A Pre-War Line-up

[neville cardus]

Grace (skipper)
Trumper
Ranji
Hobbs
Hill
Woolley
Giffen
Blackham (stumper)
Spofforth
Barnes
Peate

Briggs (twelfthie)
Beal (manager)
Clarke (patron)
Ulyate (stalker)

 

[silentstriker]

I'd have Arthur Shrewsbury somewhere in there.

 

[Richard]

I still say that a 1864-1899 and 1900-1914 team each would be more interesting.

Though I do not know enough about the 19th-century cricket beyond some of the most obvious names (Grace, Peate, Harris, Hawke, Shrewsbury, Bannerman, Shaw, etc.) to be able to do one.

So someone knock me up a 1900-1914 team?

 

[JBH001]

Grace (skipper)
Trumper
Ranji
Hobbs
Hill
Woolley
Giffen
Blackham (stumper)
Spofforth
Barnes
Peate

Briggs (twelfthie)
Beal (manager)
Clarke (patron)
Ulyate (stalker)

Drop Hobbs if he is not opening.
I would rather have FS Jackson in there (probably as skipper too).
Or Wooley should be dropped, Hobbs moves up to partner Grace, Trumper moves down the order, and FSJ slots in too. Also, rather Rhodes than Peate (but thats imo).

 

[neville cardus]

I'd have Arthur Shrewsbury somewhere in there.

I shall never forgive him for introducing to cricket the anaesthetising blanket of pad-play. If there is one element which I should like to think characterises this side, it is aggression. Shrewsbury was peerless on the vaporising gluepots of his time, but only above-par on flat-chested belters. He won his fame for his prevalence in adverse circumstances not because he could snatch the initiative with audacious cover-drives, full-blooded pull stokes, posthumous cuts and delicate glances, but rather because he prevented the opposition from snatching it. I wanted in this side players emblematic of the sparkling brilliance of their epoch, and Shrewsbury most certainly wasn't.

Before Kaiser Billy outgrew his boots, players were commonly free-spirited creatures, blithely liberated from such grave concerns as playing for time or saving matches; victory was all that mattered. Shrewsbury could avert a loss, but he was unlikely to claim a win.

 

[neville cardus]

So someone knock me up a 1900-1914 team?

Hobbs
Trumper
Ranji
Hill
Jackson (skipper)
Jessop
Rhodes
Richardson
Trumble
Lilley (stumper)
Barnes

The problem here is that, barring Trumper, no Australian is an automatic choice. I could easily have put together a side just as strong with ten Pommies in it.

 

[JBH001]

Hobbs
Trumper
Ranji
Hill
Jackson (skipper)
Jessop
Rhodes
Richardson
Trumble
Lilley (stumper)
Barnes

The problem here is that, barring Trumper, no Australian is an automatic choice. I could easily have put together a side just as strong with ten Pommies in it.

I really like this team, Neville. I really, really do!
Its rare for me to think dont change it, thats perfect, but that team is it. _b

 

[neville cardus]

Drop Hobbs if he is not opening.

He can exchange positions with Trumper.

I would rather have FS Jackson in there

No problem. He replaces Woolley.

(probably as skipper too).

Yes. He was far less inclined than W.G. to let the game drift.

Also, rather Rhodes than Peate (but thats imo).

You're not having that one.

 

[neville cardus]

I really like this team, Neville. I really, really do!
Its rare for me to think dont change it, thats perfect, but that team is it. _b

I was sorely tempted to appease the Aussies and give the likes of Gregory and Noble a run, but that would only be to the side's detriment. I can't pick out any position whose requirements they could better fill than the present occupants.

 

[archie mac]

Peate is a big call, but was a fine bowler, not sure about Hobbs and Woolley as I always think of them as post war players, but still a fine side

And 1900-1914, I would think Jessop a little lucky, only one great Test innings, but I suppose he will save you a lot of runs at cover

I will choose a couple of teams to play them

 

[Olwe]

i would consider Tom Hayword to bat for the team,

as he has scored over 100 first class centies, top score of 315 no, taking nearly 500(481) wkikets @ 22.95 with in one game in and in 1901 took 8-89. he also got nearly 500 catches ( 493)

also i woud consider Tom Richardson;

taking 2140 First class wikets @ 18.43, (200' 5s ( in innings)wkts and 72' 10s(in match) with best bowling of 10 for 45

 

[neville cardus]

Peate is a big call, but was a fine bowler

My love for him is much akin to yours for Lillee and Clem. I'm standing my ground on this one.

And 1900-1914, I would think Jessop a little lucky

I wanted a big hitter for some reason, and I can't think of one better than Jessop. Out of interest, though, would you place any of Thornton, Bonnor, Lyons, Ulyett, Sinclair, Ford, Massie or Game ahead of him?

 

[JBH001]

Hmm, AM does raise an interesting point about Jessop.

Maybe Noble should slot in over Jessop?

However, if your rationale is for a big hitter that certainly seems fair enough.

 

[archie mac]

My love for him is much akin to yours for Lillee and Clem. I'm standing my ground on this one.



I wanted a big hitter for some reason, and I can't think of one better than Jessop. Out of interest, though, would you place any of Thornton, Bonnor, Lyons, Ulyett, Sinclair, Ford, Massie or Game ahead of him?

The 'big hitters' all had pretty poor averages, I think Archie Mac always got on with it

 

[archie mac]

Hmm, AM does raise an interesting point about Jessop.

Maybe Noble should slot in over Jessop?

However, if your rationale is for a big hitter that certainly seems fair enough.

And he was a much better bowler, and great captain

 

[Lillian Thomson]

i would consider Tom Hayword to bat for the team,

as he has scored over 100 first class centies, top score of 315 no, taking nearly 500(481) wkikets @ 22.95 with in one game in and in 1901 took 8-89. he also got nearly 500 catches ( 493)

also i woud consider Tom Richardson;

taking 2140 First class wikets @ 18.43, (200' 5s ( in innings)wkts and 72' 10s(in match) with best bowling of 10 for 45

I think you might have misread the Forum Rules. Not every player you mention in every thread has to have played for Surrey.

 

[neville cardus]

i would consider Tom Hayword to bat for the team

A fine player, but ahead of whom?

also i woud consider Tom Richardson;

I refer the honourable member to the question I asked some moments ago.

 

[neville cardus]

The 'big hitters' all had pretty poor averages, I think Archie Mac always got on with it

Nice dodge.

 

[neville cardus]

And he was a much better bowler

And as a batsman?

and great captain

We already have one. (It's Jacker now, for the record.)

 

[archie mac]

And as a batsman?



We already have one. (It's Jacker now, for the record.)

Well if you want to win the toss

Noble has a great record in the SS, but I think I would have prefered to watch 'The Croucher'