Playing selector: Lets pick the best test XI of different eras

[oz_fan]

thanks oz fan for finishing off the job. logged in after a long time and saw you had run this poll. i had a busy last three months and could not be part of this forum at all. but the good thing about my schedule was i missed most of this stupid world cup. i see aussie-tragic has also not been around for a long time.

will be stuck with my work for some more time. hope someone runs a pre-war XI poll combining this team with the 1919 - 1939 team. and then select an all time XI using that pre-war XI and the post war XI we already have.

having re-started this, why dont you do it oz-fan, if you can?

Yeah I think I will. I'll try to start the combined pre-1940 team within the next couple of days.

 

[Matt79]

Just noticed this

 

[JBH001]

I hope you are not saying anything bad about Archie Mac

He certainly has a strange rep: some players rated him the best captain they played under and others rated him the worst, lets just remember 1921

I dont know about that, afaik he was not a good captain, and it came as a relief to many of his players when Jacker took over the captaincy for the 1905 Ashes tour.

In any case, his captaincy record against Australia is woeful.

 

[JBH001]

"My God! Look what they've sent me!" - Archie Mac upon seeing the team that the England selectors had given him for the 1902 Test Match at Old Trafford.

Not to mention, (from memory) "if we go down, at least we'll take that bugger Barnes down with us" - said about S F Barnes during a rough sea crossing to Australia.

Though tbf, Barnes was notoriously difficult, and iirc, it had been AM who had first picked Barnes out of some nets, to play for England (a la Wasim and Javed/Imran).

 

[neville cardus]

As a side-note, wasn't it MacLaren who wrote The Perfect Batsman, a biography on Jack Hobbs?

Barnes was indeed a difficult character. In the first Test of the 1901/02 series, Australia found itself on three for one in response to England's 464 when Trumper pushed back a Barnes slower delivery. The bowler caught it casually, one-handed, provoking a rebuke from captain MacLaren.

"Well," Barnes protested, "I caught it, didn't I?"

That is probably a rather poor example of Barnes's stubborn nature, but it's the only one in which MacLaren was involved that sprung immediately to mind. Roland Perry, whom I seem to be quoting quite a lot lately, passes this judgement on their relationship: "MacLaren, an amateur, was one of the few men in the cricket establishment who knew how to handle this dark, brooding figure. There would be no forelock-tugging or 'sorry sir' from this straight-backed Staffordshirian."

 

[archie mac]

I dont know about that, afaik he was not a good captain, and it came as a relief to many of his players when Jacker took over the captaincy for the 1905 Ashes tour.

In any case, his captaincy record against Australia is woeful.

Fred Tate (if anyone would be unhappy you would think it would be him) said AM the best captain he ever played under

I have a bio of AM will look up some more quotes like this when I unpack

 

[oz_fan]

Here are the stats for the combined pre 1940 team. The only players listed are those who have been selected for either the pre 1914 team or the 1920-1940 team. The stats are from their performances pre 1940.

Openers
Batsman Mat Inn NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50
Jack Hobbs - 61 102 7 5410 211 187 187 56.94 15 28
Herb Sutcliffe - 54 84 9 4555 194 176 161 60.73 16 23
WG Grace - 22 36 2 1098 170 152 75* 32.29 2 5
Victor Trumper - 48 89 8 3163 214* 185* 166 39.04 8 13

Batsmen
Batsman Mat Inn NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50
Don Bradman - 37 57 5 5093 334 304 299* 97.94 21 8
Wally Hammond - 77 127 15 6883 336* 251 240 61.45 22 22
George Headley - 19 35 3 2135 270* 223 176 66.71 10 5
Stan McCabe - 39 62 5 2748 232 189* 187* 48.21 6 13
Ranji - 15 26 4 989 175 154* 93* 44.95 2 6
Stanley Jackson - 20 33 4 1415 144* 128 118 48.79 5 6
Clem Hill - 49 89 2 3412 191 188 160 39.21 7 19

Wicketkeepers
W/Keeper Matches Runs HS Average 100 50 Ct St Dis/T
Les Ames - 47 2434 149 40.56 8 7 6 74 23 2.06
Jack Blackham - 35 800 74 15.68 0 4 37 24 1.74

Allrounders
All Rounder Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w
Aubrey Faulkner - 24 1717 204 41.87 4 8 82 7/84 25.52 4
Wilfred Rhodes - 47 1965 179 32.21 2 10 105 8/68 24.90 6

Bowlers
Bowler mat wkts bbi bbm ave econ sr 5w 10w Wkt/Test
Harold Larwood - 21 78 6/32 10/124 28.35 2.67 63.7 4 1 3.715
Bill Voce - 24 97 7/70 11/149 26.04 2.58 60.3 3 2 4.042
Clarrie Grimmett - 37 216 7/40 14/199 24.21 2.16 67.1 21 7
Bill O'Reilly - 26 136 7/54 11/129 23.68 1.95 72.8 10 3 5.231
Fred Spofforth - 18 94 7/44 14/90 18.41 2.48 44.52 7 4 5.222
Sydney Barnes - 27 189 9/103 17/159 16.43 2.36 41.65 24 7 7
George Lohmann - 18 112 9/28 15/45 10.75 1.89 34.11 9 5 6.222

 

[neville cardus]

Fred Tate (if anyone would be unhappy you would think it would be him) said AM the best captain he ever played under

Is it not true to say that the English selectors were embroiled in something of a feud with MacLaren at the time, never certain that he would not tamper with the sides that they gave him? I understand that the selectors had concluded that Tate was such a doubtful selection for the Manchester Test Match that they were sure that not even Archie Mac would put him in the starting eleven. They intended, therefore, for Tate to be the twelfth man, thus guaranteeing the other eleven of their places.

On making his final decision on the morning of the match, however, MacLaren aired his thoughts about Tate's inclusion: "Martin [Lord Hawke] chose Fred Tate for a wet wicket - and it will rain!" Thus, MacLaren, in a show of defiant petulance, included Tate in the starting eleven, leaving out George Hirst. The rest, to borrow a well-worn cliche, is history.

 

[archie mac]

Is it not true to say that the English selectors were embroiled in something of a feud with MacLaren at the time, never certain that he would not tamper with the sides that they gave him? I understand that the selectors had concluded that Tate was such a doubtful selection for the Manchester Test Match that they were sure that not even Archie Mac would put him in the starting eleven. They intended, therefore, for Tate to be the twelfth man, thus guaranteeing the other eleven of their places.

On making his final decision on the morning of the match, however, MacLaren aired his thoughts about Tate's inclusion: "Martin [Lord Hawke] chose Fred Tate for a wet wicket - and it will rain!" Thus, MacLaren, in a show of defiant petulance, included Tate in the starting eleven, leaving out George Hirst. The rest, to borrow a well-worn cliche, is history.

True, Hawke had with held his Yorkshire stars throghout the season, in this game Archie Mac decided to protest by choosing Tate, and England lost by three runs

 

[neville cardus]

Thanks for that, Archie. As a Test series, that of 1902 has to be my favourite - followed closely by "Stoddy's Mission" of 1894/95.

 

[archie mac]

Thanks for that, Archie. As a Test series, that of 1902 has to be my favourite - followed closely by "Stoddy's Mission" of 1894/95.

Right with you mate

 

[oz_fan]

Voting has begun for the 1877-1940 Test XI. So far the openers have been chosen. The opening bowlers can be chosen here. Here's what the team will look like when complete.

1. Hobbs
2. Sutcliffe
3. One of Bradman, Hammond, Headley, McCabe, Ranji, Jackson and Hill.
4. Runners up of # 3
5. Runners up of # 4
6. Runners up of # 5 and the allrounders
7. Wicketkeeper
8. Final Bowler (chosen from runners up to spin bowlers, opening bowlers and the allrounders)
9. Spin Bowler
10. Fred Spofforth (currently 2nd place)
11. Sydney Barnes (currently leading)

I'll try to have the poll for the wicketkeeper and # 3 batsman up by tomorrow.

 

[Matt79]

Looking good thus far...

 

[chaminda_00]

Do you need a vote for No 3, can't Bradman just be penciled in?

 

[Matt79]

I know a couple of people who are likely to vote for Headley ahead of the Don...

 

[neville cardus]

I must pronounce my horror in finding that the voting for the opening pair went ahead without my knowledge! For the record, my romantic intuition would have had me giving Sutcliffe's berth to W.G..

Anyway, congratulations on this project; it is, surely, the way in which it ought to be done. I shall definitely be paying far more attention in future.

 

[Matt79]

Question: can Trumper be included in the poll for #4, or #5? He played a fair proportion of his innings at 5 IIRC, at an average that was better than his opening ave...

 

[chaminda_00]

Question: can Trumper be included in the poll for #4, or #5? He played a fair proportion of his innings at 5 IIRC, at an average that was better than his opening ave...

I thought all the runner ups in the opener battle were included in the other battle, unless they got smashed or got no votes. WG Grace battle a fair bit down the order, as well as being a handy all rounder.

 

[neville cardus]

I am very pleased to see you saying that, Chaminda. What is an all-time eleven devoid of our magisterial doctor?

 

[chaminda_00]

I am very pleased to see you saying that, Chaminda. What is an all-time eleven devoid of our magisterial doctor?

Not sure if he would make it into the final XI TBH, most posters prefer stats over reputation. But should probably be in a couple more votes, as he played different roles in playing days, rather then just a opening batsmen. He might have made his era side down the order or as all rounder if he wasn't selected as opening batsmen.

EDIT: Actually looking at his stats he didn't bowl much in Test Cricket and only batted once outside the opener position (once at No 7).