Vote on your 10 greatest Test all-rounders

Evening guys

On to the all-rounders now. Same format as usual, your top 10 in order, since the war.

Thanks

Definitely some controversy coming up on this one, haha! I will post my list tomorrow, I need to think about this one...

Garry Sobers
Jacques Kallis
Imran Khan
Keith Miller
Shaun Pollock
Richard Hadlee
Mike Procter
Tony Greig
Ian Botham
Richie Benaud

1) Sobers
2) Kallis
3) Imran Khan
4) Miller

GAP

5) Botham
7) Kapil Dev
8) Hadlee
9) Benaud
10) Greig T.

Guys - certainly agree with JDizzle about ''some controversy coming up on this one''. I'm also going to need to think about this.

Some excellent choices already by GG. Procter is a particularly fine selection. Any teenager who has the nerve to say he didn't play enough tests should be immediately taken out and shot.

I'm not sure though about Hadlee. Brilliant bowler but was he a good enough batsman to be classed a great all-rounder?

Anyone struggling for names, have a look at the record of Trevor Goddard who played for South Africa from the mid fifties to the start of the seventies.

guildfordbat wrote: Procter is a particularly fine selection. Any teenager who has the nerve to say he didn't play enough tests should be immediately taken out and shot.

I'm not a teenager, but I'd say that Proctor, great player though he undoubtedly was, didn't play enough tests to be included in the top 10 test match all-rounders of all-time.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote: Procter is a particularly fine selection. Any teenager who has the nerve to say he didn't play enough tests should be immediately taken out and shot.

I'm not a teenager, but I'd say that Proctor, great player though he undoubtedly was, didn't play enough tests to be included in the top 10 test match all-rounders of all-time.

Each to their own, Hoggy. Now if you would like to please line up against the wall outside ....

More seriously, I suppose it depends on whether you are judging Procter on how great a player he was or how great his achievements at test level were.

Sobers
Imran
Kallis
Miller
Botham
Dev
Hadlee
Pollock
Flintoff
Benaud

Hmmm this is going to be tough:

the way I see it, they're a few "must"s:
Sobers
Imran Khan
Miller
Botham

Kallis and Kapil Dev should also be there.

Then it gets tougher.
Proctor? Did he really play enough tests? Great player but for me we're ranking here on test match achivements...
Hadlee? Averaged highish twenties with the bat, is this enough?
Pollock? On records alone he's right up there but I always saw him as a bowler first and foremost, with his batting an added bonus (only two hundreds).
Flintoff? higher bowling ave than batting, but both very respectable. At his best, certainly deserved to be there.
Benaud? averaged under 25 with the bat, possibly a bit on the low side.
Greig? Probably deserves a shout, very good record.

One guy who hasn't had a mention so far is Alan Davidson of Australia, again more of a bowler but a pretty decent batsman too...

Hadlee? Averaged highish twenties with the bat, is this enough?

Very true.

Akram had a similar batting average, so maybe he should be in contention.

1.Jacques Kallis
2.Garry Sobers
3.Ian Botham
4.Kapil Dev
5.Richard Hadlee
6.Imran Khan
7.Shaun Pollock
8.Keith Miller
9.Wasim Akram
10.Tony Greig

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Hmmm this is going to be tough:

the way I see it, they're a few "must"s:
Sobers
Imran Khan
Miller
Botham

Kallis and Kapil Dev should also be there.

Then it gets tougher.
Proctor? Did he really play enough tests? Great player but for me we're ranking here on test match achivements...
Hadlee? Averaged highish twenties with the bat, is this enough?
Pollock? On records alone he's right up there but I always saw him as a bowler first and foremost, with his batting an added bonus (only two hundreds).
Flintoff? higher bowling ave than batting, but both very respectable. At his best, certainly deserved to be there.
Benaud? averaged under 25 with the bat, possibly a bit on the low side.
Greig? Probably deserves a shout, very good record.

One guy who hasn't had a mention so far is Alan Davidson of Australia, again more of a bowler but a pretty decent batsman too...

Mad for Chelsea - all good points although your comments about Procter may, I'm afraid, lead you to joining others up against the wall!

For me, a great test all rounder - in addition to his career stats - should have had that star quality to turn and win a match. My gut feeling is that Kallis doesn't do so well on that score. Despite other shortcomings, that may get Flintoff a place in my top ten. Benaud cerainly also had that star quality, as a player as well as a captain.

1. Garfield Sobers
2. Jacques Kallis
3. Imran Khan
4. Ian Botham
5. Kapil Dev
6. Richard Hadlee
7. Keith Miller
8. Andrew Flintoff
9. Shaun Pollock
10. Richie Benaud

1) Akram
2) Botham
3) Dev
4) Khan
5) Miller
6) Kallis
7) Vettori - Suprised no one else has mentioned him
8) Flintoff
9) Pollock
10) Sobers

i did think about vettori, but thought the 10 i had are/were better allrounders.

Akram at 1 and Sobers at 10 Gergers? controversial. guildford makes an excellent point about added values, i.e. fielding, X factor, captaincy, etc. Are we basing this purely on batting and bowling, or factoring these in?

Sobers: X factor + superb fielding
Kallis: didn't really have any of this.
Imran Khan: great captaincy and the X factor
Botham: certainly had the X factor, and a brilliant slip fielder
Miller: don't really know much about this I'm afraid, some of the older guys on here might?
Kapil Dev: was a fine leader, and again had that X factor

etc. etc.

Kallis on paper certainly compares with the very best, but he did lack that X factor didn't he? Possibly why he'll be in all lists, but at the top of few.

Kallis is very good in the slips.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Miller: don't really know much about this I'm afraid, some of the older guys on here might?

Miller had the 'X' factor in spades, from what I've read. Able to turn a match with bat or ball (even bowling off-spin), brilliant in the slips, and one of the best captains Australia never had.

Miller played his last test before even I was born. However, I've read a fair bit about him. By all accounts, he was dashing both on the cricket pitch (as Hoggy says above) and off it.

A man's man but also with an eye for the ladies. Rumoured to have had an affair with Princess Margaret.

Did not get on with Bradman, a more formal individual. This almost certainly cost Miller the captaincy of his country when Bradman, his former team mate and skipper, became a national selector.

During a tour match against Surrey, Miller had irritated his captain Bradman by returning late to the hotel the night before. Bradman demonstrated his continuing annoyance by getting Miller to field at long leg for the bowlers at each end. Not to be outdone, Miller borrowed a bicycle from one of the crowd and cycled round the edge of the boundary at the end of the over!

Miller was also a distinguished fighter pilot during the second World War. That was the background to him coming up with one of my favourite quotations ever. When asked about the pressure of playing cricket, he replied: ''Pressure, I'll tell you what pressure is. Pressure is a Messerschmidt up your arse, playing cricket is not.''

A nailed on top ten all-rounder in every sense in my book.

One name that has been conspicuous by its absence has been that of Vinu Mankad. averaged 31 with the bat, 32 with the ball. Made an impact with both bat and ball during India's moments of success when he was playing. has batted in all positions as well. Has better stats, besides the obvious impact, than many others named here.

Garry Sobers.
Jacque Kallis.
Imran Khan.
Keith Miller.
Ian Botham.
Kapil Dev.
Vinu Mankad.
Andrew Flintoff.
Tony Greig.
Shaun Pollock.

Msp - fair point. His name is mentioned in several ''all rounder greats'' articles. I believe Vinoo Mankad, Garry Sobers and the previously mentioned Miller are the only three ''away'' players to feature on both the Lord's batting and bowling honours boards for a ton and a fifer. I need to read up a bit more about him.

Although I won't select soley on stats (as mentioned earlier today), his averages aren't brilliant. I suspect his higher bowling than batting average may squeeze him out of my top ten. I'll see but, nonetheless, a good call for a player who deserves to be better known.

That last comment also applies to South Africa's Eddie ''Bunter'' Barlow ....

After doing some research and reading other people's views with great interest, this is my top 10:

Sobers
Botham
Khan
Dev
Miller
Benaud
Flintoff
Kallis
Greig
Eddie Barlow

Guildford, I don't know if you are aware but Eddie Barlow actually spent the last years of his life in North Wales and occasionally helped out with coaching at the club where I used to play when I was 12/13. I wasn't old enough to understand what sort of quality player he had been at that age (I thought Michael Vaughan was the greatest batsman ever during the 02/03 Ashes and after) but since I moved away and heard about his death a few years ago I have done some reading on him. It is an incredibly interesting life he had, and cricket career, and should have been even better had it not been for the obvious blockage of SA's exclusion due to apartheid. All I can say about him was, despite having ongoing health issues even at that time, he was a very clever and knowledgable coach and helped me immensely with my batting and my general cricket brain and he was a very nice man and it was a great shame when I heard about his death. The one abiding memory I have of him was he kept trying to get me to turn my bat grip around and make me less bottom handed in my strokes and he would drum this in to me every week! And I guess this shows that even he can't help the unhelpable!

On second thoughts, I am going to add him to my top 10 after looking over his Test match stats again, and partially due to my memories of him. He is an ofetn overlooked player who could have been a lot greater and remembered by more people than he actually is.

JDizzle - fine post about a great player and, clearly from your experience, a super guy. I envy you your coaching from him.

I first became aware of Eddie Barlow when I was an impressionable 11/12 year old as far back as the summer of 1970. That was also when I became hooked for life on cricket.

England were due to play South Africa here that summer but the tour was cancelled late in the day due to the apartheid regime. It was replaced by a series against the Rest of the World, led by Garry Sobers who only agreed to do so on condition that it was accorded test status. This was accepted by the ICB. A magnificent ''World'' squad was assembled comprising many all time greats whose reputations have stood the test of time. They included Clive Lloyd, Rohan Kanhai, Barry Richards, the Pollock brothers, Mike Procter and Eddie Barlow.

Your old coach performed very well in that series and in one match even took 4 wickets in 5 balls including a hat trick. If the ICB had kept their word, Barlow's test figures would now be even better. However, three years after the series had finished the ICB shamefully reneged on their promise to Sobers and retrospectively withdrew the test status that had been awarded to these matches. Many record books now ignore these matches which is entirely wrong given the basis on which they went ahead and the highly competitive spirit in which they were played. A particular injustice to Barlow.

By the way, his ''Bunter'' nickname was after the schoolboy character but not because of his weight. Barlow was always an athletic and highly competent fielder. It was due to his glasses which some said gave him an owl like appearance. Also like the schoolboy character, Barlow was always very enthusiastic. That seems to tie in with his continuing desire to help your batting!

For cricketing and personal reasons, I'm sure you have made the right decision in putting him in your top ten. Best, Guildford.

Chris Cairns and Clive Rice are not top tenners but definitely warrant a mention.

Cheers guildford, I always find it interesting to hear more about Eddie, despite having only a short international career, it was truly fascinating in the time he had. Great to hear stories about him and it just further enhances my thinkings of him and genuinely makes me feel how lucky I was to be coached by a man with such international pedigree as himself. My dad said to me in the car after the first training session I had if I "knew who that was" and he was dumbfounded that I had no idea! When I am getting ready to hack over mid wicket I do occasionally think of him extoling the virtues of the straight drive to me, but it is too late by then as it is all over either way! Anyway, it is great to hear the experiences of someone who saw him play! This is where the campaign for "Eddie Barlow for top 10 all rounder" begins! Thanks very much, JD.

JD - pleased to help. Make no mistake, you were very fortunate to meet and be coached by Eddie Barlow.

Your campaign for Eddie Barlow sounds commendable although I think an even better one would be ''Hand Back Test Status to the '70 Rest of World Series''. That would also help Eddie and right many cricketing injustices. In particular, Glamorgan opening batsman Alan Jones played his only match for England in that series. For three years after that he was a test player, only to be then informed by the ICB that he had in fact never played a test match at all. Shameful.

My fellow Surrey poster Corporal Humblebucket is of a similar vintage to myself and follows the county scene closely. He might just remember a bit of Eddie's time at Derbys. I'm sure he'll be happy to post if he does ....

I too would agree Eddie Barlow should be in or near the list of top 10 all rounders. Shame that his feat of 4 wickets in 5 balls was expunged from the test records. (I have occasionally wondered what the opener Alan Jones thought about the loss of test status of this series which meant deletion of his one and only test in which playing for England he scored 5 & 0.)

My top 10 is as follows (the order is fluid apart from Sobers at no 1.

Sobers
Kallis
Imran Khan
Botham
Kapil Dev
Tony Greig
Miller
Akram
Proctor
Vettori

Near misses Benaud, Barlow

Guildford - great minds thinking about Alan Jones at the same time

Corporal - you seem to have picked up my earlier post by psychic powers!

I hope your comments in praise of Eddie Barlow help JD's campaign.

You clearly know about the '70 Rest of World series. Do you remember it from the time?

Guildford - I do indeed. In particular that the score was 3 - 1 to the Rest of the World and that their team was incredibly strong. I haven't looked up the team sheets but - with your helpful prompt above - I recall that the team would have been one of the strongest ever assembled for a "test" match - and would have put up a decent showing against many a" best ever test XI" compiled on this site....

Corporal - thought you would. That series very much influenced my view and love of cricket (and so probably my life! gulp).

Several of those who played in that series will be in my top ten all rounders.

PS [in very small print if I could do it] Rest of the World won 4-1.

I would say:

1) Miller
2) Sobers
3) Kallis
4) Imran Khan
5) Botham
6) Kapil Dev
7) Proctor
8) Davidson
9) Mankad
10) Flintoff

Afridi anyone?

Wasim Akram was a great bowler. Richy Benaud was a fine bowler and a good captain. They both could do a decent job with the bat coming in down the order.
For me, an all-rounder should be good enough to bat in the top 7, and should be among the 5 best bowlers of the side.
Don't think Benaud or Akram with their batting average in the low to mid 20s would exactly fit in there. Brett Lee has a batting average in the erly 20s, Harbhajan Singh has 2 test hundreds in his name. But remarkable their batting contributions, they are not quite a flintoff or a pollock, leave alone Sobers or Kallis.
Vinu Mankad for me, is a far far better pick for an all-rounder than either of Akram or Benaud.
Or even Proctor, who just played 7 test matches. Of course from what I could read, he was a FC level great, both with bat and aball, and in the limited opportunities at the test level, he did a fabulous job with the ball. But unfortunately, 7 is too few test matches to class someone as a top 10 test all-rounder.

msp83 wrote:One name that has been conspicuous by its absence has been that of Vinu Mankad. averaged 31 with the bat, 32 with the ball. Made an impact with both bat and ball during India's moments of success when he was playing. has batted in all positions as well. Has better stats, besides the obvious impact, than many others named here.

Garry Sobers.
Jacque Kallis.
Imran Khan.
Keith Miller.
Ian Botham.
Kapil Dev.
Vinu Mankad.
Andrew Flintoff.
Tony Greig.
Shaun Pollock.

Interesting call on Mankad. Anyone who has a type of dismissal nicknamed for them is worthy of respect. Being "Mankadded" means you've backed up too far before the bowler released the ball and he's knocked the bails off at the non-striker's end. Though nowadays I think it's banned?

Garry Sobers
Jacque Kallis
Imran Khan
Keith Miller
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Gilchrist (a true keeper-batsman)
Pollock
Mankad
Chris Cairns (better test player than Flintoff in either discipline, and had x-factor in spades)

Brian MacMillan from SA was another useful allrounder

I agree with msp, nobody is surely classing Akram as an all-rounder? He got a good score against some local binmen but he certainly wasn't of a sufficient standard to comfortably bat in the top 7 against all opposition.

My vote (and before you all complain I saw eight of them play and have met one of the other two!):

1. Sobers

2. Miller

3. Imran Khan

4. Procter

5. Botham

6. Kallis

7. Greig

8. Barlow (ok, JD!)

9. Benaud

10. Mushtaq Mohammed

Very honourable mentions to Mankad, Goddard, Flintoff, Dev and Bailey.

guildfordbat
Do understand your reasons for Proctor, but would like to know from an experienced cricket lover the justification for prefering Benaud over Mankad in the all-rounder department.
Benaud was a fine bowler, but then so was Mankad, and the latter was a better bat, and they both had additional something about them.

msp.
I'd argue that Benaud was a better bowler than Mankad and Mankad a better batsman than Benaud.
Benaud was also an all-time great captain and a brilliant fielder.
So there are arguments for preferring Benaud, just as there are arguments for preferring Mankad.

Yes guildford! The dream is still alive!

msp83 wrote:guildfordbat
Do understand your reasons for Proctor, but would like to know from an experienced cricket lover the justification for prefering Benaud over Mankad in the all-rounder department.
Benaud was a fine bowler, but then so was Mankad, and the latter was a better bat, and they both had additional something about them.

Msp - thank you for the query which I regard as a compliment.

When we voted recently on the greatest seamers, I asked Hoggy-Bear why he had left Holding out of his top ten. I did that not so much because I was surprised by the omission but far more because I value his opinions. Hoggy replied on the lines that he was not denigrating Holding but that he considered others were better and that as ten is a small number some had to miss out.

That may not have been a totally scientific answer but I think it was entirely reasonable, particularly for this type of forum.

My thinking and exclusion of Mankad is very similar. It is not intended as a sleight in any way on a player who can quite rightly be regarded as ''a great''.

The main reasons he just misses my cut is that his averages aren't brilliant and his ''star quality'' is unproven to me. The comment about unproven star quality (to me) is admittedly very harsh as it is far more my failing than his. I never saw him him live or on film to make a judgment.

You specifically asked about Benaud's inclusion. Benaud was a very good bowler (and fielder) and had a wonderful cricket brain as he proved bowling, captaining and commentating over many decades. I accept his batting was not as strong as others but I still believe he was good and intelligent enough with the willow to force the pace or grind out a draw as required. I also had the honour of very briefly meeting him once. He was a complete gentleman. Again, it might be unfair but that's probably another influencing factor (although I hope only slight) for me.

Although Benaud was too old to be involved with it, I have also been influenced by the 1970 Rest of the World team which shaped much of my views on cricket and formed life lasting impressions. I make no apology for that. As well as my own earlier posts on this thread, see the comments above about their ''great side'' made by the much esteemed poster Corporal Humblebucket. Four of my top ten all-rounders (Garry Sobers, Mike Procter, Eddie ''Bunter'' Barlow and Mushtaq Mohammed) were in their side. In my view, those four all desrve a top ten place. They were then and will always be world greats. That leaves just too little room for Mankad and all the other extremely fine players to be fitted in. In case you say I'm flattering the 1970 team, I would add that I haven't even considered either of the Pollock brothers.

I do not claim the above is a perfect answer to your question but I hope it explains some of my reasoning. Your question is genuinely appreciated.

Right after very much thought I am going to attempt to make a list.

1. Sobers
2. Miller
3. Imran Khan
4. Botham
5. Kallis
6. Kapil Dev
7. Proctor
8. Flintoff
9. Mankad
10. Benaud

I've included Proctor as despite his reduced test records I believe he's just too good to leave out. I'm sure plenty will agree with me on this. Benaud grabs the last spot for his cricket brain and captaincy. Kallis is slightly lower on the list, as I don't feel his bowling is as threatening as those above him (who would have made the team on bowling alone)

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:guildfordbat
Do understand your reasons for Proctor, but would like to know from an experienced cricket lover the justification for prefering Benaud over Mankad in the all-rounder department.
Benaud was a fine bowler, but then so was Mankad, and the latter was a better bat, and they both had additional something about them.

Msp - thank you for the query which I regard as a compliment.

When we voted recently on the greatest seamers, I asked Hoggy-Bear why he had left Holding out of his top ten. I did that not so much because I was surprised by the omission but far more because I value his opinions. Hoggy replied on the lines that he was not denigrating Holding but that he considered others were better and that as ten is a small number some had to miss out.

That may not have been a totally scientific answer but I think it was entirely reasonable, particularly for this type of forum.

My thinking and exclusion of Mankad is very similar. It is not intended as a sleight in any way on a player who can quite rightly be regarded as ''a great''.

The main reasons he just misses my cut is that his averages aren't brilliant and his ''star quality'' is unproven to me. The comment about unproven star quality (to me) is admittedly very harsh as it is far more my failing than his. I never saw him him live or on film to make a judgment.

You specifically asked about Benaud's inclusion. Benaud was a very good bowler (and fielder) and had a wonderful cricket brain as he proved bowling, captaining and commentating over many decades. I accept his batting was not as strong as others but I still believe he was good and intelligent enough with the willow to force the pace or grind out a draw as required. I also had the honour of very briefly meeting him once. He was a complete gentleman. Again, it might be unfair but that's probably another influencing factor (although I hope only slight) for me.

Although Benaud was too old to be involved with it, I have also been influenced by the 1970 Rest of the World team which shaped much of my views on cricket and formed life lasting impressions. I make no apology for that. As well as my own earlier posts on this thread, see the comments above about their ''great side'' made by the much esteemed poster Corporal Humblebucket. Four of my top ten all-rounders (Garry Sobers, Mike Procter, Eddie ''Bunter'' Barlow and Mushtaq Mohammed) were in their side. In my view, those four all desrve a top ten place. They were then and will always be world greats. That leaves just too little room for Mankad and all the other extremely fine players to be fitted in. In case you say I'm flattering the 1970 team, I would add that I haven't even considered either of the Pollock brothers.

I do not claim the above is a perfect answer to your question but I hope it explains some of my reasoning. Your question is genuinely appreciated.

Thanks a lot for that detailed response.
Still not quite convinced on Mankad vs Benaud, although I can place the other choices in a better context now.
Continuing my case for Mankad to be in there, we also have to remember he played for a side that was still finding its feet in test cricket. Other than Vijay Hazare, during most of Mankad's time as a test cricketer, India had no real star players.
Someone who picked up 8 wickets in innings twice, and a test highest of 231, opening the innings, someone who scored 72 and 184 and picked up 5 wickets in the match when everyone else was failing around him, Someone who batted in all positions in the batting order, Someone who was regarded as the best Slow Left-armer of his time, should certainly make it ahead of great bowlers who could bat?
Benaud may have been a great captain, but he was not playing in a side as its only impact player.
Also important it is to consider, that Mankad missed significant time in test cricket due to the war during his best years. He played his first test at the age of 29, although he debuted in first class a good 11 years ago, and had established himself as a quality all-rounder for long.
Rest my case, for now!.

Msp - you make a strong case very well.

As I suggested before, I have nothing against Mankad and hold him in very high regard.

You choose to compare Mankad with Benaud and state ''he [Benaud] was not playing in a side as its only impact player''. That is true. However, I would emphasise that the successful impact Benaud had was massive.

I think you would have been on stronger ground challenging Mushtaq Mohammed's inclusion. Not quite of the level of some mentioned but he was always an entertainer who played with a smile. That just got him the last berth.

It is inevitable that gut feelings and emotion play a large part in all top ten rankings like these. I am sure any South African cricket lover brought up in the fifties and sixties who is reading this thread would be appalled that neither you nor I have included Trevor Goddard in our lists!

There are just too many greats and we should all be thankful for that ....

guildfordbat wrote:[in very small print if I could do it] Rest of the World won 4-1.

Guildford - thanks for correcting my faulty memory. Another point about that series I particularly remember is the sense of triumph when we actually managed to win a match in that series....

Re the all rounder debate - totally irrationally and off topic - if Benaud is borderline for inclusion in the list of all greatest rounders for me his reported comparison of Dilley and Small (see the separate Dilley thread) pushes him up a place!

I must say that I had barely heard of Mankad before - I'm very impressed by the arguments mounted for him. I think I would find a place for him, instead of eg Akram.

[quote="Corporalhumblebucket"]

guildfordbat wrote:[in very small print if I could do it] Rest of the World won 4-1.

Guildford - thanks for correcting my faulty memory. Another point about that series I particularly remember is the sense of triumph when we actually managed to win a match in that series....

Re the all rounder debate - totally irrationally and off topic - if Benaud is borderline for inclusion in the list of all greatest rounders for me his reported comparison of Dilley and Small (see the separate Dilley thread) pushes him up a place!

I must say that I had barely heard of Mankad before - I'm very impressed by the arguments mounted for him. I think I would find a place for him, instead of eg Akram. [/quote

Lots of interesting points there, Corporal.

You've mentioned before about distant memories - particularly when you were on holiday - of listening to cricket on the radio. When we beat the Rest of the World, I cheered with a friend as we listened on his radio during morning break at school!

Benaud is a wise and witty sage. In my book, one of the top ten individuals of all time (voting for that list would cause some fun and controversy!)

Yes, msp has put up a good case for Mankad. I know too little of him. Do you remember / know anything about Trevor Goddard? He was just about packing up test cricket as I got into it. Several articles I've seen also rate him highly.

Guildford - I'm afraid I don't remember Goddard. I do have a limited memory of England v South Africa in 1965. The main thing that sticks in the mind is the radio commentators talking about the fielding of Colin Bland. And googling that series I see that Bland ran out my first cricketing hero Ken Barrington - for 91 (including a 6 )

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be - but I would pick up on the suggestion of Mushtaq Muhammed for this list. Without checking the stats I have a recollection that his bowling was not all that special.

(I have now looked him up and he took 79 wickets in 57 tests.)

Darren Sammy



(just to annoy msp)

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Darren Sammy



(just to annoy msp)

Not a bad effort!!, psw!!!!. Sammy is the greatest of them all!!!.