Lord Ted's XI

In the wake of Armstrong and Benaud and Constantine we come, as we must, to Dexter.

THE D XI

1. Stewart Dempster (NZ)
2. Ted Dexter (ENG) (Capt)
3. Rahul Dravid (IND)
4. KS Duleepsinhji (ENG)
5. Martin Donnelly (NZ)
6. Basil D'Oliveira (ENG)
7. Jeff Dujon (WI)  (Wkt)
8. Alan Davidson (AUS)
9. Bruce Dooland (AUS)
10. Allan Donald (SA)
11. Dilip Doshi (IND)

This was a more difficult selection than some and a degree of ingenuity and no small measure of research were required before I could finalise the XI. A reminder of the criteria: the side must, as best as is possible, be balanced, however balance must not be fetishised to the point that it compromises excellence. Style and flair are favoured, generally speaking, over solid reliability. In other words, the numbers are not exclusively the final court of appeal.

Equally, there's a preference for fielding two spinners if possible, while the past is also privileged over contemporary players upon whom history has yet to deliver a verdict. This is especially true of batsmen since it is my contention that there's a paucity of top class bowling on the test circuit these days. Test figures matter of course, but they cannot tell the whole story and players are not punished for having had limited opportunities at the highest level. Needless to say, Scottish and Somerset connections do no harm to a players' selection prospects.

That being so, the player who can consider himself unfortunate to miss out this time is the always-lovely Aravinda de Silva. In the end, however, it proved impossible to find him a place. Wayne Daniel might have played in place of Doshi had I been willing to sacrifice a spinner, but D'Oliveira and Dexter provide more than adequate seam support to Davidson and Donald.

Still, with Davidson at 8 and Dooland at 9 the batting is admirably deep. Few complaints there, even if some explanatory notes may be required to justify two or three selections. Here we go then...

There's a terrible shortage of genuine openers whose surnames begin with the fourth letter of the alphabet. Mike Denness was considered but, Scottish birthplace notwithstanding, falls beneath the required standard (his best innings for England came in a test in which neither Lillee nor Thomson played). I had thought of press-ganging Dravid into opening, but he is not - and palpably not - comfortable there (averaging around 35 when he opens) and it seemed a waste to move him from the 3 slot. Consequently, Dexter is asked to open and, in the modern style, is given license to knock the shine off the ball. That he was a wonderful player of fast bowling was also, obviously, a consideration. Little fazed Lord Ted and this won't either.

Stewart Dempster only played 10 tests but passed 50 in seven of his 15 innings (two centuries) and averaged a useful 65. He played 40 matches for Wellington in the early 1920s and 69 for Leicestershire between 1935-39 and it is reasonable to suppose that he'd have performed even better had he had more opportunities. He twice scored three centuries in consecutive innings. John Arlott judged that he was "an exceptionally gifted cricketer... [who] was undoubtedly one of the most complete batsmen of any country in his time." Wisden has this to say:

Oddly enough he used to emphasise that he had never received any coaching and it was not until he came to England in 1927 that he really learned to play cricket. A neat and compact player, he ranked amongst the first six batsmen in the world; his admirable footwork made him probably the best player of slow bowling during his career, being particularly strong on the off side.

He also, happily, played one game for Scotland while on a business trip to the land of his ancestors in 1934.

Moving on, Duleepsinhji's inclusion requires no justification, even though his career was also sadly curtailed. Nor should the incomparable Basil D'Oliveira require any introduction (and think what he might have achieved had he played any first-class cricket before turning 30!). If D'Oliveira is unknown to you, I recommend Peter Oborne's biography.

Martin Donnelly may be a different matter. His test career was even briefer than that of his compatriot, Dempster. in his 7 tests he scored at 53 an innings, while his first-class average was 47. Though he lost prime years to Hitler's War, Donnelly was still considered the finest left-hand batsman in the world when cricket resumed after the war's end. His Wisden obituary records that he

left an indelible impression on cricket despite the brevity of his career. As a New Zealander at Oxford, he entranced cricket-followers in the immediate post-war years in a manner surpassed only by Compton. He proved that reality matched appearance with a magnificent double-century against England in the Lord's Test of 1949. C. B. Fry said he was as good a left-hander as any he had seen, including Clem Hill and Frank Woolley.

According to Arlott, he "played cricket solely for pleasure." One thinks of him as being, in some respects, a Kiwi version of David Gower: watching Donnelly bat was, by all accounts, an aesthetic experience to be savoured. As Wisden said, "it was as if all his own cricket had been a student pastime" and, as such, always bathed in late-afternoon sunlight.

The final selection of note is that of Bruce Dooland. He too played little test cricket, though his 1000+ first class wickets came at 22 runs apiece. Wisden again:

He was a legspinner, with claims to being considered the best produced anywhere in the world post-war. And he was one of a distinguished band of excellent cricketers who came to the forefront in Australia in the late 1940s at a time when competition was exceptionally keen for Test places, so that he like so many others failed to gain the honours he deserved.

Find me a better "D" spinner than Dooland and I'll willingly let you pick him. Dooland's career would have been more impressive still if he had played any county cricket before he was 30 (bloody Hitler again, you see, costing him his early 20s). Instead he plied his trade in the tough schools of the Lancashire leagues before joining Nottinghamshire in 1953 for whom he twice did the double. He also, much to the chagrin of English batsmen, taught Ritchie Benaud how to bowl the flipper.

So there you have it. A good side, but not a great side? As always, have your say in the comments.

Running total of players selected in the series so far: England 14, Australia 8, West Indies 5,  India 5, Pakistan 4, South Africa 4, New Zealand 4.

PS: Since I also have a weakness for fine cricketing initials, it was also very tempting to find a place for JWHT Douglas, Olympic middlewight boxing champion in 1908 and a Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1915, of whom David Foot wrote:

Johnny Douglas was said to be the fittest cricketer of his day. The body was taut and muscular. He would not have been remotely out of place in a 21st-century dressing room where a player's physical condition is too easily a fetish rather than a healthy consideration. Douglas looked more like a boxer than a Test allrounder. And that was what he was, of course. Those who yawned at his unwaveringly wearisome batting approach argued with some validity that he was worth watching only when he stepped into the ring.

That was a cutting comment on someone who captained his country at cricket and led it to success against the Australians before the First World War. Yet he was never a batsman to ignite a schoolboy's imagination or stir a wing-collared Edwardian scribe to flights of purple prose... In Douglas's case he batted as if losing a competitive stroll with a tortoise - and flung his fists in ferocious combinations of punches to excite black-tied audiences, baying for blood after port, at the National Sporting Club.

Douglas's batting style (which accumulated nearly 25,000 first class runs to be added to his 1800 wickets) and his initials led to one of the finest pieces of Australian barracking: his initials stood for, they said, Johnny Won't Hit Today. That alone came close to getting him into the XI... But alas, it was not to be.

Comments

[tommyt]

only agreeing with 6 or maybe 7 of the 11, your preference for two spinners means that the worthy Fanie De Villiers (another who would have played more test cricket but for geo-politics beyond his control) missess out. Amazed you couldnt find a place for De Silva in the middle order somewhere probably instead of Donnelly and, as you would expect I am not going to let the omission of Lanarkshires own Mike Denness go un-noted.

Playing in 28 tests wtih an average a shade under 40 largely against the formidable Aussie and West Indian attacks of the early 70's his claims to get into this, admittedly weak, side are not inconsiderable especially as he has played almost as many tests as your middle order put together. Duleep burned bright but short and had only a handful of innings against quality test opposition. Would you have selected Ian Bell for the B's if his caraeer had been cut short whilst he was averaging nearly 300 ? Denness was not a great captain but then neither was Boycott (who worked hard to undermine Denness) or Gower (who you will pick in the G's ahead of even Grace) So that shouldnt count against him.

Denness filled every position from 1 to 6 at test level so, particularly given the curious lack of openers in this team, it should have been easy to find him a slot.

ANyway - at this stage I think Mark Ealham will get a game next week.

[Shippers]

I once again applaud this commendable exercise, not least since it has successfully distracted me from a highly exciting session of March madness.

I find myself awed by your research and imagination and not a little irritated by your mule-like approach.

As you will know, since I sent you a very quickly hustled together Ds XI last weekend, I agree with much of it. I had included Mike Denness but considered him the weakest link and unlike the previous contributor, I am delighted that you found a world class performer for the top slot. Dempster is a find indeed, and exactly what this process is all about.

I too am fascinated by the story of Martin Donnelly (not least since he found time to drive for Lotus in formula one in the late 80s...)

I also give you points for uncovering Dooland. I know you love a bot of leg (spin, that is).

But I have several serious points of disagreement. It is perverse to ask Dexter to open, a man who opened a grand total of twice in his England career (with an average lower than Dravid, a man who has often opened).

In what you admit is a less than great side, it is beyond perverse not to play Aranvinder de Silva, a man with 90 odd test matches with an average well over 40 and a first class average nudging 50; a man who won a world cup final single handed; a man who was universally regarded as the lynchpin of his nation's side for two decades; a man who for four of five years would have made it into every world XI middle order alongside Tendulkar and Lara; a man to boot who batted with all the grace and virtue and aggression that you purport to champion. I damn you and your team of Ds for not including him.

Doshi, I did include, but on reflection he was a fairly pedestrian bowler and with Dolly, Dexter and some offspin from Aravinder, we can drop him. That let's you have Donnelly. If you want two frontline spinners, it is Donnelly that must go. If you want too specialist openers, it is Donnelly or Doshi who must give way for Aravinder.

I would suggest that

Dempster-Dravid-Dexter-De Silva-Duleepsinjhi-Donnelly-D'Oliveira
Dujon-Davidson-Dooland-Donald

is a stronger side.

[Shippers]

excuse the typos. your omission of Aravinder has my blood boiling

[Shippers]

Lord help us all with the Es. I am on the verge of trying to justify: Bedser, Eric as an E at the moment.

[Mustafa Sabuwala]

How can you not have Aravinda DeSilva and Kapil Dev and include Doshi?

[tommyt]

i wondered about N Kapil Dev I assume he will be selected for the K's but Wasim Akram Mushtaq Ahmed and Zaheer Abbass all made the A tema and I strongly suspect Inzamam Ul Haq will be a contender for the I's.

If we go by the way these players are referred to by the cricket press that may give us some guidence. N Kapil Dev was lways referred to as Kapil Dev or Kapil but never Dev. Inzmam Ul Haq when he firs came on the scene was referred to as Haq or Ul Haq but later almost exclusively as Inzamam or by his full name.Zaheer Abbass could go either way and the Pakistan spearheads of the 90's were pretty much always Waqar & Wasim, at least when referred to as a pairing. Certainly Waqar Younis was seldom referred to as Younis.

We are crying out for leadership on this one Alex.

[Alex]

Tommy, As you rightly surmise, names from the subcontinent are a moveable feast. Your guidelines are pretty decent however. Kapil will indeed be in the K XI. Inzamam will be in the I XI (and not just because he wouldn't get into the H's...) Basically, I tend to go, more or less, by a combination of what the general usage was and what Wisden says.

As for Mike Denness: he averaged just 25 against the Windies and about the same against Australia.

I was very tempted to include de Silva but he was done in by the greater claims of other players and by the fact that in 48 tests outside Sri Lanka he scored at a pretty average 36. Nor did he average above 40 against either England or Australia.

Still, it was a very close call.

[tommyt]

all very well alex but zaheer abbass is already in my Z side.

As for Denness he had a higher average in Australasia than most contemporary batsmen - helped by a 180-odd at the MCG and given that your openers, 4,5, & 6 have played roughly 10 innings apiece agianst test class opposition in the positions you selected them I still feel he is worth consideration.

Still cant expect a borderer to give someone born in Bellshill a fair hearing.

I will elt other take up the cudgels on behalf od De Silva

[Sam]

Back from a week in Hong Kong, hence the delay in responding to this selection...

Glad to see a justification for Kapil Dev's absence, which otherwise would have been extremely worrying. But am now going to at least leave on record the case for Aravinda de Silva once again...

Not only a test average of almost 43 (and over 47 against the Australians, the premier side of his era), but a grand total of 15,000 first-class runs, including 20 test centuries. And over 1500 overs of off-spin bowling in first-class cricket at a very reasonable economy - in fact, plenty of test match off-spin as well at less than 3 runs per over.

All of this while essentially carrying his national team for most of his career. Imagine what his achievements could have been with support from better batsmen in the top order! Similar arguments have been made to include players from the past with curtailed careers or a lack of test opportunities...

With, as you note, plenty of back-up seam bowling opportunities, this team could surely afford to lose a spinner (probably the unfortunate Doshi, given the way you extol Dooland) to play De Silva at no.6 and bat further down...

Or, to put it another way, De Silva is certainly the single best player so far in the alphabet to miss out on selection, despite some overall stronger teams (e.g. Benaud's XI) - I'm not sure that the same could be said for Doshi if you made the selection changes.