Draft: 90s England Draft - It's Richard Blakey time

I think @Dale88 - Irani aside - has the next best attack after me, even allowing for that by the 90s Beefy is entirely a part time bowler.
I'd probably back mine against either of them. Fraser being the best England bowler of his generation and Malcolm the fastest certainly gives a nice head start; then even though Daffy, Lewis and Illingworth weren't fashionable, they were more than capable of keeping the pressure on and ensuring that Malcolm was used properly.
 
I'd probably back mine against either of them. Fraser being the best England bowler of his generation and Malcolm the fastest certainly gives a nice head start; then even though Daffy, Lewis and Illingworth weren't fashionable, they were more than capable of keeping the pressure on and ensuring that Malcolm was used properly.

You have the advantage/disadvantage that your 4 seamers actually played together in 2 tests. Both in Australia on the 95 tour, the 4th and 5th tests with the Ashes already retained.

England won the 4th test by 109 runs, and Defraitas got man of the match... for his 2nd inns 88. England lost the 5th test by 329 runs.

Lewis the best of the bowlers, 11 wickets at 22 in the 2 matches. Malcolm 9 at 35. Both outperforming their career averages. Fraser 7 at 41 and Defreitas 6 at 41 suggests perhaps this wasn't a super unit.

Seriously though - Fraser was a fantastic, world class bowler. Injuries and stupid selection hampered him - if he'd been playing a decade or two later he'd have been an acknowledged great. Malcolm not in that league, but much much better than his 37 average suggests, and again would have been better with better management: and undoubtedly capable of great spells.

Lewis and Defraitas, I don't rate much. And I think this is an attack with quite a drop off after first change. Daffy's average outside England was nearly 40, and that is about his level IMO. No swing and he was toothless. And far from being a player capable of keeping on the pressure, with Lewis you always knew a bad ball was coming. He's a 4th seamer for sure, and I'm a 4-man attack man, I want 3 quality seamers.
 
Arguments aside though, this was a tremendously fun draft. And I think the “unpicked XI” is substantially weaker than any of the actually picked teams, suggesting we all did a decent job.

That unpicked XI is giving me shudders, imagine a team where Derek Pringle and Robert Croft are not just the best players, but actually a class apart from anyone else on the team AND YET EVERYONE HAS A TEST CAP.

Ye gods.
 
Arguments aside though, this was a tremendously fun draft. And I think the “unpicked XI” is substantially weaker than any of the actually picked teams, suggesting we all did a decent job.

That unpicked XI is giving me shudders, imagine a team where Derek Pringle and Robert Croft are not just the best players, but actually a class apart from anyone else on the team AND YET EVERYONE HAS A TEST CAP.

Ye gods.

90s selection for you that. Everyone gets a cap. The crap ones get 2 or 3, the good ones get caps till their bodies give up
 
Just on this, Watkin was actually originally picked “horses for courses” a yeah before Mallender, with greater success.
My bad - a bit distracted today with a few personal things occurring at once. Although I did mostly just want to hype up Mallender and didn't really check as carefully as I ought[DOUBLEPOST=1609943551][/DOUBLEPOST]
That unpicked XI is giving me shudders, imagine a team where Derek Pringle and Robert Croft are not just the best players, but actually a class apart from anyone else on the team AND YET EVERYONE HAS A TEST CAP.
I love/hate it. The best thing is that there were so many good players available at the time, and yet this could still happen. Mental.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top