View Poll Results: Final Batsman or Allrounder for 1920-39 World XI

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Gubby Allen

    0 0%
  • Jack Gregory

    3 10.71%
  • Douglas Jardine

    3 10.71%
  • Charles Macartney

    3 10.71%
  • Stan McCabe

    8 28.57%
  • Morris Nichols

    1 3.57%
  • Eddie Paynter

    7 25.00%
  • Walter Robins

    0 0%
  • Maurice Tate

    3 10.71%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Final Batsman or Allrounder for 1920-39 World XI

  1. #1
    International Debutant aussie tragic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,265

    Final Batsman or Allrounder for 1920-39 World XI

    Please select the final Batsman or Allrounder for the 1920-39 World Test XI:

    The Allrounders (to bat at # 6, or maybe at # 7 behind Les Ames?):

    Jack Gregory (Aus): 24 tests
    1146 runs @ 36.96 (2/7), HS 119 --- 85 wkts @ 31.15 (4/0), Econ 2.84, SR 65.6, BB 7-69

    Morris Nichols (Eng): 14 tests
    355 runs @ 29.58 (0/2), HS 78* --- 41 wkts @ 28.09 (2/0), Econ 2.69, SR 62.5, BB 6-35

    Gubby Allen (Eng): 22 tests
    656 runs @ 25.23 (1/3), HS 122 --- 76 wkts @ 28.60 (5/1), Econ 3.16, SR 54.1, BB 7-80

    Walter Robins (Eng): 19 tests
    612 runs @ 26.60 (1/4), HS 108 --- 64 wkts @ 27.46 (1/0), Econ 3.17, SR 51.8, BB 6-32

    Maurice Tate (Eng): 39 tests
    1198 runs @ 25.48 (1/5), HS 100* 25.48 --- 155 wkts @ 26.16 (7/1), Econ 1.94, SR 80.7, BB 6-42

    Or one of the runner-up # 5 Batsmen (to bat at # 6):

    Douglas Jardine (Eng): 22 tests, 1296 runs @ 48.00 (1/10), HS 127
    Charles Macartney (Aus): 14 tests, 1252 runs @ 69.55 (6/3), HS 170 --- 11 wkts @ 32.36
    Stan McCabe (Aus): 39 tests, 2748 runs @ 48.21 (6/13), HS 232 --- 36 wkts @ 42.86
    Eddie Paynter (Eng): 20 tests, 1540 runs @ 59.23, (4/7), HS 243


    The 1920-39 World Test XI so far:

    1. Jack Hobbs
    2. Herb Sutcliffe
    3. Don Bradman
    4. Wally Hammond
    5. George Headley
    6. ----------------------
    7. Les Ames (or # 6 depending on allrounder batting average)
    8.
    9.
    10.
    11. Bill O'Reilly
    Last edited by aussie tragic; 13-01-2007 at 01:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,131
    Hammond can bowl if needed

    Paynter. One of a a small bunch of Lancastrians I actually like.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  3. #3
    Cricketer Of The Year ripper868's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Nest
    Posts
    8,419
    Macartney

  4. #4
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Seeing as the opposition's fifth bowling option is Sobers, Hammond will suffice. Paynter for me.
    Last edited by adharcric; 13-01-2007 at 01:18 AM.


  5. #5
    International Regular oz_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    3,977
    Charles Macartney
    Member of CW Black
    Goalkeeper for the Northside Power
    NZI Manager in WCC

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    No real great all rounders to choose from and Hammond would do a good job as 5th bowlers, so it has to be Paytner for me, easierly the best batsmen left.

    Pretty good batting line up i must say if Paytner
    The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)

    Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)

    RIP WCC and CW Cricket

    Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS

  7. #7
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,755
    Jardine - partially for captaincy.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  8. #8
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,518
    Stan McCabe. Sadly, it seems that yet again people are looking at batting averages and nothing else when deciding who the best batsman is. Read some accounts of the players by people who watched them or played with/against them, and I'd be surprised if you found anyone who rated Eddie Paynter a greater batsman than Macartney or McCabe.

    Surprised Maurice Leyland isn't up for contention as well.

  9. #9
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,988
    Stan McCabe
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,131
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    Stan McCabe. Sadly, it seems that yet again people are looking at batting averages and nothing else when deciding who the best batsman is. Read some accounts of the players by people who watched them or played with/against them, and I'd be surprised if you found anyone who rated Eddie Paynter a greater batsman than Macartney or McCabe.

    Surprised Maurice Leyland isn't up for contention as well.
    If people are just looking at averages why isnt Macartney winning?

    Paynter was an exceptional player that suffered rough treatment from the England selectors and I have no issue putting him ahead of Charles Macartney. Admittedly it is close between him and McCabe in my head, but for me Paynter shades it.

    Obviously others will see it different and thats fine. Thats why there is a poll.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    If people are just looking at averages why isnt Macartney winning?

    Paynter was an exceptional player that suffered rough treatment from the England selectors and I have no issue putting him ahead of Charles Macartney. Admittedly it is close between him and McCabe in my head, but for me Paynter shades it.

    Obviously others will see it different and thats fine. Thats why there is a poll.
    I think 'The Sean' is right, I have never read a book where they rate EP ahead of the GG. In fact a number of ex Test players such as Hendry, O'Reilly and Grimmett, have Macartney at 3 and Bradman at four when picking their all time Aust. teams.

    That said Goughy is also correct in that this is a poll and people can choose which ever player they like. Just finished reading a bio on Paynter, seems he was hard done by when it came to selecting English teams of his period. How he missed out on the 1936/37 tour of OZ is beyond me

    Anyway I think we are doing a pretty good job with this team. I chose Tate, for a while the best bowler in the world. He used to have these 'mad moments' where he would bowl an over of unplayable balls, no matter what the state of the wicket or the game. I just thought bowling to the batsman of the 'Moderns' we might need something different
    You know it makes sense.

  12. #12
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,068
    I'm logging on to the net after a few days and it is a shock to see gregory not leading this poll. i was cock sure he was going to be the no.6. oh my! this is going to change the pre war team's composition drastically., remember! barnes, loahmann (of the earlier era) and tate (of this present team's era) were not really fast bowlers. may be we will select spofforth and tom richardson for the next team and stick to tate and larwood for this. but we will struggle to find the third pacer. may be fs. jackson or noble.. but still.. i am just shocked guys!

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by bagapath View Post
    I'm logging on to the net after a few days and it is a shock to see gregory not leading this poll. i was cock sure he was going to be the no.6. oh my! this is going to change the pre war team's composition drastically., remember! barnes, loahmann (of the earlier era) and tate (of this present team's era) were not really fast bowlers. may be we will select spofforth and tom richardson for the next team and stick to tate and larwood for this. but we will struggle to find the third pacer. may be fs. jackson or noble.. but still.. i am just shocked guys!

    I think we keep looking at this from a modern bent, they did not play 3 or 4 pacers and one spinner during the 40s and earlier, so why should we stick to the current method when picking a team from earlier times?

  14. #14
    International Regular JBH001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,245
    Well, I think going for another batsman is overkill.

    I am voting for Gregory, one of the first true allrounders who could be selected for batting and bowling alone, and a good fielder too.

    In this case he could slot in at no. 7 with Ames at no.6.

    More to the point he was a genuine quick bowler and an effective and powerful batsman.

    Especially is we select Rhodes at no.8 then we have no need to further strengthen the batting either by choosing a specialist batsman at no.6.

    And a (likely) bowling attack of Larwood, Gregory, Barnes, Rhodes, O'Reilly looks extremely effective to me. Especially when backed up by Hammond.

  15. #15
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by JBH001 View Post
    Well, I think going for another batsman is overkill.

    I am voting for Gregory, one of the first true allrounders who could be selected for batting and bowling alone, and a good fielder too.

    In this case he could slot in at no. 7 with Ames at no.6.

    More to the point he was a genuine quick bowler and an effective and powerful batsman.

    Especially is we select Rhodes at no.8 then we have no need to further strengthen the batting either by choosing a specialist batsman at no.6.

    And a (likely) bowling attack of Larwood, Gregory, Barnes, Rhodes, O'Reilly looks extremely effective to me. Especially when backed up by Hammond.
    Barnes does not qualify for this team, and Rhodes should be in the team prior to this one imo

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Future of Cricket, suggestion to the ICC
    By LA ICE-E in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: 01-12-2011, 03:16 PM
  2. Final Bowler for 1946-65 World Test XI
    By aussie tragic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-12-2006, 01:31 AM
  3. You dream world cup final
    By Wasimullah in forum 2006 Football World Cup - Germany
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 14-06-2006, 04:29 AM
  4. Australiaís preparation for the 2007 World Cup
    By Western Warrior in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 23-01-2006, 12:31 AM
  5. World Cup Final Team Submission
    By Blewy in forum WCC - Team Sheets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14-10-2005, 05:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •