ATG World XI
1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. S.R Tendulkar 5. W.R Hammond 6. G.S Sobers 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. D.W Steyn 11. G.D McGrath
On occasions where he did play as an allrounder he was generally pretty effective. On a tour of South Africa in his younger days he took 27 wickets at 23. He could take the lead as well in FC matches - he once took 9-23 against Worcester, and on the Bodyline tour he took 6-43 in a game against NSW, including Bradman. Wisden describes his bowling in the second Test at Melbourne as "excellent", outshining the formidable pace attack England were playing.
More to the point, the idea of "additional" bowlers is to try and unsettle the batsmen, and so even as a support option Hammond's pace provides something a bit extra over the norm.
I don't think he matches up to Kallis as a bowler - the fact that Kallis has kept up his bowling for so long provides a fair contrast to Hammond not being really able to do so - but the man could seriously bowl.
You are the word, the word is 'destroy' - I break this bottle and think of you fondly
As an All Rounder Hammond is pretty under rated, as his bowling when utilised was pretty sharp and effective. The fact that he was an elite slip fielder only adds to his value.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
Hammond was good bowler as his contemporaries confirm. David foots book also makes it clear that he didn't much like bowling, particularly as he got older. A wonderful adjunct to his game and comparable to Kallis in skill though the SA all rounder definitely values his bowling more than Wally apparently did and wins on longevity.
Short career champs XI
John F Reid
F de Villiers
No room for Archie Jackson or Sid Barnes?
O'Reilly only played 27 tests I believe and Croft didn't play that much either.
- Vijay Merchant
- Barry Richards
- KS Ranjitsinhji
- Graeme Pollock
- Archie Jackson
- Mike Procter
- Jock Cameron +
- Harold Larwood
- Shane Bond
- Sylvester Clarke
- Bob Appleyard
We need a Long Career team to take on the Short Career team.
Qualification is > 100 Test matches;
01. Sunil Gavaskar (125)
02. Gordon Greenidge (108)
03. Viv Richards (121)
04. Sachin Tendulkar (>198)
05. Brian Lara (131)
06. Jacques Kallis (>162)
07. Mark Boucher (147)
08. Wasim Akram (104)
09. Shane Warne (145)
10. Courtney Walsh (132)
11. Glenn McGrath (124)
Sobers, Gilchrist, Knott, and Ambrose all just miss out because of the cut-off.
1. Adam Gilchrist - 2. Sachin Tendulkar - 3. Brian Lara - 4. Viv Richards - 5. Michael Bevan - 6. AB De Villiers - 7. Kapil Dev - 8. Shaun Pollock - 9. Joel Garner - 10. Muttiah Muralitharan - 11. Glenn McGrath
Not bad at all Watson.
Still think Headley and O'Reilly deserve a look in for the short career XI. Just personal opnion though as I understand that some believe that time wise they played full careers.
Murali into the long runners XI you'd think. Played 29 more tests than Wasim and, as we've shown, that can constitute a career on it own
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)