mr_mister
Well-known member
It's always seemed to me a weird little blip on the radar of modern English cricket - so desperate in the middle of the '97 ashes they plucked not one, but two brothers out of relative obscurity to make their test debuts? In hindsight and without the full story it seems a funky idea to say the least. Wouldn't only one getting their debut make more sense? Were they really the best 2 men for the job?
Both slotted in basically identical roles, batting 6 and 7 and contributing handy but largely innocuous medium pace. A little bit more expected from Adam with the bat and Ben with the ball, but essentially their role could have been condensed to one all-rounder and another specialist bat or keeper could have been given the reigns instead for the other spot. It almost feels like not knowing which one to omit/choose lead to a selection policy of **** it, pick 'em both - maybe the fact they're brothers will help morale or team chemistry somehow - or give each of of them that extra bit of confidence knowing they're in it together.
The reality of course is slightly less crazy. In the 3 ODIs played in the lead-up to this series, Adam made his first ever impact internationally. He'd debuted the previous season but done very little - here he scored unbeaten fifties in the first 2 games to help England get victories. So for the third match, a dead-rubber, selectors thought **** it let's throw his brother in. This was a much more Labuschagne-style selection, Ben was young, had never scored a domestic ton and despite a 5fer in his very first domestic game he'd yet to secure another one in over 20 matches.
But he came in at number 3 and blasted a very famous fifty, against McGrath, Warne and Gillespie - and England won the series 3-0.
A player picked on potential and passing the eye test rather than any suitable achievements somehow produced a thrilling knock and the 2 Hollioakes suddenly were in the spotlight. Ben and Adam would both only get 1 more fifty each in 25 more ODIs for Adam and 19 more for Ben - and neither did much of note with the ball internationally. Adam did famously get to captain his country for a short stint too - and in the process got the reputation of the savvier but less naturally talented Hollioake while Ben was meant to be the one with a real future - Ben was still getting to play ODIs just a few months before his death in '02 - Adam never played again after the '99 WC loss.
In their actual test debut, scores of 45,2 for Adam and 28,2 for Ben to go with 2 wickets each for the match was not in anyway a terrible performance - though maybe if it came from one player it'd have been a little more impressive. Ben only got to play 1 more test and Adam 3.
So who was the better of the 2 brothers? And was their joint test debut a really strange decision in hindsight or a reasonable one?
Both slotted in basically identical roles, batting 6 and 7 and contributing handy but largely innocuous medium pace. A little bit more expected from Adam with the bat and Ben with the ball, but essentially their role could have been condensed to one all-rounder and another specialist bat or keeper could have been given the reigns instead for the other spot. It almost feels like not knowing which one to omit/choose lead to a selection policy of **** it, pick 'em both - maybe the fact they're brothers will help morale or team chemistry somehow - or give each of of them that extra bit of confidence knowing they're in it together.
The reality of course is slightly less crazy. In the 3 ODIs played in the lead-up to this series, Adam made his first ever impact internationally. He'd debuted the previous season but done very little - here he scored unbeaten fifties in the first 2 games to help England get victories. So for the third match, a dead-rubber, selectors thought **** it let's throw his brother in. This was a much more Labuschagne-style selection, Ben was young, had never scored a domestic ton and despite a 5fer in his very first domestic game he'd yet to secure another one in over 20 matches.
But he came in at number 3 and blasted a very famous fifty, against McGrath, Warne and Gillespie - and England won the series 3-0.
A player picked on potential and passing the eye test rather than any suitable achievements somehow produced a thrilling knock and the 2 Hollioakes suddenly were in the spotlight. Ben and Adam would both only get 1 more fifty each in 25 more ODIs for Adam and 19 more for Ben - and neither did much of note with the ball internationally. Adam did famously get to captain his country for a short stint too - and in the process got the reputation of the savvier but less naturally talented Hollioake while Ben was meant to be the one with a real future - Ben was still getting to play ODIs just a few months before his death in '02 - Adam never played again after the '99 WC loss.
In their actual test debut, scores of 45,2 for Adam and 28,2 for Ben to go with 2 wickets each for the match was not in anyway a terrible performance - though maybe if it came from one player it'd have been a little more impressive. Ben only got to play 1 more test and Adam 3.
So who was the better of the 2 brothers? And was their joint test debut a really strange decision in hindsight or a reasonable one?
Last edited:
