Way back when March 1, 2013

Where's the love for Davo?

A certain Australian allrounder seems to get unfairly overlooked when talk turns to the greatest of that breed

I recently had an email from an Australian reader, Steve Chaddock, asking why Alan Davidson never seemed to feature in discussions about cricket's great allrounders. And when you look at the figures, you have to admit he has a point: Davidson took 186 wickets in 44 Tests, at the excellent average of 20.53 - that's lower than anyone else with more than 100 wickets who played after the First World War, apart from the England slow left-armer Johnny Wardle (102 at 20.39).

Davidson also averaged 24 with the bat, usually coming in low down in a strong batting side: he was the first man to achieve the double of 100 runs and ten wickets in the same Test, and chose a pretty good one to do it in - the famous tie against West Indies in Brisbane in 1960-61. And he was also a superb close fielder, known as "The Claw" when he wasn't plain old "Davo".

So just why is Davidson rarely spoken of when the bar-room discussion turns to great allrounders? My theory, for what it's worth, is that he was generally overshadowed by larger-than-life team-mates or other events. On his first two Ashes tours, in the 1950s, the focus was mostly on the legendary new-ball pairing of Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller. In 1958-59, with the charismatic Miller retired and Lindwall absent at first, Davidson took 24 wickets at 19 as Australia trounced much-fancied England 4-0... but the first thing that usually comes to mind about that series now is the dodgy bent-armed actions of the other fast bowlers, Ian Meckiff (who took 17 wickets) and Gordon Rorke (eight).

After that, Davidson took 29 wickets at 14.86 in India in 1959-60 and, the following season, 33 in four Tests against West Indies. But even then he was overshadowed by the general euphoria surrounding that calypso summer. His charismatic skipper, Richie Benaud, attracted a lot of the headlines, especially by bowling Australia to an unlikely victory at Old Trafford in 1961 - but Davo took 23 wickets in that Ashes series, and 24 at 20 in the next one, in 1962-63, after which he retired, still only 33. Since becoming Australia's undisputed fast-bowling spearhead, in South Africa in 1957-58, he'd taken 170 Test wickets at 19.25.

It probably didn't help his cause that this was a vintage time for Aussie allrounders: Miller, Benaud and Davidson were joined for a while by Ron Archer and the inelegant but effective Ken Mackay. In almost 50 years since, Australia haven't really had a genuine Test allrounder.

But don't just take my word for Davidson's place in the pantheon. Richie Benaud told me: "When I first met him we played against one another. We were both spin bowlers, attacking batsmen and keen in the field. Davo was a left-arm spinner - not orthodox but over the wrist. He was very good but had to give that away when the skipper of the Gosford area team found his opening bowler hadn't arrived, and gave the new ball to Alan."

Grainy black-and-white films of those 1960s Test series show Davidson, greying but well-built, loping in to deliver his left-arm swinging deliveries at a high pace. Ted Dexter, England's captain in the 1962-63 Ashes, dissected his technique perfectly for me: "Unlike the moderns who rush through the crease, Davo made a full turn, getting his front foot close to the stumps and then making a full body rotation. Swing and cut were a natural result. So he had good control, which accounts for his excellent career stats - details of which he always has readily available for anyone willing to listen. And he could have been a Test batsman alone, because he had all the strokes and good technique - not the man you wanted to see coming in at No. 8 when the bowlers are tired."

Davidson was teased in his time for his habit of complaining about aches and pains: "A martyr to injuries real and imagined," writes Gideon Haigh on Davidson's ESPNcricinfo player page. But like Gordon Greenidge later on, Davo often seemed to perform better when limping or grumbling: Benaud often had to cajole his ailing go-to man into an extra over or six. Still, says Dexter, "Davo was a fine athlete - at least when he wasn't complaining about an ache here and an ache there. He was an excellent competitor who had no need to scowl and sledge."

But the last word must go to Benaud, his long-time friend and captain: "There is no question Alan Davidson was one of the greatest allrounders in the history of the game." And I wouldn't dare argue with that.

Steven Lynch is the editor of the Wisden Guide to International Cricket 2013

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Dummy4 on March 3, 2013, 0:39 GMT

    Lets put Davo's career into perspective. All great test fast bowlers had a long term partner at the other end. Davo didn't have that luxury. he had an ongoing string of bowling partners. I believe that this made him a far better bowler then many of the greats. He had to do it by himself. And batting? All the talk was about Benaud winning the Manchester test by bowling Australia to victory. It is always overlooked that Davo and Graeme McKenzie put on 98 for the last wicket and Davo finished with 77 giving Australia enough runs to play with.

  • Dummy4 on March 2, 2013, 22:46 GMT

    Obviously, Alan Davidson was a fantastic cricketer. But the reason he isn't usually mentioned in conversations about the best all-rounders is because his batting wasn't quite good enough. Would he ever have been selected solely as a batsman at Test level? No. Not with an average of 24 (with zero 100's), and a First-Class average of 32. So while his value to any side was undoubtedly siginificant, he fails the test of the truly great all-rounder.

  • Dummy4 on March 2, 2013, 16:14 GMT

    Great all-rounders regularly take 5-wicket hauls, and score centuries; Think , Sobers,Barlow,Proctor & Botham

  • Nahim on March 2, 2013, 4:04 GMT

    @Beertjie: Fifteen Paces is a wonderful book, my favorite cricket book in fact. Amazing insights into a forgotten era of cricket, great players and characters from teams with such contrasting styles (combative Aussies, frigid England, swashbuckling West Indies). Davidson was a great player and was probably key to Australia's success in the late 50s at a time when England had probably one of their best teams of all time.

  • Murray on March 1, 2013, 23:44 GMT

    @ highveldhillbilly hmmmm

    I'd say that the South African attack of Adcock, Hiene, Goddard and Tayfield is the best your country ever put on the park. Stats show it too ! I'd also say that Dudley Nourse is the best right hand batsman Sth Africa ever had.

    On this article one might ask how come Goddard and Barlow (even Lindsay) aren't considered great all rounders ? (I fully expect Proctor is !)

    As for WI ..... lmfao....... a team with Worrel, Weekes, Walcott, Ramadhin & a kid Sobers, is like Zim or Bangladesh today ? I'll bet WI wish they're current team was near as good !

    Davo first represented Australia in 1949/50 on a tour to NZ. Reason he's not considered great, is it took him till 3 other allrounders (only 1 considered great) retired to become in 1958/59 a regular in the side.

  • Murray on March 1, 2013, 23:12 GMT

    At the time of Ron Archer's career ending injury, the 5 year older Alan Davidson was not a certainty to make the Australian team. (Davo hadn't even been taken to WI)

  • John on March 1, 2013, 20:24 GMT

    My Aussie Dad is 81 this year and has been a cricket fanatic (like me !!) his whole life, but when asked who the best player he had seen, he always said Davidson, ahead of even Bradman and Miller - he argued that Davo played in a transitional period and that his value to the side was immense. He always said that without Davo Aust probably would have lost the 1960/61 series 4-0.

  • Rupert on March 1, 2013, 18:33 GMT

    Alan Davidson was a superb bowler. A simple check of test series shows he played only against strong teams. His batting, if required by playing higher in the order, would have produced more runs than his average suggests.

  • Cricinfouser on March 1, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    Glad to see Davo getting the recognition. Top player and a top team man! Agree that the more colourful personalities of the era probably DID overshadow him. "Nugget" Miller would always have been a hard act to follow for anyone. I'll take Richie's verdict given that he saw Sobers, Miller and Davo close up and so had a benchmark of two of the greatest to use in Davo's case. Have to say that if Miller and Monty Noble weren't available for an All-Time Australian XI then Davo would get my vote as the all-rounder.

  • Balaji on March 1, 2013, 16:00 GMT

    Jonathan_E remember he came in at 9; you don't have much chance of getting into 3 figures.Also, I suspect that Davidson saw himself primarily as a bowler, and so did'nt pay much attention to his batting.