# 4 for 1946-65 World Test XI

[aussie tragic]

This in now a 4-day poll to pick the # 4 for the 1946-65 World Test XI:

First, the four runner-ups from the # 3 Poll:

Ken Barrington (Eng): 62 tests, 5166 runs @ 58.04 (14/28) HS 256
Ted Dexter (Eng): 60 tests, 4405 runs @ 48.94 (9/27) HS 205 --- 66 wkts @ 34.51
Neil Harvey (Aus): 79 tests, 6149 runs @ 48.41 (21/24) HS 205
Peter May (Eng): 66 tests, 4537 runs @ 46.77 (13/22) HS 285*

And now the # 4 batsman nominees:

Basil Butcher (WI): 20 tests, 1438 runs @ 44.93 (4/7) HS 142 --- (At # 4: 914 @ 45.70)
Denis Compton (Eng): 70 tests, 5339 runs @ 49.89 (15/26) HS 278 --- (4169 @ 53.44) --- 23 wkts @ 58.60
Colin Cowdrey (Eng): 79 tests, 5590 runs @ 47.37 (17/28) HS 182 --- (1289 @ 40.28)
Lindsay Hassett (Aus): 39 tests, 2874 runs @ 49.55 (10/10) HS 198* --- (1130 @ 53.80)
Vijay Hazare (Ind): 30 tests, 2192 runs @ 47.65 (7/9) HS 164* --- (1623 @ 54.10) --- 20wkts @ 61.00
Dudley Nourse (SA): 20 tests, 1863 runs @ 56.45 (6/10) HS 208 --- (1863 @ 56.45)
Norm O'Neill (Aus): 42 tests, 2779 runs @ 45.55 (6/15) HS 181 --- (2010 @ 57.42) --- 17 wkts @ 39.23
Graeme Pollock (SA): 14 tests, 1202 runs @ 52.26 (4/6) HS 175 --- (1011 @ 53.21) --- 4 wkts @ 47.75
Everton Weekes (WI): 48 tests, 4455 runs @ 58.61 (15/19) HS 207 --- (3372 @ 63.62)

The 1946-65 World Test XI so far:

1. Len Hutton (Eng)
2. ………………….
3. Clyde Walcott (WI)
4. -----------------------

[aussie tragic]

I went for Weekes, with Lindsay Hassett a close 2nd

[silentstriker]

Wow, lots of good candidates here:

Pollock might have been the best but he didnt play as many tests. I love Hazare, so I'd go for him except Weekes was just too good IMO.

[adharcric]

Tough one. Hazare would be a biased choice. Pollock and Weekes the frontrunners with Nourse having an outside chance IMO.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by adharcric

Tough one. Hazare would be a biased choice. Pollock and Weekes the frontrunners with Nourse having an outside chance IMO.

Yea, he would be. Weekes IMO was clearly superior.

[Perm]

I voted for Everton Weekes but if Graeme Pollock had played more I might have been tempted to vote for him. Out of interesting is Frank Worrell a candidate for the #5 spot?

[JBH001]

Damn, I would have liked to go for Neil Harvey but Weekes' record is too good.

And, IMO, Barrington is a natural no. 5 - so it has to be Weekes.

[aussie]

Weekes

[nightprowler10]

Weekes by quite a margin.

[Dasa]

Weekes.

[adharcric]

Weekes

[bagapath]

i want compton to be there. a great stylist, quick scorer, successful against all opponents over a long test career. hero to millions. if weeks wins this round i wont mind it coz he was one of my choices anyway. then i will again vote for compton for no.5. if he gets through

[oz_fan]

I went with Pollock just over Weekes.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by aussie tragic

The 1946-65 World Test XI so far:

1. Len Hutton (Eng)
2. ………………….
3. Clive Walcott (WI)
4. -----------------------

Ok. I spotted it this time. Can you please call Walcott by his correct name?

[Jono]

Pollock, just over Weekes.

Contemporaries seem to be damn convinced that Pollock was the best player of that era, or pretty damn close. As good as Weekes was, he doesn't get as much of a mention. Without seeing them, its the best I can go on really.