Final Bowler for 1946-65 World Test XI

[aussie tragic]

Okay, now it’s time to balance the side by picking the final bowler for the 1946-65 World test XI:

Pace Bowlers

Neil Adcock (SA) - RF: 26 tests, 104 wkts @ 21.10 (5/0), SR 61.4, Econ 2.06, BB 6-43 --- 146 runs @ 5.40
Alec Bedser (Eng) - RMF: 51 tests, 236 wkts @ 24.89 (15/5), SR 67.4, Econ 2.21, BB 7-44 --- 714 runs @ 12.75
Ray Lindwall (Aus) - RF: 61 tests, 228 wkts @ 23.03 (12/0), SR 59.8, Econ 2.30, BB 9-70 --- 1502 runs @ 21.15
Fazal Mahmood (Pak) - RFM: 34 tests, 139 wkts @ 24.70 (13/4), SR 70.7, Econ 2.09, BB 7-42 --- 620 runs @ 14.09
Garth McKenzie (Aus) - RF: 28 tests, 121 wkts @ 28.48 (7/1), SR 68.3, Econ 2.50, BB 8-71 --- 386 runs @ 11.69
Peter Pollock (SA) - RF: 19 tests, 89 wkts @ 23.34 (8/1) SR 54.2, Econ 2.58, BB 6-38 --- 350 runs @ 17.50
Brian Statham (Eng) - RFM: 70 tests, 252 wkts @ 24.84 (9/1), SR 63.7, Econ 2.33, BB 7-39 --- 675 runs @ 11.44

Spinners

Richie Benaud (Aus): 63 tests, 248 wkts @ 27.03 (16/1), SR 77.0, Econ 2.10, BB 7-72 --- 2201 runs @ 24.45
Lance Gibbs (WI): 26 tests, 112 wkts @ 23.46 (18/2), SR 87.7, Econ 1.98, BB 8-38 --- 225 runs @ 7.03
Subhash Gupte (Ind): 36 tests, 149 wkts @ 29.55 (12/1), SR 75.7, Econ 2.34, BB 9-102 --- 183 runs @ 6.31
Hugh Tayfield (SA): 37 tests, 170 wkts @ 25.91 (14/2), SR 79.8, Econ 1.94, BB 9-113 --- 862 runs @ 16.90
Johnny Wardle (Eng): 28 tests, 102 wkts @ 20.39 (7/0), SR 64.6, Econ 1.89, BB 7-36 --- 653 runs @ 19.78


Note: Keith Miller not included as he’ll be in at # 6 (if by some miracle, he’s not, I’ll include him in final bowler poll along with the Runner-ups from here + the runner-up spinners)

The 1946-65 World Test XI so far:

1. Len Hutton (54.62)
2. Arthur Morris (46.48)
3. Clyde Walcott (56.68)
4. Everton Weekes (58.61)
5. Frank Worrell (49.48)
6. Keith Miller (36.37) & (Bowl: 22.97)
7. John Waite (30.33)
8. Alan Davidson (24.59) & (Bowl: 20.53)
9. ----------------------
10. Jim Laker (14.08) & (Bowl: 21.24)
11. Fred Trueman (13.81) & (Bowl: 21.57)

[aussie tragic]

I've narrowed it down to Lindwall or Benaud but can't decide which?????

[silentstriker]

Lindwall. Benaud's overrated (as a player, not a commentator).

[adharcric]

Tough one. Lindwall has a decent lower-average and shouldn't miss out on this side.

[oz_fan]

I went with Lindwall just over Benaud.

[archie mac]

I voted Bedser, good enough to dismiss Bradman four times in a row, good enough for me

[R_D]

Lindwall as well just over Bedsher for me.

[PhoenixFire]

Damn, I didn't see Bedser there, can I by any chance have my vote changed from Lindwall to him?

[Matt79]

I voted for Benaud, and I know the protocol is not to carry on too long in making you case, but I'd like to outline why, because I really rate Lindwall and it hurt to not vote for him, and because I think the team will be much much stronger with Benaud.

Benaud as a wrist spinner gives the team much more variety than the addition of a third right arm fast bowler. We have Laker and he's a great spinner, but having the pairing of two top notch spinners, bowling different styles of spin will give our team better balance and make the attack more potent against different kinds of batsmen in different conditions. Our fast bowling stocks are already extremely strong with Trueman, Davidson and Miller.

Benaud is a genuine bowling allrounder IMO, unlike Lindwall who is a bowler who can bat a bit. His batting record is Runs: 2201 HS: 122 Avg:24.45 100s: 3 50s: 9 .

People might be thinking about wanting to reunite the Lindwall and Miller opening pairing, but they should recall that the Benaud-Davidson pairing was the most successful pace-spin combo ever, until McGrath-Warne.

Benaud was a great captain. He is sometimes considered to have been lucky, but he never lost a series, inspired his troops and was extremely shrewd in the field. Furthermore he knew when, as captain, to bowl himself and when not to.

He was also an excellent fielder.

Here endeth the campaign speech, but I hope people vote Benaud.

[adharcric]

I was on the verge of voting for Benaud for precisely the reasons you have outlined here.
Then I saw Lindwall's similar batting average and got tempted for a four-pronged pace attack.

[Matt79]

Two quality spinners of different types and three pace >>>> that one spinner/four quicks

[adharcric]

Taking that and your updated signature into consideration, I change my vote to Benaud. Not sure if I'm allowed to or if it'll make a difference though.

[Poker Boy]

Richie Benaud (I think you should pick a balenced XI IF there are two spinners good enough. IMO Benaud IS good enough.)

[aussie]

Lindwall

[aussie tragic]

Originally Posted by Matt79

I voted for Benaud yada yada yada.....

You won me, however I already voted for Lindwall so you were too late