• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

# 6 for 1877-1940 Test XI

# 6 for the 1877-1940 Test XI


  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

oz_fan

International Regular
This is a poll to decide the # 6 for the 1877-1940 Test XI. The list of contenders is made up of the runners up of the batsmen polls and the allrounders. The list of contenders are:

Batsman Mat Inn NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50
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


All Rounder Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w
Aubrey Faulkner - 24 1717 204 41.87 4 8 82 7/84 25.52 4
Wilfred Rhodes - 47 1965 179 32.21 2 10 105 8/68 24.90 6
 

oz_fan

International Regular
My vote goes to Faulkner. To average over 40 with the bat and close to 25 with the ball is incredible.
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
I voted for Trumper, but I get the impression that this might well turn out to be the tightest race yet. I shouldn't be too bitter if Ranji emerges on top, though.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Went for Trumper, basically on the whimsy of that fabulous "Stepping out to drive" photo and his reputation in England on wet tracks.
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
At the moment, it would seem to be a reasonably even break between Faulkner and Trumper. Both men had that magical component of enchanting genius which made them great in an era of greatness - although it is incontestable, surely, that Trumper was the more romantically quintessential of the two, quite simply embodying what we have come to understand by the Golden Age cricketer.

Nevertheless, I have to say that I feel, somehow, that Aubrey Faulkner's extensive capacities with the leather - he was, of course, one mighty constituent of that awesome googly-pioneering foursome of South Africans - might just edge it his deserving way. Neither was Faulkner an incompetent mug with the willow, and this, surely, must earn him a well-merited sport amongst the exalted rank of greatest allrounders ever to play the game.

Personally, I'd go for Vic, though.
 

JBH001

International Regular
Yes, Faulkner was all that and more.

But do we need another leg spinner in the side?
Especially as two bowlers are yet to be picked and O'Reilly (or Grimmett) are almost certain to be picked for one of them?
(With perhaps Larwood/Gregory taking the other bowling spot?)

I think team balance would be better served with a left arm spinner like Rhodes (almost unplayable on a wet track and renowned for his accuracy) in the side, who would complement the overall bowling attack a lot better.

Rhodes could bat too, though his inclusion would mean Ames at 6 and Rhodes at 7, but I see nothing wrong in that. So Wilfred Rhodes for me.
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
Yes, Faulkner was all that and more.

But do we need another leg spinner in the side?
That question formed a massive part of the thinking behind my vote.

Especially as two bowlers are yet to be picked and O'Reilly (or Grimmett) are almost certain to be picked for one of them?
(With perhaps Larwood/Gregory taking the other bowling spot?)
I agree with your reasoning, although my combination of choice would probably be Lockwood and Richardson.

I think team balance would be better served with a left arm spinner like Rhodes (almost unplayable on a wet track and renowned for his accuracy) in the side, who would complement the overall bowling attack a lot better.

Rhodes could bat too, though his inclusion would mean Ames at 6 and Rhodes at 7, but I see nothing wrong in that. So Wilfred Rhodes for me.
I agree. One of the plethora of slow left-armers from Yorkshire would fit in wonderfully. It would be Ted Peate for me, though.
 

JBH001

International Regular
It may be little too late though - and it looked like we were going to have such a wonderful and well balanced side!

Seriously though, much as I admire Faulkners batting average, batting is one thing this side does not need more of as we already have Bradman (the virtual equivalent of 2 bats) and Ames as a wk/bat. Faulker does have a good average with the ball but like many of the SA spin quartet his effectiveness may have diminished over time as batsmen grew accustomed to the bosie or googly (though tbh that is atm just supposition).

O'Reilly would be ideal for the spinners role, backed up by Rhodes, and Larwood or Gregory for the 3rd pacer (both of them could bat too).

So if anyone has to cast any votes yet, cast them for Rhodes please!
 
Last edited:

neville cardus

International Debutant
It may be little too late though - and it looked like we were going to have such a wonderful and well balanced side!

Seriously though, much as I admire Faulkners batting average, batting is one thing this side does not need more of as we already have Bradman (the virtual equivalent of 2 bats) and Ames as a wk/bat. Faulker does have a good average with the ball but like many of the SA spin quartet his effectiveness may have diminished over time as batsmen grew accustomed to the bosie or googly (though tbh that is atm just supposition).

O'Reilly would be ideal for the spinners role, backed up by Rhodes, and Larwood or Gregory for the 3rd pacer (both of them could bat too).

So if anyone has to cast any votes yet, cast them for Rhodes please!
Hear, hear!
 

Top