\\ Decade Squads //

[badgerhair]

Jessop may have been one of the most exciting batsman ever seen but his uninhibited strokeplay was found wanting at the highest level, with an average of barely 20 he only ever played a couple of quality Test innings and was not even a regular in the England side of the 1900s. Even in county cricket, more often than not Jessop was out before he had reached 20. Admittedly the Englishman's fielding was far superior to that of Noble but this alone cannot be considered a valid case for dropping the proven world class allrounder in favour of Jessop. A statistical bowling comparison is equally one-sided and dropping Noble for Jessop would be like dropping a pre-2004 Jacques Kallis for Shahid Afridi.

His not being a regular in the England side wasn't exactly Jessop's fault. He was most often omitted by Martin Hawke, who may well be the person who has lost most Test matches without playing in them. Australia were both amazed and extremely grateful that he was let out against them so often, since they were truly scared of him. He was also an exceptionally poor traveller and was basically unavailable to tour after his experiences on his only trip Down Under. And though Jessop's average is nothing to write home about, it's worth looking at how often he top-scored or near top-scored for England, which is a lot higher than you would imagine from an average like that. He played a disproportionately high number of matches on ghastly wickets; Hawke would finally bow to the pressure to pick him, and then it would rain and the pitch would be a minefield.

Basically, I don't care how it's done: my team includes Jessop. Yours needn't.

I did not consider Tiger Smith because he played very little Test cricket and his mediocre batting abilities would be a weak link when the decade XIs played eachother as all the other keepers could bat. Fair point though.

Basically he was only picked when Foster was playing, specifically because everyone else would have let double-figure quantities of byes off him and wouldn't have been taking the legside catches Foster liked inducing. So he and Foster come as a package.

Yes - Armstrong could probably make the team almost as a batsman alone, and he probably should be included. However, the Big Ship's bowling was mediocre and replacing Foster with Armstrong would leave us with almost non-existent pace bowling options, so your next sentence smacks of hypocrisy.



Thats a fair call, my attack does lack variety but I tried to focus on selecting the best bowlers of the period rather than balancing the team out. Armstrong would add considerable batting depth to our team but his leg-break bowling is not all that different to the bowler he would replace, and far from adding variety to our team his inclusion would actually reduce the penetration of our bowlers.

Armstrong's bowling was rarely meant to be penetrative -and he didn't bowl googlies whereas Hordern did so almost exclusively. And remember that most of the spin bowlers of the era went shopping for wickets: Armstrong's main function as a bowler was to dry up the runs and restore control. I also want him to captain rather than Clem Hill.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[badgerhair]

1920s
JB Hobbs*
H Sutcliffe
WR Hammond
CG Macartney
HW Taylor
EH Hendren
JM Gregory
MW Tate
WAS Oldfield+
CV Grimmett
AP Freeman

There's obviously no point in posting these things unless someone's prepared to debate them, so here's a few quibbles which will probably not convince you to change your team.

Herbie Taylor was an opener, not a number five, so I think we need someone else. Since he's not been in any of the other teams, how about Frank Woolley? Not only was he brilliant but also left-handed. And he was a more than useful bowler too.

I'm not really convinced either by your choice of spinners. That Sutcliffe, who didn't much like spin, found Mailey more difficult than Grimmett, and Grimmett features in the 30s side anyway, means I'd prefer Mailey for the 20s side.

Freeman was certainly the terror of county cricket, but he didn't have the most fantastic time in Tests, especially in Australia. There are some mitigating circs, granted, but I'm still not entirely happy. Even so, my proposed replacement is unlikely to meet with your approval on the grounds that he only played the one Test. It's Charlie Parker, who would have played loads more Tests if there'd been any justice, but unfortunately he managed to upset Plum Warner, chairman of slectors, and that put the kibosh on him. And if you won't take him, then I'll have Ciss Parkin, as versatile a bowler as Bob Appleyard but a much better bat.

1930s
L Hutton
WH Ponsford
DG Bradman*
WR Hammond
GA Headley
EH Hendren
LEG Ames+
H Verity
H Larwood
CV Grimmett
WJ O'Reilly

Now this really is unbalanced, since you have to open with Larwood and Hammond, and Wally wouldn't be happy. Though it pains me to do it, Verity has to be replaced. I'd nominate Amar Singh, although I'd be prepared to have Ken Farnes as an alternative.

I also don't think you can really have Hutton despite the 364, because he only played for about five minutes else before WW2. I think we'll have New Zealand's best-ever, Stewie Dempster, instead.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

I'd say Marc was referring to the fact that for most of the 80s Gooch was a pretty average sort of a batsman. It wasn't until the end of the 80s that he really began to improve.

Exactly my point.