Bowling attack for timeless tests

[Coronis]

are these meant to be in descending order

Yeah looks like I forgot to move Marshall. Oh well

 

[the big bambino]

Woolley's bowling wasn't very effective in Australia, so wouldn't have been in his favour. The England squad's maybe a bowler light and batsman heavy, but they wouldn't have expected to lose Staples, or for Larwood to get sick. The playing XIs were if anything the other way by modern standards. Once Geary came in they usually batted Larwood seven, though strangely Tate mainly batted nine. Of course if you were to disregard the 'best keeper' thing and pick Ames instead of Duckworth it becomes a very 'normal' looking XI.

The extra pace bowler idea is interesting if you mean someone considered to have genuine pace (closer to Larwood than Tate). I don't see why they'd have thought they needed one, unless they were top quality in top form. Nichols was averaging mid-20s compared to Larwood's mid-high teens. I doubt he'd've been a standout candidate, especially as he had a bad bowling season in 1928.

England's attack looks based on their past experiences. Their quickest bowlers failed badly in 20/21 and 24/25 (though it's mysterious to me why Howell toured a second time). In comparison, their medium pacers (Barnes and Foster before WWI, Tate after) had been more successful, and Kilner's success in 24/25 would've pointed to accurate spin (White and Staples) as a foil. Knowing the pitches would be flat and the batting slow, accuracy and endurance were utmost, to which could be added Larwood's pace. Of course they did take Freeman despite his previous failure.

I'm not sure there's a lot to be learned from a modern perspective. Bowlers of genuine pace by more modern standards were very rare then. Bowling attack composition and batting approach differ dramatically now. I suspect the best overall attack would still be the best in a timeless match, fitness permitting. But supposing that it did involve flat pitches and very cautious batting, they might need a different approach. The fast bowlers couldn't go all out all the time and would have to pace themselves (like Holding did).

The bowlers were worked into the ground - a predictable outcome they should've planned. The batting on those pitches was never going to be a problem, especially when you consider they had Ames and bowlers who could bat. Therefore picking 9 batsmen was too much and it was just plain luck Larwood, Tate and White managed to get through the tour as well as the 5 tests.

The situation was made worse with Staples' illness so really they only had 5 bowlers all tour, and its in that context I'm suggesting Nichols, Woolley and being ok with Freeman. Impact bowlers like Larwood can't be bowled in practically every match and maintain their effectiveness for the tests. Nichols is suggested to play in the state games while Larwood is permitted to rest. Freeman bowled long overs in the state games as well and is worth his tour spot. Woolley's ave in Australia as a bowler is both acceptable for a batting AR and not too bad for a spinner overall. He is more value in every sense than Mead or Tyldesley.

There were enough fast bowlers in England to understudy Larwood for the tour. For various reasons unique to the era, they weren't available. Allen spent the qualifying summer in France. Clark wasn't risked on a 6 month tour. Whereas now they'd just fly him in if needed. Allom with his height could be another option. But, like Allen, played little cricket that summer (I think) for much the same reason. Therefore I'd pick Nichols because he was available. I'm not worried he had an ordinary season in 28. The summer was more suited to spin and not those to be found in Aus. Geary's career was so compromised by 1928 it was in jeopardy and only saved by the intervention of Lord Harris. Therefore picking Nichols, on a firmer basis, is justifiable for his role in relieving Larwood. Nichols could bat as well.

 

[Coronis]

iirc White was a big factor in winning the 2 closest tests. And Geary did end up providing invaluable support through the series, bowling something like 60 overs a match.

 

[peterhrt]

Are you classing Gubby Allen as an all-rounder, but Maurice Tate as a bowler?

Yes. Allen was regarded as a genuine all-rounder. Tate is a marginal case. He opened the batting for Sussex at times and scored 23 FC hundreds, but the England selectors viewed him as their main bowler and didn't want him spending too long at the crease.

 

[peterhrt]

I know Woolley was an attacking player, but was Leyland seen as so much of a stonewaller that it was worth the compromise?

It seems all the more a strange selection given that a) it was a high scoring series anyway, and b) Leyland was only chosen for the final Test, albeit performing very well. How much do you think might have been due to Woolley's previous couple of tours to Australia, which had been largely middling?

Woolley was 41 in 1928 and no longer bowled much. Mead was also 41, Hendren and Ernest Tyldesley 39, and Hobbs 45. Yet for once England's fielding during the series was much better than Australia's.

The thing with Woolley's batting was that he never reined back on his attacking game. Great for spectators, but the selectors didn't want flashy thirties and forties in timeless matches.

The north/south divide was prevalent in England and would become more so during the depression. Woolley v Leyland, Sandham v Sutcliffe, Duckworth v Ames, played into the narrative.

 

[The Sean]

Woolley was 41 in 1928 and no longer bowled much. Mead was also 41, Hendren and Ernest Tyldesley 39, and Hobbs 45. Yet for once England's fielding during the series was much better than Australia's.

The thing with Woolley's batting was that he never reined back on his attacking game. Great for spectators, but the selectors didn't want flashy thirties and forties in timeless matches.

The north/south divide was prevalent in England and would become more so during the depression. Woolley v Leyland, Sandham v Sutcliffe, Duckworth v Ames, played into the narrative.

Makes sense, I remember reading an interview with Woolley where he said that at Kent they were never allowed to compromise on their attacking approach and obligation to entertain the crowd for the sake of averages. It follows that this remained his philosophy for England.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean the premise of the thread was “assume this test will go at least 6 days, up to 9”

The pitches determine that, not what the max game length is pre-determined to be beforehand.

But I guess the OP could be interpreted as being a guarantee of a flat pitch.

Honestly, I think it will probably have very little impact on team selection either way. I guess the part timers could be forced to practice their bowling more prior to the match, as they'll definitely be used more than usual, but that's the only meaningful difference I see.

 

[the big bambino]

Woolley had far more experience in Australia than either Mead of Tyldesley and could adjust his game for the situation. Hammond wasn’t a laggard but they still picked him and he went alright.

Woolley was still bowling regularly at that stage. He bowled relief overs for the MCC on their first class tour of Australia the following season on their way to a 4 test series in NZ. Woolley was England’s equal highest wicket taker in that successful series.

 

[peterhrt]

Woolley's omission was unpopular and the selectors felt the need to justify their decision. Their argument was that others were more suitable for timeless Tests. Whether that was true was another matter.

They probably didn't take much account of his bowling. Woolley had completed the double in each of the first five post-war English seasons. In 1928 he only took 34 wickets, fewer than Leyland with his chinamen.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood and Ben Stokes