Which country has the best 2nd ATG XI side?

[watson]

Also, Hammond had this to say;

It has often been stated that the South African touring side of 1907 had more good bowlers in it than any touring side from any other country has ever had. Kotze, Schwarz, Vogler, Faulkner, and White were all in the very top class, and there were four others not far behind them. RE Foster, England's captain at that time, placed Vogler as 'the best bowler in the world'; in a single hour, during one Test, he took 9 wickets for 42 runs, the greatest batsman in England 'scratching about like a lot of hens'.

'Cricket My World' by Walter Hammond (1947)

 

[hendrix]

these quotes are excellent

 

[hendrix]

and yeah, for most people an average of 26 in that era might be equivalent to much higher, but when you're playing against the likes of Jack Hobbs I think that negates the impact of the era tbh.

 

[harsh.ag]

I'd rather take the opinion of Jack Hobbs who batted against Faulkner, and had this to say after the first Test of his 1910 tour;

Faulkner dismissed Hobbs 4 times - twice in 1910 and twice in 1913 when South Africa toured England. A bowler doesn't get to dismiss Jack Hobbs, 'bowl right through an innings', and be described as 'wonderful', and 'really splendid' without being significantly more than just 'ordinary'.

Faulkner and Kallis should be in any ATG South African XI.

Good points. But for the period of 1906-14, when Faulkner played, his record is not that impressive. There were no great spinners in that era either, Blythe being the most visible, while Rhodes was on his opening-the-batting break. Perhaps that is why Hobbs had a slightly rosier picture of him. Even Vogler's record is quite a bit better than Faulkner's and we never consider him in any way. Faulkner would be a great addition to the 1st side if there was no all-rounder there to begin with, but that's not the case, and having Herbie Taylor at 6 would enhance that side more than having Faulkner at 6, as Herbie was the superior bat by quite a margin.

 

[watson]

Good points. But for the period of 1906-14, when Faulkner played, his record is not that impressive. There were no great spinners in that era either, Blythe being the most visible, while Rhodes was on his opening-the-batting break. Perhaps that is why Hobbs had a slightly rosier picture of him. Even Vogler's record is quite a bit better than Faulkner's and we never consider him in any way. Faulkner would be a great addition to the 1st side if there was no all-rounder there to begin with, but that's not the case, and having Herbie Taylor at 6 would enhance that side more than having Faulkner at 6, as Herbie was the superior bat by quite a margin.

used to bowl right through the innings

= stamina

was able to make the ball turn to a pretty good extent either way

= skillful

really splendid bowler googly bowler

= good technique

keeping an immaculate length

= good technique

The above quotes are absolutes, not relative comparisons. If a bowler picks up regular wickets in the Test match arena, and has those three attributes then he is, by definition, a truly good bowler.

Also, Hobbs had no problem judging Faulkner against Grimmett and Mailey (because he faced all three bowlers).If a leg spinner is mentioned in the same sentence as these two great bowlers, then by implication, he must also be great.

much faster than Grimmett, and perhaps the best of the googly bowlers, with the exception of Arthur Mailey.

 

[harsh.ag]

= stamina

= skillful

= good technique

= good technique

The above quotes are absolutes, not relative comparisons. If a bowler picks up regular wickets in the Test match arena, and has those three attributes then he is, by definition, a truly good bowler.

Also, Hobbs had no problem judging Faulkner against Grimmett and Mailey (because he faced all three bowlers).If a leg spinner is mentioned in the same sentence as these two great bowlers, then by implication, he must also be great.

Come now, you must admit that having the requisite skill and technique is not all that we look for here. You have to have delivered on the same, and our expectations are quite high. In that sense, if Faulkner was so capable, then it is a crime that his stats are what they are. I can only conclude that he under-performed.

Again, with Tayfield in the side, and Kallis as the 5th bowler already, where is the value in having Faulkner over Taylor at 6?

 

[watson]

Come now, you must admit that having the requisite skill and technique is not all that we look for here. You have to have delivered on the same, and our expectations are quite high. In that sense, if Faulkner was so capable, then it is a crime that his stats are what they are. I can only conclude that he under-performed.

Again, with Tayfield in the side, and Kallis as the 5th bowler already, where is the value in having Faulkner over Taylor at 6?

The value resides in that fact that a slight loss in batting depth is more than made up by the fact that the combination of Tayfield (off-spinner) and Faulkner (leg-spinner) bowling in tandem would most likely be a good one.

In short, a more versatile bowling attack is preferred to a little extra batting depth. As Hobbs says;

He always got runs, and used to bowl right through the innings.

Also, what evidence is there that Faulkner's stat's are a 'crime'? His Batting Average (41) for the era seems quite good to me, as does his Bowling Average (27) and Strike Rate (55). After all, that other great allrounder, and near contemporary, Monty Noble averaged 30 with the bat, and 25 with the ball. His Strike Rate was 59.

 

[harsh.ag]

The value resides in that fact that a slight loss in batting depth is more than made up by the fact that the combination of Tayfield (off-spinner) and Faulkner (leg-spinner) bowling in tandem would most likely be a good one.

In short, a more versatile bowling attack is preferred to a little extra batting depth. As Hobbs says;

Also, what evidence is there that Faulkner's stat's are a 'crime'? His Batting Average (41) for the era seems quite good to me, as does his Bowling Average (27) and Strike Rate (55). After all, that other great allrounder, and near contemporary, Monty Noble averaged 30 with the bat, and 25 with the ball. His Strike Rate was 59.

His average of 40 is very good, and therefore he is a good selection for the number 6 spot, I agree. But his average hides that he wasn't a very gifted batsman at all, and was known more for his bowling. My view is just that Taylor is a better selection. There is also a reason that Monty Noble never makes the Aus 1st or 2nd XI. 'Crime' was a hyperbole, which is silly in hindsight. I only compromise on batting for the need of a fifth bowler, which is not required here.

 

[watson]

His average of 40 is very good, and therefore he is a good selection for the number 6 spot, I agree. But his average hides that he wasn't a very gifted batsman at all, and was known more for his bowling. My view is just that Taylor is a better selection. There is also a reason that Monty Noble never makes the Aus 1st or 2nd XI. 'Crime' was a hyperbole, which is silly in hindsight. I only compromise on batting for the need of a fifth bowler, which is not required here.

Well he couldn't be that ungifted. DoG gave Faulkner 745 points and an ATG ranking of 56. In comparison, Herbie Taylor scored 726 points and came in 67th.

745 points also puts him on a par with Langer, Pietersen, Hussey and Mitchell. And ahead of Cowdrey, McCabe, Trumper, Crowe, Morris, and Ponsford. Not bad.

 

[harsh.ag]

Well he couldn't be that ungifted. DoG gave Faulkner 745 points and an ATG ranking of 56. In comparison, Herbie Taylor scored 726 points and came in 67th.

745 points also puts him on a par with Langer, Pietersen, Hussey and Mitchell. And ahead of Cowdrey, McCabe, Trumper, Crowe, Morris, and Ponsford. Not bad.

You just DoGed me!! Not fair But I maintain Taylor was a far superior batsman to Faulkner, and capable of magic like winning a contest against Sydney Barnes.

 

[watson]

You just DoGed me!! Not fair But I maintain Taylor was a far superior batsman to Faulkner, and capable of magic like winning a contest against Sydney Barnes.

Yes, Taylor did infuriate the heck out of Barnes. And was certainly a talented and great batsman.

 

[marc71178]

Remember that both Ratnayake's played for a minnow team with hardly any bowling support.

But if they played the majority of their cricket together and they're as good as you say surely that is half an attack being good, which counters this?

 

[Migara]

But if they played the majority of their cricket together and they're as good as you say surely that is half an attack being good, which counters this?

probably 50 percent of the time together, but when they did never complemented each other. that may be down to the fact of poor captaincy from Duleep Mendis. On the other hand these guys complemented Asantha de Mel, Vinothan John etc vey well. And Vaas is the very same type of bowler as de Mel or John, may be tad quicker in his pomp. Sri Lanka boasted of a much better seam attack in mid 80s than today, and if not for Vaas mayhave been the best era of fast bowling too.

 

[Migara]

Additionally Rumesh loved to bowl on pitches with pace and bounce and did very well in England, Australia and in New Zealand. On the other hand wicket to wicket fastmeiums of Ravi was better suitedor bad wickets with up and down bounce. Ravis best bowling spells are in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. This maybe the reason for them not to do well as a pair and it was oly 10 test msthes thry plsyed together.

 

[Red]

My first Aust side would be...

- Trumper
- Taylor
- Bradman
- G. Chappell
- Miller
- Harvey
- Gilchrist
- Warne
- Lillee
- O'Reilly
- McGrath

 

[Red]

My 2nd would be

- Lawry
- Simpson
- Ponting
- McCabe
- S. Waugh
- Border
- Healy
- Lindwall
- Gregory
- Spofforth
- Grimmett

COuld see the 2nd XI beating the 1st. Bradman always ****s things up though

 

[harsh.ag]

My 2nd would be

- Lawry
- Simpson
- Ponting
- McCabe
- S. Waugh
- Border
- Healy
- Lindwall
- Gregory
- Spofforth
- Grimmett

Could see the 2nd XI beating the 1st. Bradman always ****s things up though

Davidson instead of Gregory? And aside from personal reasons, why Harvey ahead of Ponting?

 

[Red]

Yeh, forgot Davo. He should replace either Spofforth or Gregory. Always miss one obvious one.

Ponting and Harvey are equal in my eyes as batsmen and cricketers in general. Either is fine, but I'm a big fan of Harvey.

 

[watson]

When you look at peoples' ATG Australian XIs there seems to be consistent disagreement as to who should open the batting. With England it's no problem, just throw in Hobbs and Hutton (or Sutcliffe if so inclined) and away you go. However, in more than a 100 years Australia does not have 2-3 stand out openers who pick themselves, and who I feel really comfortable with. Simpson. Lawry, Morris, Trumper, Hayden, Taylor, and Langer all bother me for some niggling reason that I don't understand.

 

[harsh.ag]

When you look at peoples' ATG Australian XIs there seems to be consistent disagreement as to who should open the batting. With England it's no problem, just throw in Hobbs and Hutton (or Sutcliffe if so inclined) and away you go. However, in more than a 100 years Australia does not have 2-3 stand out openers who pick themselves, and who I feel really comfortable with. Simpson. Lawry, Morris, Trumper, Hayden, Taylor, and Langer all bother me for some niggling reason that I don't understand.

Maybe we should just open with Border and Waugh (Steve) for the 1st XI :P Could be interesting. They would never get out.