Comparing Yorkshire champions now and the sixties
Sunday 21 Sep 2014 08:31:00
Browse all articles
Browse all articles
OldSethManversMain Posted on 17/09/2014 15:19
My answer would be that there's no comparison.
The game and playing conditions are so different.
Although cricket was played on covered pitches by the late 60s, it was still played on many outgrounds with limited facilities. Some pitches were good, some weren't.
England players were available when they weren't playing for England.
There were far more spinners, pitches weren't designed to enable massive scores, many were green seamers, lots were spin friendly. Boundaries were often bigger, bats lighter.
Games were played over 3 days, with mor declarations and much lower scores. There were far more games played and only one division.
However!! It is, I think possible to compare teams and players, but there again, there's a bit of a problem. Yorkshire played differently in those days. The batsmen's role, Boycott apart, was to score at a rate that permitted the bowlers enough time to bowl out the opposition twice. That had always been the basic approach by Yorkshire and explains why Yorkshire batsmen's batting averages were a bit lower than their ability suggested they should be.
In those days, too, teams invariably had a proper keeper, Sussex apart, rather than a batsman who kept.
In the 60s we had the best opening bowler in the country. Trueman. We still do. Sidebottom.
Nicholson, who came in during the mid 60s, was slightly better, in my view , than Brooks, Bresnan Wor Plunkett or Patterson. Hutton supported Trueman and Nicholson and I'd put all our current pace bowlers ahead of him.
There's no comparrison in the spinners, Illingworth and Wilson with Rashid. As a batsman Rashid is better than Illingworth, but perhaps not as consistent. Brilliant at times, whereas illy was dependable at no. 7.
The 60s attack was considerably superior to the present attack, supported by astonishingly good fielding from such as Sharpe, Close Taylor, Padgett. The fielding was some of the best there has ever been in England.
Binks was a much superior keeper to Bairstow, but not remotely in the same class as a batsman.
In batting, the present side at full strength is the better. The mid to late 60s side had Boycott, who was better under Close, than when Close had left. Boycott then hampered the team, despite his welter of runs. Despite his personal quirks and failings, Boycott was still Test standard. No one else really was. Close was, well, close, but not really good enough for the Test side just as a batsman. Others such as Taylor, Sharpe, Padgett, Stott, Bolus were all good county batsman, but not really Test class, at least not to be a fixture in the Test side. Today, Root and Ballance certainly are; Bairstow is close and Lyth and Lees will surely make the Test side. Additionally, we can count on a top foreigner in the batting.
So I'd say the 60s had the bowlers and today's side has the batsmen.
As captain, while I greatly admire Gale, Close, with Illingworth, Binks and Trueman as counselors, was incomparable.
S0, who'd win if the two sides could play each other?
If it were played in 60s conditions the 60's side would win without much doubt. If played in today's conditions, today's side might just win.
That, at least is my view.
To rate this article select the number of stars you think perfectly rates this article.