Time to compare

Joined: 17 Oct 2013, 20:44

08 Sep 2016, 19:10 #11

Nice one Idleman.

Hard to disagree with your analysis although I would perhaps have Brooks in the mix ahead of Tony Nick. We could class him as our overseas player too.
1. Boycott
2. Lyth
3. Root
4. Close (c)
5. Bairstow
6. Illingworth
7. Rashid
8. Bresnan
9. Trueman
10.Binks (wk)
11.Sidebottom

Which just shades it 6-5 in favour of the moderns. And what a team! (I didn't see much of Tony Nicholson, by the way, so Bresnan was an obvious choice for me.)
Reply
Like

Joined: 04 Jun 2015, 18:32

08 Sep 2016, 19:23 #12

That's three teams with ten in common and only the third seamer role up for debate.

Of course we could always omit Binks and give the gloves to Bairstow to give us room for another bowler.....

Would Illy bat above Bresnan and Rashid??
Reply
Like

Joined: 16 May 2009, 08:21

08 Sep 2016, 19:37 #13

Are we talking if the players of the 60s played today or as they were then? If the latter then the current side would win with ease. 50 years a long time. Sport improves.
I was brought up on the 60's team and watched them whenever I could. mostly at Park Avenue. I suspect that as most of my age group I am biased towards the past.

I am not getting into the respective merits of individual player but cannot let the comments of FST's lack of batting prowess go unchallenged.

Whenever Fred came to the wicket there was a real buzz in the crowd. He was a brilliant entertainer and played to his adoring audience. When Fred hit the ball it stayed hit and I once saw him hit the ball into the football ground, a huge hit (the only other player I saw do it was Chris Old).

He was not just a hitter but could play a bit too. You do not score first class hundreds unless you can play a bit (did he not score 2 hundreds?) The game then was 3 days not 4 and there was less time at the crease and most sides did not want nine ten jack hanging around and taking precious time, the requirement was quick runs or get out and that was exactly what Fred did but when he was called on to play a 'proper' innings he could do so.

A Fred story concerned his rivalry with Johnny Wardle in the batting stakes. Each of course thought he was the better batsman and felt he should be higher in the order than the other. In a game against Northampton Johnny was ahead of Fred and riled Fred about it. Frank Tyson was playing for Northants and bowling very quickly when Johnny got to the crease. He clearly did not fancy it and he proceeded to play Tyson by backing away to leg and leaving his bat in front of the stumps. He managed to edge one for 4 and shortly after was clean bowled by the Typhoon.

Fred was next in and passed some remark about the batting order as he passed Johnny walking off, only to have his stumps flattened by Tyson's first ball.

Johnny was waiting at the pavilion door, a huge grin on his face reminded Fred that he had scored 4 and asked Fred how many he had got.

Fred's reply was succinct and straight to the point.......'Couldn't stand up 'cos I slipped on that pile of sh*t tha left at t'crease'

True or not, it's a good Fred story

Reply
Like

Joined: 03 Sep 2014, 13:34

08 Sep 2016, 21:49 #14

That's three teams with ten in common and only the third seamer role up for debate.

Of course we could always omit Binks and give the gloves to Bairstow to give us room for another bowler.....

Would Illy bat above Bresnan and Rashid??
First up it must be said that in terms of the pleasure they give in watching them they CAN be compared -- no matter how much the game has changed.

For me it's a dead heat on that count. In fact I enjoy this team now more than the team of the 60s -- but only because I can spend more time watching them (not tied to school holidays) and because, as a grown up, I can afford little pleasures like beer at the ground, and hot meals in the Long Room when its freezing cold. So that's not much about the character/quality of the teams then.

I did see a lot of Nicholson, and for a balanced pace attack -- movement and control -- I'd want him in. Him or Patto (I'm that much of a hard-core NLOP man) -- probably Nicholson for a 3-day game on an uncovered pitch, probably Patto if we were playing today's game.

Lyth or Sharpe as second opener is another tough one. Lyth shades it perhaps as a quality batsman (perhaps ... and Sharpe was more reliable), and Sharpe was the better slip catcher (by a margin, even though Lyth is top flight).

The one man from the past I'd really like to have in is our current 75-year old President. As a lad I could even be pleased to see Boycott out if Jack Hampshire was coming in next.

I'd like a fourth seamer; Illy and Rash give strength in spin, with Root an option too, so you don't need Close's bowling (either his medium pace or his off spin). His batting wouldn't get him in to that top five, and Illy/Bres/Rashid are three genuine all-rounders, don't need a fourth. I know its heresy not to have Close as captain when on offer. But I think Illingworth did the job superbly after Close. So I'd have Illy as captain, Bairstow keeper (have to admit Binks was better), making room for Hampshire and my Patto/Nicholson pair.

Boycott
Sharpe
Root
Hampshire
J Bairstow (wk)
Illingworth (c)
Bresnan
Rashid
Trueman
Nicholson/Patterson
Sidebottom

For a three-day game, 6 ancient, 5 modern; for a four-day, 5 ancient, 6 modern. Seems right.
The moderns have a majority in the bowling/all-rounder end (and they have to perform in the batsman-biassed world of today); the ancients provide the majority of the top order (they had to perform in the bowler-friendly 60s). So that seems right too.
Reply
Like

Joined: 17 Oct 2013, 20:44

08 Sep 2016, 21:55 #15

That's three teams with ten in common and only the third seamer role up for debate.

Of course we could always omit Binks and give the gloves to Bairstow to give us room for another bowler.....

Would Illy bat above Bresnan and Rashid??
Illy frequently batted at 3 for Yorkshire, but Rash and Brezzy are superb also, of course, and I've put the dashing Adil between the more solid other two. Incidentally, I see Illy performing much the same role as Patto with the ball, able to dry up runs for long periods.

Leave out Binks and give Bairstow the gloves? Never, never, never. You might as well leave out Trueman and give Lyth the new ball!
Reply
Like

Joined: 03 Sep 2014, 13:34

08 Sep 2016, 21:59 #16

First up it must be said that in terms of the pleasure they give in watching them they CAN be compared -- no matter how much the game has changed.

For me it's a dead heat on that count. In fact I enjoy this team now more than the team of the 60s -- but only because I can spend more time watching them (not tied to school holidays) and because, as a grown up, I can afford little pleasures like beer at the ground, and hot meals in the Long Room when its freezing cold. So that's not much about the character/quality of the teams then.

I did see a lot of Nicholson, and for a balanced pace attack -- movement and control -- I'd want him in. Him or Patto (I'm that much of a hard-core NLOP man) -- probably Nicholson for a 3-day game on an uncovered pitch, probably Patto if we were playing today's game.

Lyth or Sharpe as second opener is another tough one. Lyth shades it perhaps as a quality batsman (perhaps ... and Sharpe was more reliable), and Sharpe was the better slip catcher (by a margin, even though Lyth is top flight).

The one man from the past I'd really like to have in is our current 75-year old President. As a lad I could even be pleased to see Boycott out if Jack Hampshire was coming in next.

I'd like a fourth seamer; Illy and Rash give strength in spin, with Root an option too, so you don't need Close's bowling (either his medium pace or his off spin). His batting wouldn't get him in to that top five, and Illy/Bres/Rashid are three genuine all-rounders, don't need a fourth. I know its heresy not to have Close as captain when on offer. But I think Illingworth did the job superbly after Close. So I'd have Illy as captain, Bairstow keeper (have to admit Binks was better), making room for Hampshire and my Patto/Nicholson pair.

Boycott
Sharpe
Root
Hampshire
J Bairstow (wk)
Illingworth (c)
Bresnan
Rashid
Trueman
Nicholson/Patterson
Sidebottom

For a three-day game, 6 ancient, 5 modern; for a four-day, 5 ancient, 6 modern. Seems right.
The moderns have a majority in the bowling/all-rounder end (and they have to perform in the batsman-biassed world of today); the ancients provide the majority of the top order (they had to perform in the bowler-friendly 60s). So that seems right too.
Yes, ThirdUmpire, Illy would bat ahead of Bresnan and Rashid. And Binks surely above Trueman, Dave.
(Thanks for the Trueman/Wardle story, Jakesgrandad. It's a new one on me, and as you say, even if it isn't true, it ought to be )
Reply
Like

Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 12:51

08 Sep 2016, 22:37 #17

Illy frequently batted at 3 for Yorkshire, but Rash and Brezzy are superb also, of course, and I've put the dashing Adil between the more solid other two. Incidentally, I see Illy performing much the same role as Patto with the ball, able to dry up runs for long periods.

Leave out Binks and give Bairstow the gloves? Never, never, never. You might as well leave out Trueman and give Lyth the new ball!
I'm glad WS55 spoke so well of John Hampshire.
He was the most pleasing of batsmen to watch; not always reliable, particularly early in his career but, when set, extremely powerful. His straight drive was as scintillating as anything seen in the game today.
I remember a game at Bradford in the late sixties when Sobers scored a magnificent 80 odd only to be upstaged by an innings from John Hampshire that was even more eye-catching. At his best, he was the most entertaining batsman in English cricket.
He was also a very good fielder and useful leg spin bowler, taking five wickets in an innings in a couple of occasions.

Like WS55 I'm a big Patto fan but, on balance, I think Nicholson was the more accomplished bowler. He had just a little more nip and on helpful surfaces was more likely to take substantial numbers of wickets. Patto has the edge as a batsman - not difficult. Nicholson was a dreadful fielder; lumbering enough to make Patto look like Arkle!

Phil Sharpe was the best slip fielder I've ever seen. Lyth is as good in the slips as anyone in England at present. As a batsman Phil Sharpe could be frustratingly sloppy but when focussed was hugely reassuring. His England record is surprisingly good, albeit in a short career. He was a very fine cutter and puller but Lyth's cover drive is one of the loveliest strokes in the modern game. It's quite a close call but I'd opt for Sharpe.

Blinks to keep for me but it would be a travesty to deprive Bairstow of a place in the side. I wish Dewsburian were still active on the site, so he could advocate for him with all his old eloquence.
Reply
Like

Joined: 17 Oct 2013, 20:44

08 Sep 2016, 23:39 #18

All the players we have named (and many others) gave Yorkshire supporters huge pleasure. And are still giving. This present team is a joy to watch, no less than the 1960s juggernaut. More of a smile nowadays, perhaps, professionals who are relaxed and happy in their work. Secure in their work too, which was an issue back then, with even the biggest stars on one-year contracts only.
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Oct 2013, 20:03

09 Sep 2016, 06:41 #19

Interested by WS55's selection. I too considered leaving out Close, as his bowling was limited by the sixties. I think I was just scared of meeting him in some sort of afterlife. Quite right too that Raymond Illingworth could captain the side, but he'd be very different, more astute than Closey, less inspirational and original. And though he was regular captain at the age of 52, he very rarely did the job in the sixties, because Fred was vice-captain and a very good stand-in for Close. In fact we had the best three captains in the country in the side.

So who are we putting in charge? Brian Sellers or Martyn Moxon? Now there's a much easier question.
Reply
Like

Joined: 11 Apr 2014, 07:14

09 Sep 2016, 06:45 #20

All the players we have named (and many others) gave Yorkshire supporters huge pleasure. And are still giving. This present team is a joy to watch, no less than the 1960s juggernaut. More of a smile nowadays, perhaps, professionals who are relaxed and happy in their work. Secure in their work too, which was an issue back then, with even the biggest stars on one-year contracts only.
"And do today's lads deserve to be spoken of in the same breath, yes, without a doubt"

I love this comment from Idleman. Ultimately it's impossible to make direct comparisons between eras but the above sums it up for me (as someone who wasn't around in the 60's) In 20, 30, 40 years time I'll be talking about this current team the way people look back and talk about the team of the 60's.
Reply
Like