Final Batsman or Allrounder for 1920-39 World XI

[aussie tragic]

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

[Goughy]

Hammond can bowl if needed

Paynter. One of a a small bunch of Lancastrians I actually like.

[ripper868]

Macartney

[adharcric]

Seeing as the opposition's fifth bowling option is Sobers, Hammond will suffice. Paynter for me.

[oz_fan]

Charles Macartney

[chaminda_00]

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

[marc71178]

Jardine - partially for captaincy.

[The Sean]

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.

[PhoenixFire]

Stan McCabe

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by The Sean

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.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Goughy

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

[bagapath]

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!

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by bagapath

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?

[JBH001]

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.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by JBH001

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