Today in a twist on my usual theme I select a team of players who by their averages seem to fall short of test class but who were hugely valuable to their respective teams. I have allowed myself one sneaky selection who many would say should be disallowed due to the era in which he played, but the other 10 are bona fide qualifiers on my criteria.
THE XI IN BATTING ORDER
- John Wright (New Zealand, left handed opening batter, 5,334 runs at 37.82). A couple of runs per innings short of the usual modern day benchmark for front line test batter, but the gritty left hander was a crucial component of the New Zealand sides of the 1980s.
- Tamim Iqbal (Bangladesh, right handed opening batter, 5,134 test runs at 38.89). With a left handed sticker as one opener the ideal counterpart to him would be right hander with more attacking instincts, and the Bangladeshi, probably the classiest batter his country has produced to date fits the bill perfectly.
- Mark Butcher (England, left handed batter, very occasional right arm medium pacer, 4,288 runs at 34.58). He had a two-phase career, struggling initially but becoming a very important member of the England sides of his day later on. He was the matchwinner at Headingley in 2001 with a blistering 173* as England chased down over 300 in the fourth innings.
- *Nasser Hussain (England, right handed batter, captain, 5,764 runs at 37.18). It was he as captain who began England’s revival from hitting rock bottom in 1999, and he was by then a very highly respected batter. His career highlight came at Edgbaston in 1997, when after Australia were shot out for 118 batting first he scored 207.
- Clem Hill (Australia, left handed batter, 3,412 runs at 39.21). The sneaky pick – at the time of his retirement he had scored more test career runs than anyone else, and among those who played 10 or more tests only Ranji, with an average of 45 outranked him on that metric.
- Mulvantrai ‘Vinoo’ Mankad (India, right handed batter, left arm orthodox spinner, 2,109 runs at 31.47, 162 wickets at 32.32). Fails to qualify as test class in either department, but for all that he was one of India’s most important ever players. He often had to open the batting because there were few Indians in those days who had the technique to cope with the new ball when it was moving, and he also had to bowl huge numbers of overs because India were short staffed in that department owing to their domestic cricket being played on roads – the only two first class matches ever to produce an aggregate of over 2,000 runs were both played in India, and both during Mankad’s playing days.
- +Ben Foakes (England, right handed batter, wicket keeper, 1,107 runs at 29.91, 68 catches and eight stumpings). An all time great of the keeper’s art, but many question his place in the side on grounds of his batting. He bats in the top half of the order for Surrey, and there are few if any real bunnies in the Surrey line up, so he never has to try to shepherd them, as happened in the second innings at Ranchi, when he was stranded with only Bashir and Anderson for company.
- Jack Gregory (Australia, right arm fast bowler, left handed batter, 85 wickets at 31.15, 1107 runs at 36.96). Was part of a devastating new ball pairing with Ted McDonald in 1920-1, but once he lost the Tasmanian’s support at the other end when the latter moved to England to play as a Lancashire League pro and ultimately for Lancashire his bowling fell away, with injuries also taking toll – a knee injury terminated his career in the first match of the 1928-9 Ashes.
- Phillip DeFreitas (England, right arm fast medium bowler, right handed batter, 140 wickets at 33.57, 934 runs at 14.82). On the face of one of far too many England cricketers of that era whose averages were the wrong way round, but his bowling was often valuable for England, never more so than in 1991, in which season he recorded his best ever innings figures of 7-70. He was also a magnificent outfielder, with safe hands and a very powerful and accurate throw.
- Nathan Lyon (Australia, off spinner, 527 wickets at 30.35). Bowling average just the wrong side of 30, but this is an off spinner who has played half his matches or thereabouts in Australia, and the record of visiting off spinners in Australia makes pretty grim reading.
- Steve Harmison (right arm fast bowler, 226 wickets at 31.82). When he was first called up for England he was wild and wayward, with most of such wickets as he managed to take being caught at deep third man, but he had a great period in the middle of his career. In the first match of the 2005 Ashes he quite literally left his mark on the Australian top three – all copped bruises from him early in their innings.
This side has a solid looking top five, with a good mix of defence and attack, Mankad having the luxury of being in an all rounder’s best position, a great keeper and a quartet of frontline bowlers capable of great things. Gregory, Harmison and DeFreitas should form an effective pace/ seam/ swing trio and Lyon and Mankad are a contrasting pair of spinners. This side, for all that in theory all 11 of its members fall short of test class should be able to give a good account of itself, especially given that they will be well led by Hussain.
I am not doing an honourable mentions section this time, but there was a challenger for Mankad’s slot – Shakib Al Hasan of Bangladesh who averages 39 with the bat and 31 with the ball. I opted for Mankad on two grounds – firstly there is still time for Shakib to disqualify himself (most likely with the bat if he does manage it) and secondly I believe that Mankad would fare better as an all rounder in this XI than he did when having to virtually carry an ordinary India side on his shoulders. Also, though I do not list this as a reason there is another factor – I wanted to take the opportunity to showcase Mankad as a fine cricketer and not just as guy associated with a form of dismissal that for no good reason tends to generate controversy.
PHOTOGRAPHS
My usual sign off – I have a bumper crop at present, and this gallery could have been bigger had I wanted it to be so…
aspiblog 
Relevant wiki:Â Truth-Tellers and Liars
Since every statement is false, let us convert them into true statements, and number each statement:
Ann: 1) One of us took the painting. 2) The painting was gone when I left.
Bob: 3) I arrived first, third, or fourth. 4) The painting was still here.
Chuck: 5) I arrived first, second, or fourth. 6) The painting was gone when I arrived.
Tom: 7) Whoever stole the painting arrived after me. 8) The painting was still here.
According to statement #7, Tom is not the thief. #8: Since the painting was there when Tom arrived, he could not have been the last to arrive. Tom must have gone there first, second, or third. #6: The painting was gone when Chuck was there, so he didn’t arrive first. #5: So Chuck got there second or fourth. #4 and #8: As two other members (Bob and Tom) arrived to see the painting, Chuck didn’t get there second, either. So Chuck arrived fourth. #3: This means Bob arrived first or third. #2: Since the painting was gone when Ann left, she didn’t arrive first. Otherwise, no member after her would have seen the painting. So Ann went there second or third and Chuck arrived fourth. But since two other members (Bob and Tom) saw the painting when they arrived, Ann didn’t go there second, either. So Ann arrived third. #3: Therefore, Bob arrived first, and Tom arrived second.
In summary, Bob arrived first. Tom got there next and the painting was still there, so Bob was not the thief, and neither was Tom. When Ann arrived, the painting was still there, but it was gone when she left. So Ann was the one who stole the painting. Chuck arrived last and discovered that the painting was gone.