# 5 for the 1877-1940 Test XI

[oz_fan]

This is a poll to decide the number 5 batsman for the 1877-1940 Test XI. I've included Trumper in the poll as well as it was pointed out that he played several innings at the position and people were interested in voting for him. The list of contenders are:

Batsman Mat Inn NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50
George Headley - 19 35 3 2135 270* 223 176 66.71 10 5
Stan McCabe - 39 62 5 2748 232 189* 187* 48.21 6 13
Ranji - 15 26 4 989 175 154* 93* 44.95 2 6
Stanley Jackson - 20 33 4 1415 144* 128 118 48.79 5 6
Clem Hill - 49 89 2 3412 191 188 160 39.21 7 19
Victor Trumper - 48 89 8 3163 214* 185* 166 39.04 8 13

 

[oz_fan]

My vote goes to Headley he had a phenomenal record in the time period. The runners up will also be in contention for the number 6 spot where they will compete with the allrounders.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Headley.

 

[Perm]

Has to be the Black Bradman.

 

[nightprowler10]

What a no contest. Headley.

 

[JBH001]

Agreed. Another no-contest.

Jeez what a top 5 this line-up will have

1.Hobbs
2.Sutcliffe
3. Bradmam
4. Hammond
5. Headley

 

[adharcric]

Marshall, McGrath, Warne and Murali will dominate each and every one of 'em.

 

[PhoenixFire]

McCabe for mine, losing count of the amount of times I've said this, but many, many people say that he was more talented than Bradman, he just didn't have the application or concentration or desire to be great.

 

[grecian]

McCabe for mine, losing count of the amount of times I've said this, but many, many people say that he was more talented than Bradman, he just didn't have the application or concentration or desire to be great.

Yes but application and concentration are major parts of the batsmen's art.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yes but application and concentration are major parts of the batsmen's art.

Indeed, which is why he is not considered a great. But with the batting line-up we have, why not have a flair player who isn't neccaserily consistent, but can bring you amazing performances.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Marshall, McGrath, Warne and Murali will dominate each and every one of 'em.

Those bunch of lightweights would be dying of polio the moment they stepped back in time to the 30's.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Those bunch of lightweights would be dying of polio the moment they stepped back in time to the 30's.

Nah, McGrath, Murali and Marshall would survive in any age, not sure about Warne, I expect he probably would too.

 

[pasag]

All legends, but Headley it is.

 

[stumpski]

He batted at #3 for virtually the whole of his Test career, but if this is the only slot available, he should be the one to take it.

 

[neville cardus]

A sympathy vote for Trumper.

 

[Goughy]

McCabe for mine, losing count of the amount of times I've said this, but many, many people say that he was more talented than Bradman, he just didn't have the application or concentration or desire to be great.

May as well have Archie Jackson in the poll if that is the logic as some thought he was the most talented of the lot.

Talent = Human perception, averaging 99.94 = other worldly. No comparison

Anyway, Headley. Obviously.

 

[Matt79]

McCabe for mine, losing count of the amount of times I've said this, but many, many people say that he was more talented than Bradman, he just didn't have the application or concentration or desire to be great.

Application, desire etc are pretty vital components of being great. I doubt many people would dispute that McCabe played a few innings that are worthy of any player or situation in history and could be mentioned as better than any Bradman innings without it being a foolish claim. But even of the many people who said they thought McCabe might be more talented that Bradman, I doubt you'd find one in twenty who would actually say he WAS a better batsman.

 

[Poker Boy]

George Headley has to be in there somehwere (especially as he had that record in a team that depended on him - could Bradman have done as well with no support?)

 

[bagapath]

impossible to look beyond headley.

and yes hobbs, sutcliffe, bradman, hammond and headley looks like the greatest top 5 of all time. of course when we combine this team with the post war XI i can imagine gavaskar, richards and may be lara nudging out their counterparts from this team. but still you really cant improve this line up much. against the accuracy of marshall, mcgrath and murali and the flair of warne this line up will be tested to an extent but these batters are unlikely to be dominated by this or any other bowling attack.

 

[andmark]

Stan Mccabe.
A true legend.