Australian cricket commentator Richie Benaud talks to Stuart McGill (left) at the annual cricket legends lunch in Sydney on Friday, Feb. 20, 2009. AAP Image/Jenny Evans
The least anticipated Test series in recent decades starts in Brisbane on Thursday. But for a shock or three, Australia should win the Test in four days and rhe Frank Worrell Trophy 3-0.
This brings me to the thrust of this post. Why is the series named The Frank Worrell Trophy and not The Worrell–Benaud Trophy?
After all, both captains had contributed equally to the suspenseful cricket provided every day, practically every session, in the memorable 1960-61 series.
In fact, this series between Australia and the West Indies in Australia revived Test cricket.
Three of the Tests in this spellbinding series were heart-stopping cliff-hangers.
The first Test in Brisbane in 1960 was a tie, the first out of two in Test history. In a throbbing climax, Australia lost their last four wickets for six runs including three run outs in the final over.
The drawn Adelaide Test of January-February 1961 was another thriller (unlike the recent boring Ahmedabad run marathon with seven centuries and 21 wickets in five days) when Australia’s last wicket pair of Ken Mackay and Lindsay Kline survived the final 100 minutes to salvage a draw.
Every ball was potentially the last ball in 25 overs.
With the series dead-locked at one-all, the final Test in Melbourne was played a week later and was watched by almost 250,000 spectators.
The second day attracted 90,800 – a world record attendance for any one day of Test cricket.
Needing 258 to win the Test and the series, Australia lost 8 for 256.
The ninth wicket pair of John Martin and crisis specialist Ken McKay ran for a bye to win the Test by two wickets and the tantalizing series 2-1.
Both the winning Aussies and the gallant Windies were cheered on the ground and in street parades a few days later.
The West Indies skipper Frank Worrell had won over Australians with his sportsmanship.
And it is a worthy honour to him that the Australia–West Indies series is named The Frank Worrell Trophy.
However, my suggestion is to rename the series tghe Worrell–Benaud Trophy as both captains Worrell and Richie Benaud had contributed equally to the outcome of an outstanding series, one of the greatest ever.
The legendary Australian all-rounder Alan Davidson, who had performed brilliantly in the series (including 44 and 80 runs and bowling spells of 5-135 and 6-87 in the Brisbane tied Test) told me recently: “On the eve of the last fluctuating day of the Brisbane Test, Don Bradman asked Richie whether Australia will chase the target of 233 or settle for a draw. And Richie replied firmly, ‘We’re going for a win.’”
Benaud did exactly that, even after Australia were 6 down for 92.
What do Roarers reckon? Should the Trophy be renamed to honour both the heroes, Worrell and Benaud?
After all, the Test series between Australia and India is called the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and the Australia- Sri Lanka series, the Warne-Muralitharan Trophy.
Also the One-day International series between Australia and New Zealand is named the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
Jamie said | November 21st 2009 @ 5:17am | Report comment
Yep agree. Do anything we can to make this series more interesting and would be a nice gesture in ritchie’s last year in public eye.
sheek said | November 21st 2009 @ 5:50am | Report comment
Kersi,
It’s a fair question. My first ABC tour book was the 1968 tour of Australia by the West Indies. Because of what happened in 60/61, this tour was much looked forward to, but unfortunately, the aging Windies team of champions failed to measure up against their younger Aussie opponents.
There was a lengthy article in the 68 book of speeches by Bradman, Benaud & Worrell after the 60/61 series was completed. There was a moving & humorous speech of Worrell giving Benaud his shoes, shirt & tie, with each signifying a particular trophy prize won, but not handing over his pants, because they couldn’t possibly be of any value to Richie.
It was a wonderful speech from one of cricket’s greatest sons. However, it takes two to tango. As the 60s dawned, test cricket was going through a rut. Benaud & Worrell, at Bradman’s encouraging, decided to play an attacking series that remains one of the best ever, & you could ague for drama & changing fortunes, this series has never been bettered.
Benaud could easily have left all the attacking cricket, & mistakes, to Worrell & the Windies. But no, he decided to match the Windies with Aussie flair.
So your initial point is justified, perhaps it ought to be called the Worrell-Benaud Trophy.
Freud of Football said | November 21st 2009 @ 6:51am | Report comment
Richie Benaud is definately deserving of such an honour but whether I would change such an historic trophy, well it’s one of those things where I would be happy if the name was changed but just as happy if it remained.
There are plenty of new competitions coming up and as such there will always be new trophies to award, I think Warne is already deserving of one and will probably be the next cricketing knight, that is if Benaud’s work isn’t rewarded by the Queen.
For mine, Benaud is the quintessential Australian cricketer, he is what one thinks of when you think back to series of the past, his witty and insightful remarks set him apart and he was a very good contributor in his day when Australia really needed him. As such, I’d like to see one of the domestic honours bear his name.
The Allan Border medal for example. Yes he stood out when Australia were rubbish but the Border-Gavaskar trophy is certainly merit enough, I’d rather see this honour be named the Benaud medal than rename the Frank Worrel Trophy.
Dave1 said | November 21st 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Warne has his neme on the Warne-Muralitharan Trophy. Australia and South Africa should be playing for a trophy
Warne and Benaud will not become knights becasue Australia doesnt have knighthoods
http://www.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/318009.html?cmp=viral
“Teams will battle for Warne-Muralitharan Trophy”
vinay verma said | November 21st 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
“The hallmark of a great captain is the ability to win the toss,at the right time” Philosophical and quizzical at the same time.
If I had to use one word to describe Richie it would be PITHY… having substance and point…tersely cogent.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 21st 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Freud, I am also against changes. That’s why I was rather cold towards your idea of increasing power plays (Roar, last week).
However, the reason the 1960-61 series is still remembered after 49 years and will be remembered for at least 49 more years is because of the dynamic leadership of BOTH Benaud and Worrell. Why single out one and bypass the other? Frank Worrell has been my favourite since early 1950s when he played for a Commonwealth team against India in India in unofficial tests. A great cricketer and elegant batsman was Frank and a likeable human being. So is Richie, a topclass all-rounder.
To be fair, the WI v. Aus Trophy should have the names of both Worrell and Benaud. If alive today, Worrell himself would have insisted on it.
Dave1 said | November 21st 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
“I am also against changes.” is a pretty broad statement.
In the modern world you dont want to be autimatically against all changes. Once upon a time you couldnt blog on the internet.
You want to judge everything case by case.and .issue by issue.
Dave1 said | November 21st 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Worrell was alive when the Sir Frank Worrell trophy started. Did he insist Benaud’s name should be on it?
Freud of Football said | November 21st 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Firstly Kersi, I’m not against change, I’m against changing tradition and the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. For mine, the PowerPlays are broke and need fixing but the name of the trophy competed for by Windies and Aus is a traditional thing, dating back many years and doesn’t need to be changed.
Why Worrell got his name on the trophy and not Benaud? I can only speculate and would suggest that the initiative came from within Australia, as such it would have been a competitor’s name to be put forward as in those days it was still a gentleman’s game, suggesting that your own or your mates name should be on a trophy would probably not have gone down too well.
@Dave: Thanks for correcting me regarding the Warne-Murali trophy, shows that I am not in touch with Sri Lankan cricket, in fact, other than a match against Aus in the WC, I can’t remember the last time the two teams faced off or that I saw them face off.
Also, Australian’s can be awarded knighthoods as they are still part of the commonwealth. Sir Donald Bradman?
Dave1 said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Bradman was back in the day
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/153398.xml&style
“…..The Commonwealth of Australia until 1975 used the Imperial or British honours system……
….The Australian Honours System was created in 1975, however some states in Australia did not relinquish their connection to the Imperial system until some time later. Most notable in this respect was Queensland, which was the last Australian state to recommend its citizens to the Queen for admission to various Orders as Knight or Dames.
In 1975, the Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam inaugurated the Order of Australia expressly to supersede all other honours for Australian purposes. Under the Fraser Liberal Government (1975-83), the Australian government began recommending honours to the full panoply of Imperial honours again, as it had done before 1975, and a degree of “knight” or “dame” was added to the Order of Australia. The succeeding Hawke Labor Government (1983-91) removed the Knight and Dame designation. Awards of knighthoods, damehoods and ranks in Imperial honours orders declined and were brought to an end by the Queen in 1994…………”
Ian Whitchurch said | November 21st 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I reckon that we need to treat the cause, not the symptoms.
The cause is that West Indies dont have a big enough pool of good enough First Class cricketers.
For example, Adrian Barath looks like he could become a decent opening batsman … but he got one innings against the Mighty Bangoladesh Tigers (Mortaza got him cheap), and this tour he’s either thrown to the wolves in the Test side, or the two innings he played are the last four-day ones he plays on tour. Apart from that, from what I can tell, he’s only ever played in the local comp.
On the other hand, if we magically move him back in time to 1984-5, he has the opportunity to play against Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, even if he doesnt get picked in the Tests.
On the Australianr side, the recent match in Brisbane might have made McDermott the Younger, and some of the young Queensland batsmen got a decent hit against a quality quick in Roach (who played hard and done good against the Tigers in Grenada)
On balance, the best model is what Bangladesh did in England 2005 – at the end of the ‘official’ tour, an A Tour commenced … cue anyone with anything important to do leaving, and the fringe players and kids then spend another month in country, playing state sides, regional sides and selections.
The role of a tour isnt just to figure out who won and who lost, and maybe even make some money. It’s also to develop the cricketers who will play in the next tour, and the one after that.
Dave1 said | November 21st 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
The West Indies have to become more professional. in their heyday Dennis Waight was their physio they were fitter and trained harder than all other teams.
West Indies played county cricket therefore playing full time all throughout the year, which Australia’s cricketers didn’t.
Now you here comments like this from Darren Ganga
http://www.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/434821.html
“I remember when Ramnaresh Sarwan, Chris Gayle, and myself went to Australia as young players on the West Indies team, we felt really bad, when we saw what guys like Michael Clarke and Shane Watson were exposed to,” he said. “The training they were putting down was something we have never done before and we were amazed. What was even more amazing was the fact that Watson and Clarke had not even made the Australian national team up until that time.”
In regards to population, Australia’s is about 16 million larger than the West Indies. Back in 1980 Australia’s population wasn’t even 15 million, so the gap just gets bigger and bigger
Michael C said | November 21st 2009 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
re the Worrell-Benaud trophy…..yes, yes, yes, yes….
Brett McKay said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Kersi, I’d have to say ‘why not?’ too. Afterall Benuad played as big a part in the success of the series as did Worrell, and indeed both men are giants of the game in their countries. +1 for the Worrell-Benaud trophy…
Just a small thing too, if the Ken McKay you mention is the great Slasher (which I’m pretty sure it is), then his surname is actually spelt Mackay, Just minor pick up. We McKays and Mackays are pretty specific on these things…
Freud, just had a thought – if the AB Medal was to be renamed after Richie Benuad, would the winner also be fitted (Masters golf-style) with the cream, the white, the off-white, the bone, the ivory or the beige jacket?!?
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Brett,
Thanks for your support.
And you are correct about the spelling of Ken Mackay. I got it right in paragraph 7 but goofed in para 12. A snick picked up neatly by wicket-keeper Brett McKay!! Howzattt? KM-H is caught behind and walks without looking at the umpire!
Allan Border medal should NOT be renamed. AB has done great services to Australian cricket. It is a well-deserved honour to a great cricketer and person.
I feel that Worrell-Benaud Trophy is a good idea as BOTH had contributed equally and significantly to the revival of Test cricket in 1960s.
Brett McKay said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Kersi, the irony here is that I’ve just mis-spelt Benaud TWICE above!! Agree about the AB Medal by the way, just felt the need to mention the jackets
On a serious note, if I understand the origins correctly, wasn’t the Frank Worrell trophy was presented at the conclusion of that iconic (now) ’60/61 series?? That being the case, how did it get to be named for Worrell on his own in the first place??