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.
>
> 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

A word on Graveney. It took him a very long time to find his feet in Test cricket and become a regular as he finally did in the sixties..

As for Trueman apart from his home series against India in 1952 he had done little by 1954. It is true that he was reputedly not selected after the 1953/4 Windies series on the grounds of a lack social graces (the "pass the salt Gunga Din " episode ) . RH

In message <94b70a4e-a859-4f0b-8585-73229274f711n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
<snip>
>A word on Graveney. It took him a very long time to find his feet in
>Test cricket and become a regular as he finally did in the sixties..

|He was a regular at the time that he played in this match, having
played in 21 of England's last 24 Tests from the 1951-2 tour of India..
His record series by series:

Season M I NO Runs HS Ave
1951 (England) 1 1 0 15 15 15.00
1951-52 (India) 4 8 2 363 175 60.50
1952 (England) 4 5 1 191 73 47.75
1953 (England) 5 7 0 169 78 24.14
1953-54 (WI) 5 10 3 265 92 37.85
1954 (England) 3 4 0 150 84 37.50

Apart from in 1953, against a strong Australian attack on mostly
bowler-friendly pitches, that's a pretty good record, though with only
one hundred.

In contrast, at this point Sheppard had only played in 8 Tests and -
apart from one hundred against a weak India in 1952 - had a highest Test
score of 41.
--
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 04/03/2023 10:12, Robert Henderson wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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)

The tour party had been announced on July 27, 2 weeks before the 4th
Test, so it was already known that Sheppard wasn't going.

> Compton
> Bailey
> Evans
> Bedser
> Whardle
> Appleyard
> Statham

Well that includes 7 of the XI that actually played.

You would have left out Graveney, whose previous innings in the series
were 84 and 65 (compared to Sheppard's 37 and 13 in the same two
innings), and who topped the FC averages that season?

--
David North

On 04/03/2023 11:08, John Hall wrote:
[On Graveney:]> Apart from in 1953, against a strong Australian attack on mostly
> bowler-friendly pitches, that's a pretty good record, though with
> only one hundred.

No-one can seriously complain about the batting line-up in that
Test. The problem lay with the very long tail. In modern line-ups,
Evans would probably have batted at 8 or below, but even in the '50s
it was expected that the #6 would be an all-rounder close to Test
standard as a batsman. But apart from Bailey it's difficult to think
who was in serious contention, given that the Test was being used as
a trial for the Oz party.

> In contrast, at this point Sheppard had only played in 8 Tests and -
> apart from one hundred against a weak India in 1952 - had a highest
> Test score of 41.

Sheppard had been being groomed as prospective captain; but by
that Test he had ruled himself out. It was becoming clear that May was
the better batsman, but not the better captain. Bailey would have been
a very long shot at that time, though later he might well have been a
good choice to succeed May. Simpson wasn't flavour of the month with
Lord's, so they were stuck with Hutton and all the pro-am baggage that
went with him. Interesting to contemplate what might have happened if
they had twisted Sheppard's arm and he had gone as captain in '54-55.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Hause

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 12:57:56 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 04/03/2023 11:08, John Hall wrote:
> [On Graveney:]> Apart from in 1953, against a strong Australian attack on mostly
> > bowler-friendly pitches, that's a pretty good record, though with
> > only one hundred.
> No-one can seriously complain about the batting line-up in that
> Test. The problem lay with the very long tail. In modern line-ups,
> Evans would probably have batted at 8 or below, but even in the '50s
> it was expected that the #6 would be an all-rounder close to Test
> standard as a batsman. But apart from Bailey it's difficult to think
> who was in serious contention, given that the Test was being used as
> a trial for the Oz party.
> > In contrast, at this point Sheppard had only played in 8 Tests and -
> > apart from one hundred against a weak India in 1952 - had a highest
> > Test score of 41.
> Sheppard had been being groomed as prospective captain; but by
> that Test he had ruled himself out. It was becoming clear that May was
> the better batsman, but not the better captain. Bailey would have been
> a very long shot at that time, though later he might well have been a
> good choice to succeed May. Simpson wasn't flavour of the month with
> Lord's, so they were stuck with Hutton and all the pro-am baggage that
> went with him. Interesting to contemplate what might have happened if
> they had twisted Sheppard's arm and he had gone as captain in '54-55.

Irrelevant to the question of the strongest Oval team against Pakistan. What is relevant is Sheppard's uncanny ability to come into an England side with little if any FC practice and score runs,. He did this against Oz 1956, Windies 1957, Pakistan 1962 and Oz Oz 1962/3 . That shows his quality.

To illustrate how erratic Graveney was in his scoring I list below his scores in the following series

Oz 1954/5 2
21, 0, 111

NZ 1955
42, , 31*

SA 1955
15,69,0,1

Oz 1956
8, 10*5,

Windies
1957
0, 21, 258, ,22, 164

NZ 1958
7,19, 37, 33, 25

Oz 1958/9
19, 36, , 0, 3,22,22, 41, 53*

NZ 19589
42,46
Graveney did not play any Test cricket after these Tests until 1962 against Pakistan' This arose because Graveney fell out with Gloucs and had to spend 2years qualifying for Worcestershire . during which time he played no Championship cricket.

Once back in Test cricket in 1962 where he was immediately very successful but he still had problems with his consistency.

RH

> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Hause

In message <eb0705c6-f8c9-46dc-abce-f8a456428157n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 12:57:560 >> On 04/03/2023 11:08, John Hall wrote:
>> [On Graveney:]> Apart from in 1953, against a strong Australian
>>attack on mostly
>> > bowler-friendly pitches, that's a pretty good record, though with
>> > only one hundred.
>> No-one can seriously complain about the batting line-up in that
>> Test. The problem lay with the very long tail. In modern line-ups,
>> Evans would probably have batted at 8 or below, but even in the '50s
>> it was expected that the #6 would be an all-rounder close to Test
>> standard as a batsman. But apart from Bailey it's difficult to think
>> who was in serious contention, given that the Test was being used as
>> a trial for the Oz party.
>> > In contrast, at this point Sheppard had only played in 8 Tests and -
>> > apart from one hundred against a weak India in 1952 - had a highest
>> > Test score of 41.
>> Sheppard had been being groomed as prospective captain; but by
>> that Test he had ruled himself out. It was becoming clear that May was
>> the better batsman, but not the better captain. Bailey would have been
>> a very long shot at that time, though later he might well have been a
>> good choice to succeed May. Simpson wasn't flavour of the month with
>> Lord's, so they were stuck with Hutton and all the pro-am baggage that
>> went with him. Interesting to contemplate what might have happened if
>> they had twisted Sheppard's arm and he had gone as captain in '54-55.
>
>Irrelevant to the question of the strongest Oval team against
>Pakistan. What is relevant is Sheppard's uncanny ability to come into
>an England side with little if any FC practice and score runs,. He
>did this against Oz 1956, Windies 1957, Pakistan 1962 and Oz Oz 1962/3
>. That shows his quality.

All of that was after the Test that we are discussing, though. Up to and
including 1954, his Test record was only modest, with one hundred and no
other innings reaching 50. No doubt he had become a better batsman by
1956 onwards than he was earlier in his career.

>
>To illustrate how erratic Graveney was in his scoring I list below his
>scores in the following series

As with Sheppard, the selectors naturally primarily picked players based
on their current and past form, not on what they might (or might not)
do in the future. Graveney had a far stronger case than Sheppard to be
picked for the 1954 Oval Test on their respective Test careers up to
that point.

<snip Graveney's stats subsequent to the 1954 season>
--
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 Sat, 4 Mar 2023 18:29:44 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>As with Sheppard, the selectors naturally primarily picked players based
>on their current and past form, not on what they might (or might not)
>do in the future. Graveney had a far stronger case than Sheppard to be
>picked for the 1954 Oval Test on their respective Test careers up to
>that point.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the
selectors had not picked what they believed to be the strongest
possible team for The Oval Test, so England were beaten fair and
square and no amount of excuse-making by a deluded fantasist is going
to change it.

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:39:30 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 18:29:44 +0000, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >As with Sheppard, the selectors naturally primarily picked players based
> >on their current and past form, not on what they might (or might not)
> >do in the future. Graveney had a far stronger case than Sheppard to be
> >picked for the 1954 Oval Test on their respective Test careers up to
> >that point.
> In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the
> selectors had not picked what they believed to be the strongest
> possible team for The Oval Test, so England were beaten fair and
> square and no amount of excuse-making by a deluded fantasist is going
> to change it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Pure fantasy . two Test debutants , other players with Tests in single figures no Bedser ,no Bailey, no Laker or Appleyard - It was made for an upset. RH

In message <6u370i516blo9o1rv3sdnig6ipv1anmq5h@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 18:29:44 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>As with Sheppard, the selectors naturally primarily picked players based
>>on their current and past form, not on what they might (or might not)
>>do in the future. Graveney had a far stronger case than Sheppard to be
>>picked for the 1954 Oval Test on their respective Test careers up to
>>that point.
>
>In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the
>selectors had not picked what they believed to be the strongest
>possible team for The Oval Test, so England were beaten fair and
>square and no amount of excuse-making by a deluded fantasist is going
>to change it.

To slightly contradict what I said in my post above, I think it's clear
that Bedser and Bailey would have been part of the strongest possible
team. Either they were injured, or the selectors thought that a weakened
but still strong England side would be able to beat Pakistan and tried
out a couple of candidates for the upcoming tour to Australia.
--
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 04/03/2023 20:55, John Hall wrote:
> To slightly contradict what I said in my post above, I think it's
> clear that Bedser and Bailey would have been part of the strongest
> possible team. Either they were injured, or the selectors thought
> that a weakened but still strong England side would be able to beat
> Pakistan and tried out a couple of candidates for the upcoming tour
> to Australia.

Bedser and Bailey were "rested". The previous Tests had been so
one-sided that, AFAIR, it was thought that any half-decent side would
suffice. How wrong we were! Apart from Fazal's performance, Pakistan
were heavily indebted to tail-end runs; we could have done with those.

As for the batting, judging from the tour party to Oz and the
performances, both Test and CC, in '54, it was about as strong as it
could have been. There might have been some point in "blooding" Cowdrey
in place of one of the bowlers, but in the absence of Bailey, that would
have left the bowling very short, and going with only four bowlers was
not thought a good idea -- as Hutton found at Brisbane! Sheppard
effectively ruled himself out; the '54-55 tour and the rest of the
'50s would have been very different if he had continued.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Hause

In message <tu0djp$ugn4$2@dont-email.me>, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
writes
<snip>
>Sheppard
>effectively ruled himself out; the '54-55 tour and the rest of the
>'50s would have been very different if he had continued.

In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are you
implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the series? I
rather suspect that myself; I'm not sure that Sheppard would have had
Hutton's ruthlessness or tactical astuteness. I suspect he might have
been a better captain than May but not as good as Hutton. But I only
discovered Test cricket at the age of ten, during the 1958-9 tour, so am
at something of a disadvantage in discussing earlier events.
--
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 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
[If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
> series?

"Different" does not imply "worse"! As it happens, the series was
won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
if you change something. I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet; so that result might have
been better. OTOH, in the later Tests, Hutton made the most of Tyson and
Statham, in a way that Sheppard might not have managed. OTTH, Sheppard
might well have handled the dropping of Bedser better; OTFH, Hutton had
the seniority to drop Bedser where Sheppard might have found it difficult
to drop a much more senior player. Who knows?

But in any case, I was thinking of the following years at least as
much as specifically 1954-55. Sheppard could have had a decade as captain,
and would surely have made a permanent mark on cricket rather than being
somewhat of a footnote. Cricket's loss was the CofE's gain; but I know
which side of /that/ argument I'm on!

> I rather suspect that myself; I'm not sure that Sheppard
> would have had Hutton's ruthlessness or tactical astuteness. I
> suspect he might have been a better captain than May but not as good
> as Hutton.

I think he would have been a better "man manager" than either of
them. In particular, I think the wheels would not have come off in the
way they did in 1958-59, which was really the first serious test of May's
captaincy. [But, of course, May was, in the end, a much better batsman,
and Cowdrey probably a better captain than anyone else around -- perhaps
Bailey too, but he never got the chance.]

> But I only discovered Test cricket at the age of ten,
> during the 1958-9 tour, so am at something of a disadvantage in
> discussing earlier events.
You're very close to Robert's age, and he isn't so inhibited.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Smith

On 05/03/2023 12:31, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
> [If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
>> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
>> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
>> series?
>
>     "Different" does not imply "worse"!  As it happens, the series was
> won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
> if you change something.  I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
> the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet;  so that result might have
> been better.

.... especially if he didn't put Australia in to bat. He might have
called incorrectly, of course.

--
David North

On 05/03/2023 12:31, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
> [If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
>> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
>> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
>> series?
>
>     "Different" does not imply "worse"!  As it happens, the series was
> won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
> if you change something.  I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
> the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet;  so that result might have
> been better.  OTOH, in the later Tests, Hutton made the most of Tyson and
> Statham, in a way that Sheppard might not have managed.  OTTH, Sheppard
> might well have handled the dropping of Bedser better;  OTFH, Hutton had
> the seniority to drop Bedser where Sheppard might have found it difficult
> to drop a much more senior player.  Who knows?

Presumably he would have opened alongside Hutton, which would have been
an improvement in terms of consistency of selection in that series, and
probably in terms of runs, apart from the last match of the series, when
Graveney, Hutton's 4th partner, made a century.

--
David North

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:02:55 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 12:31, Andy Walker wrote:
> > On 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
> > [If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
> >> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
> >> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
> >> series?
> >
> > "Different" does not imply "worse"! As it happens, the series was
> > won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
> > if you change something. I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
> > the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet; so that result might have
> > been better. OTOH, in the later Tests, Hutton made the most of Tyson and
> > Statham, in a way that Sheppard might not have managed. OTTH, Sheppard
> > might well have handled the dropping of Bedser better; OTFH, Hutton had
> > the seniority to drop Bedser where Sheppard might have found it difficult
> > to drop a much more senior player. Who knows?
> Presumably he would have opened alongside Hutton, which would have been
> an improvement in terms of consistency of selection in that series, and
> probably in terms of runs, apart from the last match of the series, when
> Graveney, Hutton's 4th partner, made a century.

In a dead rubber...RH
>
> --
> David North

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:02:55 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 12:31, Andy Walker wrote:
> > On 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
> > [If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
> >> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
> >> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
> >> series?
> >
> > "Different" does not imply "worse"! As it happens, the series was
> > won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
> > if you change something. I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
> > the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet; so that result might have
> > been better. OTOH, in the later Tests, Hutton made the most of Tyson and
> > Statham, in a way that Sheppard might not have managed. OTTH, Sheppard
> > might well have handled the dropping of Bedser better; OTFH, Hutton had
> > the seniority to drop Bedser where Sheppard might have found it difficult
> > to drop a much more senior player. Who knows?
> Presumably he would have opened alongside Hutton, which would have been
> an improvement in terms of consistency of selection in that series, and
> probably in terms of runs, apart from the last match of the series, when
> Graveney, Hutton's 4th partner, made a century.
>
> --
> David North

Two points about Sheppard:

He was a very heavy scorer for Cambridge U and when he was available for Sussex .

Whilst waiting for his ordination and his early days as a priest Sheppard had a remarkable record of 100s for England: 1956 against Oz,, 1957 against West Indies, 1962 against Pakistan, 1962/3 v Oz - these all occurred when he had ceased playing regularly for Sussex., RH

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 9:46:01 AM UTC-5, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:02:55 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> > On 05/03/2023 12:31, Andy Walker wrote:
> > > On 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
> > > [If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
> > >> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
> > >> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
> > >> series?
> > >
> > > "Different" does not imply "worse"! As it happens, the series was
> > > won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
> > > if you change something. I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
> > > the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet; so that result might have
> > > been better. OTOH, in the later Tests, Hutton made the most of Tyson and
> > > Statham, in a way that Sheppard might not have managed. OTTH, Sheppard
> > > might well have handled the dropping of Bedser better; OTFH, Hutton had
> > > the seniority to drop Bedser where Sheppard might have found it difficult
> > > to drop a much more senior player. Who knows?
> > Presumably he would have opened alongside Hutton, which would have been
> > an improvement in terms of consistency of selection in that series, and
> > probably in terms of runs, apart from the last match of the series, when
> > Graveney, Hutton's 4th partner, made a century.
> >
> > --
> > David North
> Two points about Sheppard:
>
> He was a very heavy scorer for Cambridge U and when he was available for Sussex .
>
> Whilst waiting for his ordination and his early days as a priest Sheppard had a remarkable record of 100s for England: 1956 against Oz,, 1957 against West Indies, 1962 against Pakistan, 1962/3 v Oz - these all occurred when he had ceased playing regularly for Sussex., RH

How would this team of 1954 do against the top four today, lose by an innings and 211 runs??

On 05/03/2023 14:46, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:02:55 PM UTC, David North wrote:
>> On 05/03/2023 12:31, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
>>> [If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
>>>> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
>>>> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
>>>> series?
>>>
>>> "Different" does not imply "worse"! As it happens, the series was
>>> won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
>>> if you change something. I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
>>> the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet; so that result might have
>>> been better. OTOH, in the later Tests, Hutton made the most of Tyson and
>>> Statham, in a way that Sheppard might not have managed. OTTH, Sheppard
>>> might well have handled the dropping of Bedser better; OTFH, Hutton had
>>> the seniority to drop Bedser where Sheppard might have found it difficult
>>> to drop a much more senior player. Who knows?
>> Presumably he would have opened alongside Hutton, which would have been
>> an improvement in terms of consistency of selection in that series, and
>> probably in terms of runs, apart from the last match of the series, when
>> Graveney, Hutton's 4th partner, made a century.
>>
>> --
>> David North
>
> Two points about Sheppard:
>
> He was a very heavy scorer for Cambridge U and when he was available for Sussex .
>
> Whilst waiting for his ordination and his early days as a priest Sheppard had a remarkable record of 100s for England: 1956 against Oz,, 1957 against West Indies, 1962 against Pakistan, 1962/3 v Oz - these all occurred when he had ceased playing regularly for Sussex., RH

Remarkable in that two of them never happened. His scores against West
Indies in 1957 were 68 and 40, and against Pakistan in 1962 he made 83,
57 and 9* - good records, but not hundreds. His only century apart from
the two v Australia was against India in 1952

====

--
David North

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 14:46, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:02:55 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> >> On 05/03/2023 12:31, Andy Walker wrote:
> >>> On 05/03/2023 08:55, John Hall wrote:
> >>> [If Sheppard had not dropped out of cricket:]
> >>>> In saying that the 1954-5 tour would have been very different, are
> >>>> you implying that you think that England wouldn't have won the
> >>>> series?
> >>>
> >>> "Different" does not imply "worse"! As it happens, the series was
> >>> won, but some of the Tests were very close, so anything could have happened
> >>> if you change something. I suspect that Sheppard would not have gone into
> >>> the Brisbane Test with Hutton's pace quartet; so that result might have
> >>> been better. OTOH, in the later Tests, Hutton made the most of Tyson and
> >>> Statham, in a way that Sheppard might not have managed. OTTH, Sheppard
> >>> might well have handled the dropping of Bedser better; OTFH, Hutton had
> >>> the seniority to drop Bedser where Sheppard might have found it difficult
> >>> to drop a much more senior player. Who knows?
> >> Presumably he would have opened alongside Hutton, which would have been
> >> an improvement in terms of consistency of selection in that series, and
> >> probably in terms of runs, apart from the last match of the series, when
> >> Graveney, Hutton's 4th partner, made a century.
> >>
> >> --
> >> David North
> >
> > Two points about Sheppard:
> >
> > He was a very heavy scorer for Cambridge U and when he was available for Sussex .
> >
> > Whilst waiting for his ordination and his early days as a priest Sheppard had a remarkable record of 100s for England: 1956 against Oz,, 1957 against West Indies, 1962 against Pakistan, 1962/3 v Oz - these all occurred when he had ceased playing regularly for Sussex., RH
> Remarkable in that two of them never happened. His scores against West
> Indies in 1957 were 68 and 40, and against Pakistan in 1962 he made 83,
> 57 and 9* - good records, but not hundreds. His only century apart from
> the two v Australia was against India in 1952
>
> ====
>
> --
> David North

I was doing it from memory .
Sheppard's scores from 1956 Ashes to 1962/2

1956 Ashes 113, 24, 62
1957 Windies 68, 40
1962 Pakistan 85, 57 ,9*
1962/3 Oz 31,53, 0,113, 3,12, 30, 1 19,68

My general point still stands

RH

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:02:57 -0800, Robert Henderson wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:30:31 PM UTC, Andy Walker 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.
>> > 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
>> Could have, would have, should have. In the real world, they did bat
>> for [more than] two-thirds of a day, scored a mere 256, leaving NZ to
>> score an improbable 483, which they managed for 9 wickets. I think I'd
>> prefer to give credit to NZ for their fight-back, rather than analyse
>> to death what might have happened in some parallel universe in a very
>> tight finish. Yes, I'd have preferred a one-wicket win or a tie to a
>> one-run loss, but an exciting finish is considerable compensation.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
>> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music Composer of the day:
>> www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Simpson
>
> Oh dear, Dr BM defeated by his struggle with understanding human
> psychology again...Poor old bounded mind ....RH

Almost ALL England and other cricket fans IMMENSELY ENJOYED this test
match, EXCEPT your lunatic ass because your brain is "INCAPABLE" of
perceiving what is EXCITING and ENJOYABLE and what is NOT.