Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Being of similar vintage and from Kent It was a massive privilege to have followed Underwood throughout his amazing career. Absolutely unique in terms of his bowling styles. Whilst much is made of his ability on a ‘sticky dog’ it’s easy to overlook the fact that he took more than half his Test wickets overseas - his unnerving accuracy, change of pace and arm ball all contributed to his success, plus his almost telepathic partnership with Alan Knott. A modest and likeable man by all accounts, his rather unathletic gait made his achievements even more remarkable. Who knows how many more wickets he would have had with DRS?
Underwood plodding in on a 12,yard run up, Knott behind the stumps and Cowdrey at slip - the tears are coming
…

Good stuff KJ. Cowdrey had gone by the time I watched cricket. I was just about aware of Derek's excellent tour of India. the Vaseline series in 76-77.

Always looked incongruous in coloured ODI clothing.

Can't remember him being interviewed much. I don't think the players had much media exposure back then.

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Been reminded he went on a rebel tour of apartheid SA though.

Cricketers made little money in his age. I never judge a man for playing cricket somewhere just because he got loads of money.

Fair enough with the Packer series. But there was much more at stake in SA.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Good stuff KJ. Cowdrey had gone by the time I watched cricket.

I only remember the 'that won't save you fatso' Cowdrey brief return and goodbye farewell tour

nice to see you back on, KJ

As another who is old enough to have seen quite a bit of Underwood I can only endorse what KJ has posted above : he was an extremely unusual sort of spinner ; always great to watch , and I agree he would have likely been even more "deadly" in the modern era of drs. He was more effective in Australia than English spinners have generally been before or since ; and in fact the only apparent blemish on his overseas record is his one tour of West Indies in 1974 - which was not kind to any bowlers ! Certainly the outstanding English spinner since Laker and until Swann came along no one else got close.

KipperJohn wrote:Who knows how many more wickets he would have had with DRS? …

This works both ways, KJ.

Its pretty well documented that his career nosedived after test match rules changed to install full covers. From the moment this rule was implemented to his retirement, he averaged 34, and that includes destroying a subpar debutant SL team new to test cricket. Against everyone else, his record faded.... and it would appear he wasn't even pickable in English conditions, where he only played 1 test again.

Underwood was famously unplayable on wet or drying pitches, without that luxury in the modern age would he have gotten close to the career he had?

You can only play with what you have, its not a criticism. But there is a reason why spin has mostly died in England since 1979...

Arthur Crabtree wrote: Fair enough with the Packer series. But there was much more at stake in SA.

Thefigures I have seen in the past indicate that cricketers earned below average wage at this time, and the money they were offered for Rebel tours amounted in some cases to 10-15 times their annual salary. If someone was to offer me that kind of money for a months work, on the caveat that there would be some form of hard to define benefit to a horrible regime that is indirectly linked to me just doing my normal job, I have no pretence about my ability to reject such an offer, and certainly if I was able to, it would be directly linked to the relatively privilaged position I enjoy on a financial level that affords me the ability to do so. I cannot imagine that the average person who earns below average wage will ever be in the position to reject such an offer.

I would imagine that almost all people attacking those who took part in Rebel tours would have signed the tour contract in a flash, if it had been them.

Admittedly it wasn't a golden age for spin, but from 1970-1982 (so after uncovered pitches) which was the latter part of Underwood's career, he took 230 wickets at 28.5, which is decent.

Of other SLAs, Edmonds and Doshi had slightly better averages, though this was their peak, rather than- like Underwood- including their declining years. The great Indian spinners of the seventies averaged more, at a similar stage of career. Chandrasekhar had a much better SR. Venkat, Bedi and Prasanna, much worse.

Qadir was the best spinner of the period in my view, though his overall record was much worse than Underwood.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Admittedly it wasn't a golden age for spin, but from 1970-1982 (so after uncovered pitches) which was the latter part of Underwood's career, he took 230 wickets at 28.5, which is decent

Covered pitches in test match cricket was implemented in 1979, I believe, so right at the end of his career.

sussexpob wrote:Thefigures I have seen in the past indicate that cricketers earned below average wage at this time, and the money they were offered for Rebel tours amounted in some cases to 10-15 times their annual salary. If someone was to offer me that kind of money for a months work, on the caveat that there would be some form of hard to define benefit to a horrible regime that is indirectly linked to me just doing my normal job, I have no pretence about my ability to reject such an offer, and certainly if I was able to, it would be directly linked to the relatively privilaged position I enjoy on a financial level that affords me the ability to do so. I cannot imagine that the average person who earns below average wage will ever be in the position to reject such an offer.

Well, who knows. The anti-apartheid movement was massive. Of course, some players turned the offer down, including all the black cricketers. Phillip DeFreitas and Roland Butcher signed and then withdrew.

International pay was obviously more than the county semi-pros earned. It actually increased under pressure from the Packer breakaway.

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Admittedly it wasn't a golden age for spin, but from 1970-1982 (so after uncovered pitches) which was the latter part of Underwood's career, he took 230 wickets at 28.5, which is decent

Covered pitches in test match cricket was implemented in 1979, I believe, so right at the end of his career.

My error then. I read they ended in the sixties. Must have been fc cricket.

Arthur Crabtree wrote: My error then. I read they ended in the sixties. Must have been fc cricket.

Covers had been implemented for a while even before the 60s, its one of the reasons why finger spinners completely disappeared in Australia after WWII and some people argue the reason why batting averages in 1930s went sky high, as groundstaff started to cover pitches before games (but never during them, which was a big no no). I think its only at the start of the 1980s where they had anything akin to nowadays. Before that, they might cover the strip or parts of it, but with the side of the pitch or surrounding water table still getting saturated, that moisture would end up in the pitch anyway.

Underwood is most famous for being unplayable on those wickets, so they must have existed.

Probably foolish of me to to mention DRS as it was out of context with what I was trying to convey- an old man remembering a quite unique and remarkable player of his time, totally at odds with how the modern game is played and hugely scrutinised. With our fading memories what we saw (often in black and white) was what we got. I’ve never subscribed to comparisons with different eras - it doesn’t work nor should it. I never subscribed to the description of Derek as a spinner - Boycott described him a a medium pace cutter - and he had as close a view as anybody. 100 wickets in his first season at 18 - and repeated many times - it was almost ridiculous.
I’ll leave you with the thoughts of former poster Albindiga who toured with the MCC - he faced Underwood in their late teens- he thought at the time that Underwood was so quick he was going to be another Shackleton.

Frank Field, 81

A proper politician, Frank Field. It's a shame that so many MP's are not more like him. Westminster would be a better place if they were. There aren't many MP's who work harder for their constituents than he did