Lord Megachiefs on Hold

Posted by
3 minute read

At this time of year, we normally bestow the greatest honour in cricket by naming Lord Megachief of Gold. It’s a title that is earned through freakish cricket performance across the previous calendar year, but after much rumination we have concluded that 2020 wasn’t actually a proper year.

There were great performances, sure, but the simple fact is there was not much cricket and so nobody has really strung together a real eye-waterer.

We figure we’ll just roll 2020 and 2021 into one. We’ll pretend we’re a year younger, die a year later and name just one Lord Megachief of Gold in 12 months’ time to cover both 2020 and 2021. Hope that works for you.

We may as well do a half-time report though. These are probably the three frontrunners ahead of a gargantuan second half of the “year” which promises to swamp what little has taken place this year.

Stuart Broad

We really, really wanted to name Broad Lord Megachief of Gold but there are two problems. Firstly, the general lack of competition which would diminish the title were we to hand it out at this point, and secondly the fact that he actually only took one five-for all year.

Hell of a five-for though and 38 Test wickets at 14.76 is a pretty nuts effort. Just as importantly, we also have to throw in his 177 runs at 35.40 which were scored at the quite bonkers strike rate of 112.02. The sheer density of fun he provides makes Broad the best batsman in the world.

He had such a good year that even when he put down chances, he still dismissed batsmen.

All in all, it seems insane that England dropped him – but he even performed well on the sidelines.

Broad was top wicket-taker in 2020. The lower two steps on the podium were occupied by two New Zealanders, Tim Southee (30 at 17.03) and Kyle Jamieson (25 at 14.44).

Kane Williamson

2020 was in some respects the same as any other year for Kane Williamson because he is a man whose default state is already, ‘about to score a hundred when we can finally get on the field again’.

Williamson hardly did any batting but was still batsman of the year with 498 runs in four Test matches at 83.00, including one hundred and one double.

Ben Stokes

Bowling all-rounder of the year was, quite obviously, Stuart Broad – and he was batting all-rounder of the year too in our book (The Book Of Indisputable Facts).

Run-scoring all-rounder of the year was, however, Ben Stokes. He made 641 of the blighters at an average of 58.27, including two hundreds.

He also took 19 wickets at 18.73, which is, you know, kind of handy.

Often described as two (or sometimes three) cricketers in one, Stokes in fact proved himself to be six cricketers in one during the second Test against the West Indies.

And that wasn’t even the match when he did a bit of captaining.

Get King Cricket articles sent to you by email. You know you want to.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. You could take this opportunity to do a Lord Megachief of the Decade

    But that might create an expectation to do a similar one in 2030/2031

    1. Yeah – plus those sorts of things only ever really highlight players lucky enough to have started their careers in the right year.

  2. It would be a good idea to do a Lord Megachief of the Decade, as Marees says.

    I don’t suppose you do a Lord Megachief of Atrociousness and cover the worst performing, most idiotic player of the year, or decade. The sort of player you never want to pick for a team again.

      1. Someone good enough to play test cricket in the first place. Not bad enough to be immediately dropped but be given a run in the team instead. But bad enough to get them considered for LM of Atrociousness. Quite a tightrope.

      2. I like this idea.

        At times there have been players who leave us wondering, “he must have some sort of hold on the captain and/or selectors”, to explain why they persevere with the player in the face of the evidence. Not sure it is as common now as it was in the good-old, bad-old days.

        In other news, for those of you who enjoy Dumbo’s exploits whether cricket related or not, he is currently headline news on Ogblog with his idiosyncratic review of 2020:


        I must say, the number of times he needed to drive past Lord’s while on volunteer duty, looking wistfully at the deserted ground, was a cruel and unusual punishment for such a cricket-loving vehicle.

      3. I think a contender that has been in a continuous bad form has been Joe Burns. He has stood out to me as someone who struggles to actually even hit the ball let alone score runs from the shot. And from my view he seems just to somehow make a career from not making runs and not being very good at cricket.

  3. I was looking over the scorecards of England’s summer only yesterday. I realise that I have less cause to be embarrassed, or at least more likely to encounter empathetic pity than sneering contempt for this confession , in this forum than in wider society, but in my defence I’ve been out of work since April and I find I am filling the void with such banalities, rather than doing anything constructive.
    Anyway, it came back to me just how good Stokes was. Besides the two hundreds and 58 average there was the 70 odd in no time flat when opening to set up the win at rainy Old Trafford , a couple of 40s which kept England in the first test against the Windies. That is without the bowling. His numbers were impressive, but I’m not sure they do him justice.
    Is “being heroic” for Stokes as commoditised at “batting brilliantly” for Williamson or “Bowling well when he can be arsed” for Broad?

  4. OMG what has happened to Daisy?

    We’ve been enjoying watching the first session of the Kiwi test match.

    All of a sudden, Daisy is calling the LBWs. I mean to say, that’s my job. She got the Blundell ones right too.

    Then I put the “Megachief of Mediocrity” question to her and Daisy had an instant response. “Rory Burns”, she said. Not sure I agree, but she is, I suppose entitled to her opinion.

Comments are closed.