McCabe or Harvey?

[Fuller Pilch]

Both were brilliant batsmen who averaged 48, both debuted at 19, both were Australian vice captains, and both were compared with Bradman.

Who do you think was better, and why?

 

[Line and Length]

Two fine players indeed. In terms of longevity (albeit allowing for WWII interrupting McCabe's career) Harvey's performances (21 centuries) eclipse McCabe's (6). Being a left-hander added to Harvey's value plus the fact that he batted at primarily 3 and 4 (ahead of McCabe's 5) gives him another slight edge. On the other hand, McCabe had all-rounder claims with 36 Test wickets to his name.

However, it is hard to ignore the words of Don Bradman when describing McCabe's batting, " My eyes were filled as I drank in the glory of his shots… Such cricket I shall never see again nor shall I ever feel competent adequately to describe this elegant display...When Stan returned to our dressing room at the conclusion of this epic performance I was so moved by the superb majesty of his innings I could scarcely speak. However, I gripped his hand, wet with perspiration. He was trembling like a thoroughbred racehorse. I can recall saying to him after expressing my congratulations, 'I would give a great deal to be able to play an innings like that.' No skipper was ever more sincere in his adulation of another's skill."

 

[BazBall21]

Harvey but Stan probably wasn’t far behind and doesn’t deserve to be nilled

 

[fredfertang]

Stan McCabe, if for no other reason than he was one of only two batsman who showed how Bodyline could be countered, and he did so with a lot more style and panache than Douglas Jardine did

 

[Coronis]

Really tough choice here, McCabe whose career is defined by his exploits in Bodyline or Harvey who had that amazing peak through his early years. Probabky Harvey, barely though.

 

[mr_mister]

I feel it has to be Harvey, and clearly, but only slightly. McCabe was Bradmans capo, Harvey was tipped to follow his footsteps (been watching the sopranos, fantastic show)