Best XI of each decade

[NUFAN]

I would go for Everton Weekes any day of the week over Peter May, except in May.

 

[kyear2]

I think it has to do more with valuable factor. If we compare Weekes' scores to May's as which had more impact and contributed more to the team's winnings, May edges Weekes.

Some of the tons made by Weekes were somewhat overshadowed by other two Ws, Worrell and Walcott's contribution too or resulted in a drawn match.

For example,

Weekes 129 vs Eng, Worrell scored 261
Weekes 139 vs Aus, Walcott scored a century too
Weekes 206 vs Eng, Worrell scored 167 and Walcott scored a century too. Weekes played a valuable role in the series to give WI 3-1 against Trueman, Statham and Laker scoring 90* and 94 with that double ton. After he hit three centuries against NZ in 1956, his form declined.

On the other hand, May was reaching his prime in 1954. Under Hutton, May played a major role in retaining Ashes facing Lindwall and Davidson. In 1955, May had a great series against South Africa scoring 112, 117 against Adcock, Heine and Tayfield. Then against Australia in 1956, his average was around 90 on tough pitches.

Weekes and May run very close but I think for the quality of scores and match winning contributions, May just edges Weekes for 1950s season.

Weekes cannot be penalised for for having great supporting batsmen, or by the mid 50's a neutralised bowling attack.
Weekes and May played in the same era , againts the same attacks and from accounts Weekes was the more aggressive and scored at a faster rate all while averaging more that 10 runs an innings more.
Weekes is comfortably ahead.

 

[watson]

Some boring numbers against Australia;

Weekes (1948-58)

Average: 39.66 (20 Innings)
Centuries: 1
Average in Aust: 24.50 (10 Innings)
Centuries in Aust: 0

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


May (1951-61)

Average: 46.05 (37 Innings)
Centuries: 3
Average in Aust: 39.78 (19 Innings)
Centuries in Aust: 2

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Hendren (1920-35)

Average: 39.54 (48 Innings)
Centuries: 3
Average in Aust: 40.92 (28 Innings)
Centuries in Aust: 1

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Leyland (1928-38)

Average: 56.83 (34 Innings)
Centuries: 7
Average in Aust: 52.05 (20 Innings)
Centuries in Aust: 3

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

On the face of it, May has the superior record against the toughest opposition - if I may be arrogant enough to use Australia as the benchmark for the 2 batsman.

And while I'm my high horse (re the Voodoo draft), May and Weekes aren't that far removed from Patsy Hendren, and not as good as Leyland who is the English equivalent of Alan Border in style and temperment.

Anyways - Peter May by a whisker, in my relaxed, just had 3 beers on a sunny spring afternoon, opinion.

 

[kyear2]

In 1951 when Weekes went to Australia, it is well documented that Weekes was targeted by Linwall and Miller and was subjected to a body line style of attack that some say went over the line. Weekes was also hindered on that trip by a severve thigh injury which restricted his footwork and required his leg to be injected full of navacaine just to make it to the crease. The injury was severve enough that it left a permanent indentation in his leg thereafter. And yes it is disengenuos to make a comparrison between two batsmen with vastly different records based on one series in Australia xonsidering the circumstances.

 

[Jager]

Miller just too good for him IMO

 

[kyear2]

Think it was Lindwall more that Miller, but both of them pounded us pretty good. they were the core of the Invincibles.
They were beginning to slip a bit by the 54 -56 seasons though.

 

[Jager]

Most batsmen were glad to get out at the other end when Miller was on

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Not surprising though from a bowler who had a strike rate of 49 and maintained that over his career with an average of 21.57 claiming himself one of the best. On the contrary, many claimed him one of the best for example John Arlott- "T'Greatest Fast Bowler Who Ever Drew Breath."

If he's a self publicist, then that's an off field issue and imo shouldn't be the deciding factor nominating the best performer across decades.

He played in an era wwhen Australia's batting line up wasn't that strong, the West Indies were very erratic, South Africa's batting was pretty moderate and India, New Zealand and Pakistan pretty awful.

Probably the worst all round standard of Tes cricket since WW2.

 

[dhillon28]

1980s Tests

Gavaskar

Richards
Miandad
Border
Dujon
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Garner
Abdul Qadir


1990s Tests

Anwar
Gooch
Lara
Tendulkar
Steve Waugh
Andy Flower (wk)
Shaun Pollock
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Alan Donald
Curtley Ambrose

2000s Tests

Smith
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Ponting
Kallis
Pollock
Gilchrist
Zaheer
Muralitharan
Mcgrath

 

[watson]

He played in an era wwhen Australia's batting line up wasn't that strong, the West Indies were very erratic, South Africa's batting was pretty moderate and India, New Zealand and Pakistan pretty awful.

Probably the worst all round standard of Tes cricket since WW2.

? ?


Here is the list of the batsman dismissed by Trueman;

HowSTAT! Player Bowling Analysis

In the top 20 we have;

Worrell
Kanhai
Harvey
O'Neill
Sobers
Roy
Simpson
Lawry
Umrigar
Hunte
Manjrekar
Burge
Weekes
McDonald

I wouldn't call that list - 'the worst' - by any stretch. They would all take some major shoving to get them back to the pavillion.

 

[watson]

In 1951 when Weekes went to Australia, it is well documented that Weekes was targeted by Linwall and Miller and was subjected to a body line style of attack that some say went over the line. Weekes was also hindered on that trip by a severve thigh injury which restricted his footwork and required his leg to be injected full of navacaine just to make it to the crease. The injury was severve enough that it left a permanent indentation in his leg thereafter. And yes it is disengenuos to make a comparrison between two batsmen with vastly different records based on one series in Australia xonsidering the circumstances.

I'm sure that is true. Weekes was targeted and injured at the same time. However, that leaves us peering into the unknown when we try to estimate his true batting skill.

So, given the choice between a batsman like May who has been tested and then proven himself, and Weekes who has not, I am going to prefer May slightly.

In principle, a 'Known' always trumps a 'Hypothetical' unless you have good reason to do otherwise.

 

[kyear2]

One batsman has a career average of 58, and the other in the mid 40's. Thats tested enough for me. In the second series againts Australia Weekes performed quite admirably. Weekes was the better batsman of his era, while May was even overlooked by Cricinfo by Pietersen for a middle order slot in England At XI, and Gideon Haige choose Weekes over Compton and May for the team of players who didn't make their countries 11s.

 

[watson]

One batsman has a career average of 58, and the other in the mid 40's. Thats tested enough for me. In the second series againts Australia Weekes performed quite admirably. Weekes was the better batsman of his era, while May was even overlooked by Cricinfo by Pietersen for a middle order slot in England At XI, and Gideon Haige choose Weekes over Compton and May for the team of players who didn't make their countries 11s.

OK, fair enough. Haigh's team is actually quite interesting. Rhodes opening the batting, and Ted McDonald opening the bowling (?) are not wholly unexpected, but do raise an eyebrow;


01. Wilfred Rhodes
02. Herbert Sutcliffe
03. Ricky Ponting
04. Neil Harvey
05. Sir Everton Weekes
06. Rohan Kanhai
07. Ian Healy
08. Ray Lindwall
09. Joel Garner
10. Jim Laker
11. Ted McDonald

12. Bishan Bedi

ESPNcricinfo all-time World XI: Gideon Haigh picks an XI from outside the shortlist | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

One batsman has a career average of 58, and the other in the mid 40's. Thats tested enough for me. In the second series againts Australia Weekes performed quite admirably. Weekes was the better batsman of his era, while May was even overlooked by Cricinfo by Pietersen for a middle order slot in England At XI, and Gideon Haige choose Weekes over Compton and May for the team of players who didn't make their countries 11s.

I admire Sir Everton Weekes. But I'm not overwhelmed by the average thing as against India, Weekes' record gets a boost. Weekes' scored 8 centuries against the rest out of 15.

Weekes might be a better talented batsman than May but again we are not sure about this as what's been written about May, he was also very talented and technically correct. May performed better against greater opposition.

If there are better arguments or accounts than the average argument that suggest Weekes was better than May, I would happily accept that but for the moment I can't see any

 

[Jager]

and the May-Hutton comparison still stands - many of the era claimed them to be equals

 

[kyear2]

Many also say that Sobers and Kanhai are equals, but if you play in the same era are the averages are so faf apart, then it is more romantacism that fact. Also if May and Hutton are equals May makes every one would have him in their top one or two AT teams and at least a lock for Englands All Time selection.

 

[fredfertang]

It's very difficult with Everton Weekes because although he did do extremely well against India you do have to bear in mind that after he picked up that leg injury in 1951/52 he was never 100% fit again, and to average 58 in circumstances where your legs didn't always function as well as you'd like is verging on the Bradmanesque

As for May he had his health problems too, as well as having to spend a lot of time batting on result wickets, but if I had to choose I'd say Weekes, but not by very much

 

[kyear2]

Agreed, that leg injury stayed with him, more or less the remainder of his career. And speaking of Bradman, he said that Weekes was the best West Indies batsman that he had seen and he saw all but Lara.