Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

The attack was still stellar. There was Richie (averaged 56 in previous 2 years) of the next generation. Viv averaged 46. Haynes just over 40. Don't forget WI had destroyed England in England two years earlier and every WI ground was a fortress. But true, the batting was no longer incredible (Lara debuted later that year). CGG averaged close to 40, Dujon, 32 over those two years.

Bishop was probably about his peak around this series.

Next time, the best innings from an England bat in Tests 526-1000.

June 6-10, 1991: Headingley. England beat the West Indies by 115 runs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1654 ... gland-1991

After Kingston in 1990, the second of the unpredictable ectopic wins for England in the nineties came at Headingley the following year, again against the West Indies. This was to be their first home victory against them since the sixties, again at Leeds before the great era of hostile West Indian quicks. In 1991, they toured with Ambrose, Marshall, Patterson and Walsh.

After giving the stars of the Caribbean Globetrotters a mighty fright in 1990, England again went in with a four man pace attack with a slow seaming pitch to assist, allied to the back up of the traditional Yorkshire cloud cover. Clearly this was a risk given the quality of the tourists' armoury, even without the injured Ian Bishop. England picked bowlers who conformed to the stereotype of a classic English strength; accurate medium-fast swing and seam. Derek Pringle, Steve Watkin and Philip Defreitas, with Devon Malcolm comprising the plan B.

The pitch wasn't a good one for batting from the start and only Robin Smith passed 50 in England's 198, which still afforded them a lead of 25. The bounce was extremely variable and the ball moved either way at the bowler's will. The sky was grey. A score of 150 would have been a good effort in the third innings and given the seamers a chance to defend a smallish target on the last day. Instead, in the supreme batting display by an England player of the last 40 years, Graham Gooch scored 154 himself, in seven and a half hours of resistance, in carrying his bat. England made 252, setting West Indies an unlikely 278 runs to win. They lost by 115 of them with Watkin (on debut) and Defreitas making the most of the trashed surface.

Gooch had a heavy bat and could play his shots, but when he was fighting to survive at the crease, he grimaced and scowled like the condition of batting was a labour of mental and physical pain, a world of haunting concentration. This was his affliction for each of those 452 minutes. So arduous was the task of batting that Mark Ramprakash's courageous 142 minute 27 was his greatest innings for England, on his debut (exceeding the hype accompanying another debutant, Graeme Hick). Derek Pringle's 27 made over a similar period almost in itself justifies his entire England career.

When Wisden analysed every Test innings by statistics, they called Gooch's 154* the third best innings of all time. But of course numbers can't capture the valour and virtue of Gooch's lionhearted monument to obduracy in Leeds. Like all truly great sport, it was achieved over nearly overwhelming odds. England went 1-0 up in the series and won at the Oval to draw 2-2. Like the 2005 Ashes, it felt a little bit like a joyous miracle. Too much to ask for.

It was the beginning of a run of wins for England at Headingley for which this was the prototype. Results had begun to bottom out and recover a little. England had lost the Ashes in the previous winter, but kept them alive beyond the third Test at least in a series now remembered chiefly for David Gower (and John Morris) buzzing his team mates in a practice game on the Gold Coast. No doubt Gooch and Micky Stewart overreacted but with the England cricket team in a tailspin, it's understandable that they wanted to give professionalism a go. The results may yet again crash and burn, and they wouldn't compete with the Aussies for a generation, but surely it was worth a try. Gooch averaged 58.7 as England captain. He made England much more competitive and he usually gave them a plan. For that he deserves credit that he has rarely received.

Next time. Lightning strikes twice.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:
When Wisden analysed every Test innings by statistics, they called Gooch's 154* the third best innings of all time.

Who was above him AC?

Second was Brian Lara's 153* in Bridgetown in 1999- also my choice for best innings in my time.

First was Bradman's 270 at the MCG v England in 1937- batting at seven on a sticky dog after England declared on 76-9.

Botham was fourth for the Headingley Test.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Second was Brian Lara's 153* in Bridgetown in 1999- also my choice for best innings in my time.

First was Bradman's 270 at the MCG v England in 1937- batting at seven on a sticky dog after England declared on 76-9.

Lara for me too

Would have thought Laxman would be quite as well?

i think it was a millennial thing. From memory.

http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat100.htm

I think it got some flak because there's no SRT. Quite a lot of the Don, though.

Actually, I've just spotted VVS at six.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I think it got some flak because there's no SRT.

surely that would never happen?

If it's a formula, there can't be any deliberate imbalance you'd think.

A strength of the exercise, and maybe a weakness too. It excludes the unquantifiable. Or less common factors.

Gooch's 333 is in there but not Thorpe's innings in Colombo. Which is crazy.

There was a poster here who used to get really annoyed by any reference to stats. Can't remember his name now.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:If it's a formula, there can't be any deliberate imbalance you'd think.

A strength of the exercise, and maybe a weakness too. It excludes the unquantifiable. Or less common factors

The guy who did the original 2001 list, recently redid the maths to include more modern data available, and I think Gooch's effort v Windies at Headingley is now rated number 1. Lara dropped to 5, and Laxman is well down the list now IIRC.

The formula is clearly a load of tosh though. Azhar Mahmood's forgettable 100 vs South Africa in 1999 is rated 3 or 4 now. To put that into context, the match was heavily rain effected (only 20 wickets went down in 5 days). The pitch was decent, both sides scored 350 in their only innings. Mahmood largely faced the dual threat of Pat Symcox and Lance Klusener, hardly two world class bowlers. And Mahmood was neither the only lower order/tail to score runs, nor had the best score; that goes to Symcox, who also made a 100 at 8 or 9. Any measure that rates that as a timeless innings of quality can be disregarded.

I think judging on the explanation, that Mahmood's innings heavily factors up on percentage of total innings scored sheparding the tail. Runs that elongate innings seem to crank it up. But then again, how can Lara score 153 to win a game with 9 down, against the statistically best team ever (and two bowlers who get voted as the best ever), and not go above him? It seems runs scored generally in the match factor.

Just a note on the Bradman innings. The sticky wicket is a bit of a red herring. England did declare 9 down, but the pitch had played well until heavy rain made it impossible to bat. They wanted an hour at Australia before the wicket dried out on other days(in fact, Bradman apparently pretended not to hear England declare, wasting valubale time at the end of the day, which really upset his opposite number)..... Australia then sent out their batting line up the wrong way round hoping to salvage a few wickets of proper batters when conditions improved.

There was then a rest day, after which Australia resumed on a now totally dry pitch, that was flat and comfortable to bat on. England made nearly 350 on what would have been 7th and 8th day after the test started. These types of 4th innings were almost unheard of in the 20s, and considering it wasnt a 5 day test, it shows how the now dried pitch must have been pretty placid.

I say uncommon. I believe (without looking for details) that Adelaide and Melbourne were unique in the cricket world in this era, for producing pitches that lasted a long time. They often got flatter and slower. I believe (again can be corrected) that all the 4th innings records up to about the 60s were from these two venues.

I also believe that both teams at some point in the test got ill. Bradman himself could barely go out to bat after he remained underfeated on 250 overnight, and didnt last long the following day. But its said that the whole of the England pace attack came down with the flu, and so match reports indicate they could barely get up to medium pace. A part time bowler (Hammond) bowls a lot of overs on the scorecard, so its believed).

All in all, it seems charitable to give it to Bradman. He'd have got mega points for the top order failing (but they batted the tail), for prolonging the innings at 7 (see again), batting with the tail (When really it was the middle order)...... all these are weighted heavily enough to make me think it was designed to put the Don at the top.

Lara's bridgetown effort is off course my favourite too.

Thanks for that. Good info.