# 3 for 1946-65 World Test XI

[aussie tragic]

This is now a 4-day poll to select the best # 3 for the 1946-65 XI.

Saeed Ahmed (Pak): 32 tests, 2562 runs @ 43.42 (5/14) HS 172 ----- (At # 3: 2144 @ 45.61)
Ken Barrington (Eng): 62 tests, 5166 runs @ 58.04 (14/28) HS 256 ----- (1979 @ 79.16)
Ted Dexter (Eng): 60 tests, 4405 runs @ 48.94 (9/27) HS 205 ----- (2701 @ 54.02) ----- 66 wkts @ 34.51
Bill Edrich (Eng): 30 tests, 2133 runs @ 43.53 (5/13) HS 191 ----- (1825 runs @ 49.32) ----- 35 wkts @ 40.00
Tom Graveney (Eng): 55 tests, 3107 runs @ 41.98 (6/12) HS 258 ----- (1332 @ 45.93)
Neil Harvey (Aus): 79 tests, 6149 runs @ 48.41 (21/24) HS 205 ----- (3454 @ 46.67)
Rohan Kanhai (WI): 43 tests, 3599 runs @ 48.63 (9/15) HS 256 ----- (2825 @ 55.39)
Peter May (Eng): 66 tests, 4537 runs @ 46.77 (13/22) HS 285* ----- (1891 @ 42.02)
Clive Walcott (WI): 44 tests, 3798 runs @ 56.68 (15/14) HS 220 ----- (1141 @ 51.86)
Frank Worrell (WI): 51 tests, 3860 runs @ 49.48 (9/22) HS 261 ----- (1133 @ 53.95) ----- 69 wkts @ 38.72

Note: The 4 runner-ups will go into the # 4 Batsman Poll

 

[aussie tragic]

Interesting to note that 5 of the best # 3 Batsmen in this era are English, how times have changed

I'd love to pick Neil Harvey, however I really can't decide between Barrington, Walcott & Worrell so I'm going to have to think about it a bit more....

....Okay after reading a bit more, I'll pick Clive Walcott (apologies to Worrell and I couldn't pick Barrington after I heard he was dropped for scoring too slowly - 137 off NZ taking over 7 hours)

I also see that Barrington struggled against WI averaging 34 (excellent record against every other country), while Walcott was successful against every country he played.

 

[oz_fan]

Really tough choice. I too can't decide between Barrington, Harvey and Walcott. I think I'll go with Walcott. He scored more centuries than half centuries and has an excellent batting average considering he had to face both the English and Australian bowling attacks.

 

[nightprowler10]

Did I miss the openers poll?

 

[aussie tragic]

Did I miss the openers poll?

No, decided to start whith # 3, however Opener Poll is now also open

 

[nightprowler10]

Walcott for me then.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Barrington for me. Probably the definitive batsman of the era. Gritty and ugly, but extremely effective against all kinds of bowling and on a range of wickets.

 

[Dasa]

Walcott for the reasons others have mentioned.

 

[silentstriker]

I might be off base here, but Bradman did average 100 in the post war years.

 

[aussie tragic]

I might be off base here, but Bradman did average 100 in the post war years.

Bradman is not considered as players will now only be considered for one era so he'll be in the 1919-39 XI (we don't need a poll to know that he'd be selected in any era)

See post: http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=972417&postcount=361

 

[silentstriker]

Bradman is not considered as players will now only be considered for one era so he'll be in the 1919-39 XI (we don't need a poll to know that he'd be selected in any era)

See post: http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=972417&postcount=361

I suppose the decision has been made but this rule only punishes people who have been good over a longer period of time.

 

[aussie tragic]

I suppose the decision has been made but this rule only punishes people who have been good over a longer period of time.

I don't think it punishes anyone as it was obvious in the previous polls that people were not voting for a player because they felt they belonged in a different era, or that they were already in a selected XI (e.g. Hadlee & Marshall not picked in 1986-2005 XI & Imran not picked in 1966-85 XI).

btw, Bradman wouldn't have been eligible for 1946-65 XI anyway had we not lowered the 20-test minimum criteria used on the other two team selections

 

[Poker Boy]

Close call between Barrington and Walcott but in the end I went for Walcott.

 

[Matt79]

Walcott. Barrington generally scored too slowly for me to pick him at 3.

 

[adharcric]

Walcott

 

[silentstriker]

I didn't vote for him, but IMO Kanhai is a very underrated batsman who could represent any side at #3 with distinction.

 

[Perm]

Walcott but pretty unlucky for Barrington, he was a close second.

 

[bagapath]

ted dexter was an awesome batsman. his bowling would prove to be handy too. i am going to give it some more thought. i want compton and weeks in the middle order. that is going to influence my choice for no.3.

 

[bagapath]

dexter is my choice. an attacking no.3 is always an advantage for the batting team. we selected richards and ponting for that quality in the other teams. we should stick to that policy. he was a very useful medium pacer as well.

 

[aussie tragic]

ted dexter was an awesome batsman. his bowling would prove to be handy too. i am going to give it some more thought. i want compton and weeks in the middle order. that is going to influence my choice for no.3.

I think two of Walcott, Barrington, Pollock, Hazare, Hassett & Harvey may upset your plans for Dexter & Compton at # 3 & # 4.... Weekes sounds right at # 5 though