Pick Two Opening Batsmen for the 1946-65 World Test XI

[adharcric]

Why? He could definitely be considered as one of the best FC players of all-time (averaging 71), however his test record does not appear worthy of such accolades:

1933-39: 6 tests, 460 runs @ 38.33 (1/2) HS 114

1946-51: 4 tests, 399 runs @ 66.50 (2/1) HS 154

Total: 10 tests, 859 runs @ 47.72 (3/3) HS 154

Surely, an average of 48 is not poor. Nothing special, but taking into consideration his first-class record and how he was rated by his contemporaries (Bradman, Bedser, etc really rated him, some rated him higher than Gavaskar) I think you can call him an all-time great. Nobody in this list besides Hutton is that special, maybe Walcott, possibly Barrington.

 

[Perm]

Walcott and Barrington aren't in this list, they are contenders for the #3 spot.

 

[aussie tragic]

Surely, an average of 48 is not poor. Nothing special, but taking into consideration his first-class record and how he was rated by his contemporaries (Bradman, Bedser, etc really rated him and some thought he was better than Gavaskar) I think you can call him an all-time great. Nobody in this list besides Hutton is that special, maybe Walcott, possibly Barrington.

Hey, wrong list as Walcott and Barrington are in the # 3 List

I know this thread is only about 1946-65 Records, however as Merchant doesn't qualify, I'll use overall stats for comparison. Accordingly, Simpson, Morris and Lawry can be rated above him as Test players IMO:

Simpson: 62 tests, 4869 runs @ 46.81 + 71 wkts
Lawry: 67 tests, 5234 runs @ 47.15
Morris: 46 tests, 3533 runs @ 46.48
Merchant: 10 tests, 859 runs @ 47.72

 

[adharcric]

My bad guys. I just think that Merchant would've gone on to average 50 or so if he had played for longer and gone down as an all-time great for sure. Even without that, he's in the top 50 but probably not in the top 25 IMO. Anyways, let's just agree to disagree ... you guys don't rate Merchant and I understand why.

 

[aussie tragic]

Anyways, let's just agree to disagree ... you guys don't rate Merchant and I understand why.

Actually, it's not that I don't rate him (I haven't checked, however I would think his FC average is 2nd only to Bradman), it's just that I don't understand why he only played 10 tests between 1933-51 if he was so good. Also, I'm not a big believer in "what could have been" when rating players.

Hey, maybe "the what could have been XI" is a good idea for another time

Vijay Merchant, Sid Barnes, Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Vinod Kambli, Clive Rice, [..............], Mike Procter, Peter Pollock, [............], [............]

 

[adharcric]

Actually, it's not that I don't rate him (I haven't checked, however I would think his FC average is 2nd only to Bradman), it's just that I don't understand why he only played 10 tests between 1933-51 if he was so good. Also, I'm not a big believer in "what could have been" when rating players.

Hey, maybe "the what could have been XI" is a good idea for another time

1. Vijay Merchant
2. Barry Richards
3. Graeme Pollock
4. etc........

I believe it was a combination of WWII, the Indian Independence Movement, illness and injuries at the worst times possible. He missed tours to Australia and South Africa (I think?) because of this. He did play plenty of first-class cricket in England though and he excelled there, which says that he didn't just feast on Indian wickets against Indian bowlers. I know he didn't do it in the test arena, but he really didn't have the opportunity. Today, if you don't do well in test cricket there's no way you can be rated highly ... back then, I don't think it was that black-and-white. In a way, this is similar to the "Lillee failed in Pakistan" case ... he didn't get more opportunities to right his record and people often decide not to be harsh on that blip on his record.

 

[C_C]

Why? He could definitely be considered as one of the best FC players of all-time (averaging 71), however his test record does not appear worthy of such accolades:

1933-39: 6 tests, 460 runs @ 38.33 (1/2) HS 114

1946-51: 4 tests, 399 runs @ 66.50 (2/1) HS 154

Total: 10 tests, 859 runs @ 47.72 (3/3) HS 154

You realise, you are talking in an era, where uh..color did play a HUGE role in performance ?
Why do people forget that, i dont understand.
Perhaps you should read the book 'Beyond the Boundary' from CLR James and some of Learie Constantine's works to realise how racially biassed umpring was until the 60s (hippie movement).
Open robberies on field.
Take that into account. You probably dont have an idea how horribly biassed the umpirings were in those days - players given caught out when shoulder-arming, noball called after stumps are re-arranged, etc etc.
Or so was the routine in the games involving colored sides.

 

[Matt79]

^ Not EVERY thread on this board has to be about race politics you know?

 

[C_C]

^ Not EVERY thread on this board has to be about race politics you know?

What i said- is that valid or not ?
If you think it isnt valid- you can always challenge what i said.
If you do think its valid, all these 'number comparisons' go right out of the window and have no credible basis whatsoever - for if those angles are considered, someone like Headley comes out way way in front of someone like Hammond or Hutton and someone like Hunte would be clearly ahead of someone like Morris.

 

[bagapath]

hutton is an automatic choice. i am going with morris to partner him. will be good to have a left right combination finally. also morris is supposed to be a good stroke maker and quick scoring will nicely compliment the the technically perfect style of hutton.

 

[Matt79]

What i said- is that valid or not ?
If you think it isnt valid- you can always challenge what i said.
If you do think its valid, all these 'number comparisons' go right out of the window and have no credible basis whatsoever - for if those angles are considered, someone like Headley comes out way way in front of someone like Hammond or Hutton and someone like Hunte would be clearly ahead of someone like Morris.

What I'm saying is that there are plenty of forums that are dedicated to politics, but this is a cricket forum, and I don't think I'm alone in being sick of how many threads in this forum end up getting mired in the topic of racial discrimination. If that is really ALL that you want to talk about, why not go do so on a political chat forum? The nice thing about sport is that it provides an opportunity for people to overcome differences and come together - this chat site is a wonderful example of that - I've had so many great conversations with people from all over the world and learnt a hell of a lot about Pakistani and Indian cricket in particular. Its a real downer that a few fanatics on both "sides" persist in attempting to drown out the positives with an excessive and unhealthy focus on the negatives.

 

[C_C]

Its a real downer that a few fanatics on both "sides" persist in attempting to drown out the positives with an excessive and unhealthy focus on the negatives.

Err- given the era you are talking about, it is a very valid concern. You dont see this argument being put forth in the post-neutral umpire days. But given the era you've picked, i think it is foolish and utterly meaningless to ignore realities such as what i've pointed out and simply go by the same standards and criterias as we do today.
I see no reason why this issue should be avoided simply because it is unpleasant- it is the truth afterall.
It is utterly ridiculous to do 'simple statistical comparison' from the 40s and 50s era- In those days, immigration was determined by color in many cases. You really think, that if person A isnt allowed to live in nation B, because of his skincolor, the umpires from nation B would apply the rules of cricket consistenty for team C from the same nation as person A ?

So, what is the credibility in simple statistical compariosn between say Arthur morris and Conrad Hunte ?
Whats the credibility when color made the result an almost foregone conclusion ?

As far as i am concerned, for a substantial portion of the time period identified in this thread, statistical comparisons are almost irrelevant to the undercurrent of categoric and open racism shown towards certain teams of color.
It is utterly ridiculous to hear ' yeah Morris had 47.7743 average, Hunte has 45.3223 average so Morris is better' .
To give you an idea , the Indians/West Indians had to bat nearly perfectly - ie, ANY ball that touches the pad = umpire might just give you out. The white teams could afford to feather catches and STILL get away with it. Where is the level field to make such comparisons on a statistical basis ?
Its not a question of focussing on the negetives - its about conviniently forgetting historical discrimination and injustices to a level many are reluctant to admit except for paying lip-service.
You cannot discuss pre-60s cricket without compensating for racism. As far as i am concerned, almost any colored player with say an average of 5-6 runs lower than a white counterpart is equal or superior one simply because of this factor.
Its absolutely nuts to do otherwise.

 

[Matt79]

I'm not saying discrimination didn't happen, but I find it hard to accept your argument given the number of batsmen with exceptional records the WIs produced in the era we're talking about - given their population and limited amount of time in the game: Headley, the Three W's, Hunte, Sobers. If they were being murdered in the way you suggest, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd all have such phenomenal records.

 

[C_C]

I'm not saying discrimination didn't happen, but I find it hard to accept your argument given the number of batsmen with exceptional records the WIs produced in the era we're talking about - given their population and limited amount of time in the game: Headley, the Three W's, Hunte, Sobers. If they were being murdered in the way you suggest, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd all have such phenomenal records.

Headley most definately got murdered that way in his later tours of England and his tour to Australia.
So did Worrell and Walcott.
Population is irrelevant to how good a team one can field- or else India would've owned everyone from day1.
And if you are not denying that it happened, what makes you doubt it ? That simply they have pretty decent/awesome records ?
Perhaps you cannot bring yourself to consider the possibility that these blokes were significantly better batsmen than their record reflects ? ( maybe not Sobers as much, given he played most of his cricket in the post 50s era)
If a batsman like Lara is being discriminated against, it aint gonna leave him with a record akin to Mike Gatting. But a David Gower ? very likely.
You cannot just turn a worldclass batsman into a courtney walsh with the bat on the strength of discrimination alone. But you sure can make him fall significantly behind his non-discriminated counterparts.
What you are saying makes no sense.
You agree that they faced discrimination, yet you are like 'but their record is so awesome'. Well, if they wernt discriminated against, their record would've been EVEN more awesome.
Walcott-Weekes in the 60+ average range, Worrel comfortably 50+, Hunte near or around 50, etc etc.

As i said, read 'Beyond the boundary' by CLR James. Its quite eye-opening.
From that era, a white player would have to be significantly ahead in the record books for me to consider him superior to a colored counterpart.
I see no logic in the alternative scenario ( simple mindless record-comparison).

 

[aussie tragic]

I know it's early, however I find it interesting that yet again we have one Opener that is considered miles ahead of the others (i.e. Hayden, Gavaskar & now Hutton).

I guess this shows a trend that there is only one "Great Opener" that comes along every 20-years (predict Phil Jaques for 2006-25 )

 

[adharcric]

I know it's early, however I find it interesting that yet again we have one Opener that is considered miles ahead of the others (i.e. Hayden, Gavaskar & now Hutton).

I guess this shows a trend that there is only one "Great Opener" that comes along every 20-years (predict Phil Jaques for 2006-25 )

This is totally random, but I don't think Hayden is anywhere close to the quality of Gavaskar and Hutton tbh.

 

[aussie tragic]

Len Hutton and *patriotic hat* Bert Sutcliffe

Now we know who to blame when Barlow, Hanif Moh'd, Morris, Simpson & Lawry all tie for 2nd

 

[shortpitched713]

Headley most definately got murdered that way in his later tours of England and his tour to Australia.
So did Worrell and Walcott.
Population is irrelevant to how good a team one can field- or else India would've owned everyone from day1.
And if you are not denying that it happened, what makes you doubt it ? That simply they have pretty decent/awesome records ?
Perhaps you cannot bring yourself to consider the possibility that these blokes were significantly better batsmen than their record reflects ? ( maybe not Sobers as much, given he played most of his cricket in the post 50s era)
If a batsman like Lara is being discriminated against, it aint gonna leave him with a record akin to Mike Gatting. But a David Gower ? very likely.
You cannot just turn a worldclass batsman into a courtney walsh with the bat on the strength of discrimination alone. But you sure can make him fall significantly behind his non-discriminated counterparts.
What you are saying makes no sense.
You agree that they faced discrimination, yet you are like 'but their record is so awesome'. Well, if they wernt discriminated against, their record would've been EVEN more awesome.
Walcott-Weekes in the 60+ average range, Worrel comfortably 50+, Hunte near or around 50, etc etc.

As i said, read 'Beyond the boundary' by CLR James. Its quite eye-opening.
From that era, a white player would have to be significantly ahead in the record books for me to consider him superior to a colored counterpart.
I see no logic in the alternative scenario ( simple mindless record-comparison).

You can't bring hypothetical racial discrimination into consideration for team selections. Just not proffesional IMO.

 

[C_C]

You can't bring hypothetical racial discrimination into consideration for team selections. Just not proffesional IMO.

Except for the given era,there wasnt anything 'hypothetical' about it.
It was categoric, out in the open etc etc.
Its just not professional to ignore the ground realities and blatant cases of artificial circumstances having an effect on a person's record.

 

[aussie tragic]

This is totally random, but I don't think Hayden is anywhere close to the quality of Gavaskar and Hutton tbh.

I *cough* disagree (just so that the openers for the Post-war XI are not decided already)