmood was a fine
>bowler ideally suited by the conditions.

In message <fe14e787-8c18-4390-aa07-169e74d6b5ddn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>Based on all the England players who appeared in the series this was
>probably the best XI which could be made on them
>
>Hutton
>Simpson
>Sheppard
>May
>Compton
>Bailey
>Evans
>Bedser
>Wardle
>Applelyard
> Tyson

Bailey and Bedser would obviously be in, and probably Appleyard too. But
I'm not convinced by Sheppard instead of Graveney.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On 03/03/2023 16:58, John Hall wrote:
> In message <e6808371-43ec-4a5a-9742-79d605c0da81n@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:23:460 >> In message
>> <bebcb473-cd13-45e6...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>>> >On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:430 >> In message
>>> ><QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>>> >> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>> >> >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>>> >> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>>> >> >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
>>> >> >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
>>> >> >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
>>> >> >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
>>> >> >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's
>>> tour of
>>> >> >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling
>>> brilliantly on
>>> >> >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
>>> >> To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
>>> >> full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
>>> >> Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been
>>> 109-2
>>> >> chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
>>> >> colapsed to 143 all out.
>>> >
>>> >Ir was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser
>>> >sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes.
>>> >
>>> >Hutton,
>>> >Simpson
>>> >May
>>> >Compton
>>> >Graveny
>>> > Evans at 6
>>> >Wardle
>>> >Tyson
>>> >McConnon
>>> >Statham
>>> >Loader
>>> >
>>> >The only England regulars were Hutton and , Compton
>>>
>>
>> May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
>>> played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
>>> Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
>>> England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
>>> strong side, apart from being a batsman light. Also Tyson and Loader,
>>> relying more on great pace rather than seam movement or swing, were
>>> perhaps not the right pace bowlers for the conditions but, as you
>>> suggested, were probably picked with the Ashes in mind.
>>
>>
>> May was in and out . I left Evans out as regular simply because the
>> screen locked on me . I amended those missed out because of the
>> technological problem. in another post..  The only players who could
>> reasonably have been called England regulars in the lost  Test XI
>> were Hutton, Compton and Evans. The rest were either making their Test
>> debuts or had been in or out of the England side   over the  previous
>> 5 years.
>> RH
>
> Not true in the cases of Graveney and Statham, as I pointed out. And
> whether or not you regard May as an England regular by that point, you
> will struggle to convince me that his presence weakened the batting.

Quite. You can't pick 'regulars' if they don't exist. Perhaps Robert
could tell us which 'regulars' were left out. Here's an XI based on the
players who had appeared most often in the 2 years prior to the start of
the 4th Test (14 Tests):

Hutton (12 Tests)
Watson (9)
May (11)
Compton (13)
Graveney (13)
Bailey (13)
Evans (13)
Wardle or Lock (8)
Laker (9)
Bedser (8)
Statham (8)

So the team that played at The Oval included 7 of the 12 most regular
players over the previous two years.

Even if we look at the 11 most regular players in the two years prior to
the start of the Pakistan series, the only changes to the above would be
that Lock would be included ahead of Wardle, and Trueman would replace
Statham, so 5 of the 11 from the Oval team would still be included.

--
David North

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:02:56 AM UTC, David North wrote:
> On 03/03/2023 16:58, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <e6808371-43ec-4a5a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:23:460 >> In message
> >> <bebcb473-cd13-45e6...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >>> >On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:03:430 >> In message
> >>> ><QV7uo5B8ANAkFw4b@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> >>> >> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >>> >> >In message <jvg10i17aurmqcs8g...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> >>> >> ><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >>> >> >>Against credible opposition, the proportion of draws in the 50s was
> >>> >> >>28.8%. Against India, NZ or Pakistan, anything short of a win would
> >>> >> >>have been a humiliation if there were more than two days' play.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >I think the defeat by Pakistan at The Oval in 1954 was viewed at the
> >>> >> >time as pretty humiliating. I believe England rested a number of top
> >>> >> >players to look at some promising candidates for that winter's
> >>> tour of
> >>> >> >Australia and paid the price, with Fazal Mahmood bowling
> >>> brilliantly on
> >>> >> >a green-top in conditions which must have been alien to him.
> >>> >> To correct myself, having looked at the scorecard it was close to a
> >>> >> full-strength England side except that, with Bailey missing, they had
> >>> >> Evans at 6 and Wardle at 7, so were a batsman light. They had been
> >>> 109-2
> >>> >> chasing 168 to win before that long tail came to bite them, and they
> >>> >> colapsed to 143 all out.
> >>> >
> >>> >Ir was what often was done in those days, treat Tests against lesser
> >>> >sides ass as a test for the for the Ashes.
> >>> >
> >>> >Hutton,
> >>> >Simpson
> >>> >May
> >>> >Compton
> >>> >Graveny
> >>> > Evans at 6
> >>> >Wardle
> >>> >Tyson
> >>> >McConnon
> >>> >Statham
> >>> >Loader
> >>> >
> >>> >The only England regulars were Hutton and , Compton
> >>>
> >>
> >> May and Evans were regulars, and Statham was pretty much one, having
> >>> played in 4 of the 5 Tests in WI in 1953-4 and all 4 Tests that summer.
> >>> Graveney was also a regular at this point, having played in 21 of
> >>> England's last 24 Tests going back to 1951-2. I'd say it was a pretty
> >>> strong side, apart from being a batsman light. Also Tyson and Loader,
> >>> relying more on great pace rather than seam movement or swing, were
> >>> perhaps not the right pace bowlers for the conditions but, as you
> >>> suggested, were probably picked with the Ashes in mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> May was in and out . I left Evans out as regular simply because the
> >> screen locked on me . I amended those missed out because of the
> >> technological problem. in another post.. The only players who could
> >> reasonably have been called England regulars in the lost Test XI
> >> were Hutton, Compton and Evans. The rest were either making their Test
> >> debuts or had been in or out of the England side over the previous
> >> 5 years.
> >> RH
> >
> > Not true in the cases of Graveney and Statham, as I pointed out. And
> > whether or not you regard May as an England regular by that point, you
> > will struggle to convince me that his presence weakened the batting.
> Quite. You can't pick 'regulars' if they don't exist. Perhaps Robert
> could tell us which 'regulars' were left out. Here's an XI based on the
> players who had appeared most often in the 2 years prior to the start of
> the 4th Test (14 Tests):
>
> Hutton (12 Tests)
> Watson (9)
> May (11)
> Compton (13)
> Graveney (13)
> Bailey (13)
> Evans (13)
> Wardle or Lock (8)
> Laker (9)
> Bedser (8)
Statham (8)
>
> So the team that played at The Oval included 7 of the 12 most regular
> players over the previous two years.

But it n has too many bits and pieces players coming in an out ...RH

> Even if we look at the 11 most regular players in the two years prior to
> the start of the Pakistan series, the only changes to the above would be
> that Lock would be included ahead of Wardle, and Trueman would replace
> Statham, so 5 of the 11 from the Oval team would still be included.
>
> --
> David North

The best team for that Oval Test would probably have been
Hutton
Simpson
May
Sheppard (Who was in the frame to lead the England side to Oz bu ruled himself out)
Compton
Bailey
Evans
Bedser
Whardle
Appleyard
Statham

RH