Picture the scene. You’re walking down the street, minding your own business, when a black van with darkened windows screeches to a halt alongside you. A gang of masked gunmen rush out, grab your arms and legs, and bundle you into the back.
“You’re toast gringo” they growl menacingly into your ear before knocking you unconscious.
When you finally wake up, after a gap of what could be hours or days (you’re too groggy to know for sure), you find yourself in surreal and terrifying surroundings. You’re in an empty warehouse, tied to a chair, surrounded by five dishevelled cutthroats. Curiously the only object in the room is a TV (positioned right in front of you) and a machete.
“Why am I here?” you utter nervously.
“We’re going to play a game” says the leader of the moustached assailants.
He walks menacingly towards the tele, switches it on with a nonchalant flick of a finger, and growls something incomprehensible to one of his heinous henchmen. They nod and laugh.
He then turns to you, looks you in the eye, and explains all …
“We’re going to play Life Or Death Cricket“.
“Eh?”
At this point you notice that the television is showing the Lord’s Test match. Could this day (or indeed this blog post) get any weirder?
“If the batsman gets out, you die”.
The frightful felons then start placing bets on your survival chances. You promptly soil yourself and pray that it’s not Stuart Broad batting.
*******
If you ever found yourself in this terrifying scenario – unlikely I admit (!) – who do you wish was batting? Which cricketer, either a current player or someone from the past, would you choose to bat for your life? Who would you like to drop anchor and defiantly declare “not over my (or his!) dead body”.
I need to make the guidelines explicit here. Your nominated batsman has to bat all day, on a wearing wicket, against a world class attack containing genuine pace, nagging accuracy, extravagant movement both in the air and off the pitch, plus a quality spinner with footmarks to aim at. There’s no chance of victory – let’s say it’s 600 to win on the fifth day – so it’s all about survival.
The odds are therefore against the batsman but with consume skill, mental strength, and an indefatigable attitude, your batting saviour IS capable of saving the day.
Remember you can choose anyone to represent you. You can even pick The Don if you like. But please bear in mind that Bradman might find modern day bowling a bit more challenging than the stuff they faced in the 1930s. Now there’s a discussion point for you!
To kick things off I’ll give you my nominated literal life-saver. And it pains me to admit my choice.
I toyed with several options, including Steve Waugh, Allan Border, Graham Gooch, Rahul Dravid, Misbah Ul Haq, Jimmy Adams (the one from Jamaica not Hampshire, duh), Kane Williamson, Kusal Perera, Mike Atherton, Sunil Gavaskar, Kumar Sangakkara, and Graham Thorpe.
However, my choice has to be Steve Smith. Why? Because I’ve spent hours, if not days, watching this bastard bat in recent times and I still don’t have a clue how I’d get him out. And neither does anyone else. The best cricketing minds in the world have applied themselves to this perennial problem and come up empty handed time and again.
Although some might argue that Smith has a tiny weeny chink in the armour against left arm spinners – I’m yet to be convinced of this myself – he’s been prolific for long enough now to prove that his amazing form isn’t some kind of fluke or purple patch.
Smith has scored plenty of runs in all conditions against all types of bowling: he averages comfortably over 50 in every country in the world other than India (where his average is still an impressive 47) and the UAE (where he’s only played two Tests).
Yes we all know Smith’s horrible to watch. He looks like a constipated ostrich at the crease. But aesthetics are an irrelevant luxury when the only thing separating your neck from a malevolent malefactor’s machete is his bat. What’s more, it would be nice to watch him from the perspective of someone who desperately wants him to stay in for a change.
Although one could argue there have been better batsmen than Smith – I’ll happily argue that Lara, Tendulkar, or Sir Viv were superior players – I’m not sure these cricketing artists had quite the same obdurate stickability. They might score a wonderful hundred but then get carried away and hole out in the deep. And I just can’t risk that.
So call me a predictable; call me unoriginal; call me a traitor even. But the man I’m entrusting with my life is Steve Smith. He’s caused me so much emotional pain over the years that the least he can do is save me some physical pain at the hands of my callous captors.
James Morgan
I might have said Boycott, but I suspect that if he knew what was going on, he might give his wicket away (no, I don’t seriously believe that!). Kallis might be another you haven’t mentioned; also Conrad Hunte.
However for me it would be a toss-up between Steve Waugh (though his brother was much more attractive to watch) and *&^%$Smith!
Since survival is all how about Rahul ‘the wall’ Dravid?
Smith is the obvious choice, really, though WG Grace would simply have the front to replace the bails if he were out. I suppose for determination in a desperate situation, I might nominate Ben Stokes and at least he could avenge my death. Chris Tavare? Boycs? It’s quite hard to see past Mr Twitchy, though, much as it pains.
Correct re Grace, who would have pocketed half the game receipts as well. Depends a bit on the opposition. If it is Pakistan or SL with Murali bowling, you just need to ensure Darrell Hair is the umpire and chances are the game will be called off.
‘What’s more, it would be nice to watch him from the perspective of someone who desperately wants him to stay in for a change.’
Yes, a whole new perspective.
Boycott for me. Unlikely to have a rush of blood to the head…and might just put the machete men to sleep.
I think I would go with Tugga, given tough situations he was an obdurate bastard!
That’s better James. You have a ‘Fun’ category for light hearted stuff. Save the ‘Talking Points’ category for more serious debate.
A couple of stickers that rarely get mentioned in despatches are Larry Gomes, who for both the Windies and Middlesex had a specific low risk role to play and Chanderpaül who later took on this mantle. Neither were as unorthodox as Smith both both had sustained and effective careers.
However my 2 favourite bankers would be Sunny Gavaskar, who just liked batting and batting and batting and Glenn Turner (one for you James) who had a pathological fear of dismissal. I remember in the early days of one day cricket he carried his bat through a 40 over innings, admittedly on a helpful surface, for less than 50. He just couldn’t bring himself to take a risk. He got over this later in his career and for that reason I stick with Sunny for his unquenchable thirst for occupying the crease. He seemed to get as much pleasure from an immaculate defensive stroke as hittting a boundary.
Turner’s a good call. When I first started following cricket he had just returned to the side after a voluntary absence of several years (fell out with the distinctly amateur management of NZ cricket, though I’m not sure that he was the easiest to get on with). He played like a millionaire at the time, and was a very free scorer. Only by reading cricket history books did I discover he had started off as a limpet at the crease.
You’ve reminded me with your choice of Turner, but Bev Congdon might be worth considering.
Actually, I almost put yesterday’s article in the ‘fun’ category but I thought the underlying point was serious. It was 50:50.
A couple more “ugly” batsmen who were very difficult to dismiss – Gary Kirsten and Shivnarine Chanderpaul.
Just an afterthought about Boycs. He turned down a tour to India, allegedly on the grounds that his health could suffer as a result, though many felt it was the presence of an apparently innocuous left arm seamer called Solkar, who kept dismissing him on India’s previous trip here. He never worked Solkar out and it seemed at the time to have been a contributory factor in his refusal to tour. It would be interesting to see his stats against lefties, as I don’t remember that many then. I don’t see Smith having any bogeymen in his closet to offset the sandpaper.
The obvious candidates have all been covered, except for England’s banker, Ken Barrington. Well known for checking in for Bed and Breakfast at the crease, and never in any hurry to finish his coffee and pay his bill on his final day either. In fact any batsman from my XI of slow scorers would be a decent choice: https://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cricket-blog/the-slows/
Otherwise, as I’ve mentioned before, the most stoic batting record of my lifetime was Allan Border in WI 1983-4. He scored more than double any of his teammates. Australia got murdered, but only because WI could always bank on dismissing Border’s teammates – they never mastered him.
How could we have forgotten Hanif Mohammed, James?
His famous vigil was before my time. Apologies. I’ve heard great things though.
I can’t remember if the first live first class cricket I saw was when my father took me to see Pakistan at Taunton, with Hanif and Mushtaq Mohammed playing, or Glamorgan at the Arms Park (pre Sofia Gardens) with Gilbert Parkhouse and, possibly, Ossie Wheatley playing. Could anyone sort out the timeline for me? I would have been quite young in either case!
If it had both the Mohammeds playing, it would have to be the 1962 tour (Mushtaq didn’t play in the Somerset game on the 1967 tour although Hanif did). If it was Parkhouse, it would have to be 1964 at the latest.
Thanks Marek
My eldest brother knew Kenny Barrington and somehow managed to procure a bat from him. I used it for many years to reasonable effect. It was a pretty light Gun & Moore, but with a nice sweet spot.
As his trademark was hitting a six to go to a hundred, as though he had to offset his crawl to that landmark, I often wondered how many he’d hit with that bat, especially as I hit so few.
Another candidate with a knack for survival was John Edrich, who’s trademark was to play and miss a few times then hit aboundary off the last ball of the over. I remember some joker in the crowd bringing him on a home made bat a good foot wide for him to try during a test match against the Windies.
Trevor Bailey. After giving serious consideration to Gavaskar and Viswanath! Great question though !
I can’t think of a single time when any of Lara, Tendulkar or Sir Viv (the greatest of them all in my view) holed out in the deep. I suppose it happened, but certainly not very often against England! I’m going to go with Viv.
I am surprised nobody mentioned Mike Atherton or Len Hutton or John Edrich. Maybe my eldest Son’s names give it away. **** (to protect anonymity) Leonard John Boycott Stokes. PS I am an England supporter and got to the point where I refused to watch Steve Smith bat on aestethic grounds. I gave that up after 2 test matches as i seemed to be watching 2 day games that Drinks server (am i allowed to write Bar Steward?) was batting for the life of every bloody Aussie and their offspring. Good fun question.
I wouldn’t want Atherton batting for my life if McGrath or Ambrose was bowling!
Not at Lord’s, I think he is still a bit bitter about never reaching the ton there …
Has Smith played a great last innings’ match-saving innings? One doesn’t come to mind and while he’s the master of the match-defining big first innings’ knock it isn’t quite the same thing.
If my life was at stake, I’d be willing to cough up all the cash I could muster. Barry Richards scored an absolute stack of runs when he was paid per run scored (in the Sheffield Shield I think it was) so perhaps I’d back him with a reward of per minute survived.
Failing that, it would be Allan Border. Border’s 123* at OT in 1981 when he batted nearly 8 hours with a broken finger and in a hopeless cause is the best rearguard I’ve seen.
I’m not sure your suggestion that Bradman would find the bowling today tougher than in the 1930s. He was playing against bowlers who were as quick as most current ones, better spinners, on uncovered pitches and would probably have faced 120+ overs in a full day. Mind you I still wouldn’t choose him-I’d have to go K F Barrington because he could play all types of bowling. Good article; perhaps a final list could be produced.
You do make me laugh out loud James. Hoping it’s not Stuart Broad at the crease. 😂
Smith is the obvious choice but I couldn’t favour an Australian menace. I watched Barrington and Boycott bat all day once. Either one of them seems like a good choice. Barrington of the two I think.
All in all though, think I’ll have Sanga because he would never let me down. Raul Dravid in reserve.
On the basis of a glorious childhood memory of watching him blunt one of the finest bowling attacks ever for several hours with only that renowned match-saver Bob Willis for company–Peter Willey.
Also because if he got wind of what was happening with you and the machete-owning men, even if he got out he’d probably leap out of the TV and batter them all to a pulp with his bare hands.
Against all bowling and conditions? Have to be Bradman, who would have batted even better in today’s somewhat easier pitch conditions. Of current players? Probably Steve Smith.
Me, I can hold up an end like no other!
Seriously though, many comments have stated that players such as Viv Richards, Sachin and Lara would be in their list. To me these guys were aggressive batsmen known for their attacking style. Another attacking batsmen, Adam Gilchrist averaged 47ish, he was aggressive, but Viv who averaged 50, equally as aggressive is mentioned. In terms of style, one batted like he owned the place, the other entertained but they had similar averages give or take a few runs. Same for Lara (52) and Sachin (53), attackers who looked for runs, not drop anchor.
The question basically is, who could be counted upon to stay there until the end, see it through as it were. One player who can and has is Nathan Lyon. Laugh you may but think about it, can he see through to stumps, can he see out a draw, can he get a team over the line, can he get the team close or past an opposition 1st innings? Yes he can and has, often. Everybody has gone for some of the great batsmen of their era’s, but nobody has mentioned a tailender. They, generally speaking, are the one’s that have to do that job, see it through whatever the situation.
So for me, Nathan Lyon is on my list.
For all his talents, Smith has actually never scored a 4th innings century and only averages 30 in the 4th. Furthermore, Australia have never batted out for a draw 4th innings when he’s been in the team – 6 wins and 15 losses when he’s batted 4th innings.
Can’t see past Gavaskar for this one – averages 58 in 4th innings. 117* to bat out a draw vs Windies 1971, 102 in the then world record chase of 406 in 1976 vs Windies again, the 221 4th innings at the Oval in 1979 which got India within 10 of what would have been a target of 438, another century against the Aussies 4th innings in 1977, batted out a draw vs Underwood in Kolkata in 82.
Did it against the very best attacks in all countries and conditions.
I wondered how long it would be before someone raised this. It was the gaping hole in my nomination. However, I wonder how often Smith has actually batted in the 4th innings with something on the line i.e. a game to save? I can’t see anything in his method that suggests he couldn’t thrive in these circumstances. His record in 3rd innings is still very good (49) so I don’t see why the 4th should be any different.
I would say there’s enough to make it statistically significant – in 21 of his 73 matches he’s batted in the 4th innings, 6 times Australia have won but they’ve lost on 15 occasions – he’s never batted out for a draw.
The largest total they’ve successfully chased was 201. Of the losses, he’s only made 3 50s and never even got close to saving a game – once he was 8th man out batting with the tail in UAE, but otherwise he’s generally gone pretty meekly.
My theory is that so much of his batting is based on a good eye, when 4th innings tracks start to go up, down and sideways, he struggles. Compare that to Sunny, who averaged 58 – it’s no contest surely????
What about AB de Villiers? In block mode rather than T20. Not been mentioned but when he switched to saving a game, he was just as magnificent as when he was winning one.
Someone who also managed to average 50+ in the fourth innings was Graeme Smith. Couple of centuries too, and when he scored one, South Africa never lost.
Only Boycott, Gavaskar, Hobbs, Miandad, Greenidge, G. Smith, Younis Khan and Ponting managed to average 50+ in the fourth innings (minimum 750 runs scored – Kusal Mendis is still active as a player, so he may well drop out). Angelo Matthews averages more than 100 balls per fourth innings dismissal, as do Dravid and Misbah. Chanderpaul and Younis Khan are quite close to that as well. Obviously for players who played pre-2000, the information of balls faced is not always available. AB de Villiers has the distinction of being the slowest batsman (of whom recorded information is available) to have scored at least 750 4th innings runs. Slower than Dravid – and obviously the Adelaide rearguard of 2012 played a part in that.
Oh and if we look at not outs / innings batted, only Desmond Haynes remained out more often (as a percentage) than Boycott, with 20 not outs in 45 fourth innings batted. Boycott is second with 13 not outs out of 34 innings batted. Thorpe, maybe surprisingly managed it 12 times out of 34.
So my vote among modern batsmen would go to AB de Villiers.
And obviously opening to bat for one’s life is different than being a middle order bat with the same goal,
Have only just read this now but must say that most comments have not really entered into the fun spirit of the question.
For my two penn’orth it would be either Geoffrey Boycott, “The Aussies, shell-shocked at having to bowl at Boycott for twenty-two and a half hours, capitulated without much of a fight.” – Ian Botham, or Chris Tavaré, for whom scoring runs seemed “a disagreeable, even vulgar, distraction from the pure task of surviving.” – Alex Massie, journalist. Should that pair be at the crease together then the frightful felons might lose the will to live and kill themselves instead and end their torment.