Pete, I heard that Fred ate more banana's therefore was stronger than Davidson so Davidson was at a statistical disadvantage as there weren't strength oscillographs to measure this back then.

We're definitely going round in circles now. I think FST v AKD has at last run its course (after the Editor ended the first debate prematurely for some unknown reason back in January).

I'm wrestling with the 1945 - 1965 best of team (its a handy period in that post WW2 can be neatly divided into 3 20 year spans).

I have made the proviso that any contenders must also have played after the end of 1950.

Either 4 quicks or 2 spinners to play.

Hutton
Mankad (Simpson if 4 quicks are playing)
Sobers
Worrell
Weekes
Walcott or Barrington
Davidson
Lindwall
Grout
Trueman
Laker
Miller (for Walcott or Barrington on a fast pitch)


A lot of great players missing (Bedser, Compton, Harvey, Hazare, Hanif, Hall, Fazal, Tayfield, Gupte, Benaud, Evans, Waite, May, Cowdrey, Tamhane, Statham....).

quote:

Originally posted by HCC2005:

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
If it's legitimate to exclude runs scored by the likes of Kallis or Hayden against joke opposition, it's legitimate to do the same to Fred Trueman.

Modern Zimbabwe = joke opposition.

According to this thread, Hanif Mohammed was also joke opposition!

I'm not saying those teams were minnows in the Zimbabwe sense, though India in England may have gone close in the 1950s.

But in comparing Trueman and Davidson's careers it is important to recognise that Trueman played a lot more weak opposition.

Rhino -

Doing that for the 500-odd wickets they both took would take hours... if this thread's still running on Sunday afternoon I'll think about it.

But I'm on uni holidays and going out in an hour. So not right now!

Weekes? Mankad? Come on, TYA.

Hutton
Hanif
Sobers
May
Compton
*Worrell
Miller
Davidson
Benaud
+Grout
Trueman
Laker

Depending on conditions, one of May, Benaud or Laker could be left out.

Of course, if Bradman's 1945-48 appearances count, that changes things a bit.

I prefer Leo's side and might replicate it, except like Bradman I would prefer Lindwall to Trueman. Benaud gets the nod over Gupte because of his allround skill.

I approve of Compton over Weekes or Barrington.

I'm not surprised Leo goes for Grout as a fellow Queenslander, but I am a bit that tya does as well. He is my choice, too, although Waite was probably almost as good and a much better batsman. Wally was wonderfully safe, though, and a magnificent character.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
Weekes? Mankad? Come on, TYA.

Hutton
Hanif
Sobers
May
Compton
*Worrell
Miller
Davidson
Benaud
+Grout
Trueman
Laker

Depending on conditions, one of May, Benaud or Laker could be left out.

Of course, if Bradman's 1945-48 appearances count, that changes things a bit.

Mankad was selected as an allrounder. By reputation he was in the same class as Gupte (though his figures weren't so good) as a tweaker from the right handers legs. I would take Simpson over Hanif as a replacement.

Weekes is nowadays generally underated. He was not a FTB.

Barrington was certainly better than May and more dependable than Compton (though Comnpton would be in the team you'd love to watch).

If Miller is batting at 7 he is playing instead of a specialist bowler. Peterg, I can see some reason for rating Lindwall ahead of Trueman (though i would disagree) but there is absolutely no justification for rating Miller a better bowler than FST.

1964 was the year that i became a cricket critic (aged 8) rather than just a fan. My Father taught me why Grout was doing all the right things a keeper should do. He told me why he was better than Parks and the legendary Evans (who i never saw of course). Nostalgia may be part of it but of all the keepers I have seen only Knott and Taylor rate above Grout. Healy, Kirani and Wasim Bari not far behind ( I still have hopes for Taibu).

I think one or two Queenslanders even think Grout was better than Tallon.

The thing that disturbs me about Tallon is the extremely high number of byes he conceded. They can't all have been erratic deliveries by Miller. When Saggers took over in one match in 1948 the tally was far lower.

Generally you get a sense of the reliability of keepers. i was too young for Tallon, and I'm sure memory deceives me when i say I can't recall a dropped catch by Grout, but he will always be the keeper in my dream team.

Knott is, in my best team, but mainly for the batting icing on the keeping cake.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
I think one or two Queenslanders even think Grout was better than Tallon.

The thing that disturbs me about Tallon is the extremely high number of byes he conceded. They can't all have been erratic deliveries by Miller. When Saggers took over in one match in 1948 the tally was far lower.

Generally you get a sense of the reliability of keepers. i was too young for Tallon, and I'm sure memory deceives me when i say I can't recall a dropped catch by Grout, but he will always be the keeper in my dream team.

Knott is, in my best team, but mainly for the batting icing on the keeping cake.

The batting angle to Wicket Keepers is an important distraction. It is why I end up with Ames although there have been 10 or so better keepers.

My father bracketed Tallon with Evans as being too flashy by half. Bradman liked Tallon but this may have been in line with his loyal pride in the 1948 team.

Its interesting that pre-WW2 keepers tended to allow more byes than later glovemen. I'm trying to find time to build the stats on this but there are too many distractions.

Oldfield, Duckworth, Strudwick and Ames certainly allowed more than a modern keeper would like. Equipment would be one factor (putting slabs of meat inside the glove would hardly make things easier). Keepers, i think, tended to stand up to medium/fast bowlers more than nowadays (eg. st Ames b Hammond). Also there seem to have been a tendency to have the odd 'shocker' which may be to do with the uncovered pitches.

Anyway, more on this when i get some spare time.

Likewise the far greater proportion of pre WW II stumpings.

The byes and stumpings might go together.
A good spinner - especially a wrist spinner with a decent wrong 'un - can beat everything.
And, especially if he can deceive in flight, he can lure a batsman helplessly.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
I prefer Leo's side and might replicate it, except like Bradman I would prefer Lindwall to Trueman. Benaud gets the nod over Gupte because of his allround skill.

Please tell me you don't rate Miller ahead of Trueman.

I think you are right regarding Benaud/Gupte. Its interesting that neither liked to bowl in England. Both were just before my time, what is your opinion from a purely bowling perspective?

I rate Trueman ahead of Miller as a bowler, especially as a Strike bowler in the manner you have stressed, and even more so in England.

I wonder whether Hutton would have, though.
he thought Miller was the bowler who gave him the greatest difficulty, although he wasn't his best. Actually, Ive read different versions of him giving that palm to Trueman and Lindwall.

There's also the point about batting, as there is with keepers. Miller, Davidson, even Lindwall, were much better batsmen than FST, useful though he undeniably was. If you have Sobers already in the top six to roll his arm usefully over, and you're playing for your life, you might feel like extra runs down the list.

I saw a lot of Benaud, Gupte never.

I'm impressed by a fair bit of expert opinion, not least by Sobers, who gave it to Gupte. I know that Benaud had far better fielding support close to the bat - Simpson, Harvey, Davidson, would still be magnificent. Benaud in his great period always had Davidson, Gupte after Mankad had virtually noone.

On the other hand, Gupte seems - perhaps understandbly in the light of the above - to have had less stomach for the fight than, say, Kumble so clearly has.

Benaud had a brief period of bowling greatness. he had moments - in the WI in 1955 - but did not really crack it until in India on the way back from 1956. From there until early 1961 he was a great spinner, except Worrell's side knocked him about a bit.

After that he stuffed his shoulder and was never as good. He still had enormous guile, and I think he bowled a succession of wrong un's in a state game, in62-63, at great cost in pain and inconvenience, just to convince England he could still do it. After which he mostly didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
I rate Trueman ahead of Miller as a bowler, especially as a Strike bowler in the manner you have stressed, and even more so in England.

I wonder whether Hutton would have, though.
he thought Miller was the bowler who gave him the greatest difficulty, although he wasn't his best. Actually, Ive read different versions of him giving that palm to Trueman and Lindwall.

There's also the point about batting, as there is with keepers. Miller, Davidson, even Lindwall, were much better batsmen than FST, useful though he undeniably was. If you have Sobers already in the top six to roll his arm usefully over, and you're playing for your life, you might feel like extra runs down the list.

I don't suppose Hutton faced Trueman too often.

With Sobers, Davidson and Lindwall (and maybe Mankad) in the team the all rounder positions are faily well taken.

I'm going to have to ask for some justification of that assessment of Weekes.

His record isn't quite as brutally embarrassing as Clyde Walcott's, but he certainly was a different batsman against pie-throwers on the Caribbean pancakes of that period than against real opposition anywhere else. He had one decent tour against a very weak English attack in 1950, apart from that... I can't rate him Peter May's equal.

Barrington... maybe he could replace May, though I don't like leaving PBH out. A lot of reasons to think he was better than his raw stats would indicate.

Interesting point I've just noticed - May averaged 57 in England and 36 abroad, though almost everyone agrees conditions were tougher for batting in England in this period.

Bizarre. Something to do with his health - didn't like touring?

May had a tough time on his first tour as captain in SA, although he never appeared out of form and made heaps of runs in provincial FC games before the series began.

He was sick in the West Indies on his last tour.

A curious thing about him is that he made 13 Test hundreds but was often dismissed soon after reaching the target. Only his enormous 285* was above his debut 138. Of course that very big innings being at home rather than overseas explains a big part of the disparity.

May was regarded as the best batsman in the world in the late 1950's, and is pretty universally held to be the finest purely post war batsman England has produced.
I'd want him.

You missed out his second tour as captain, to Australia in 1958-9 when one of the strongest sides England had ever put into the field was beaten 4-0 by a relatively moderate Australian side, Benaud, Harvey and Davidson apart, with May scoring one of only two centuries in the Test series (Cowdrey scored the other). He received enormous criticism on that tour for bringing out his fiancee, Virginia Gilligan, daughter of Arthur, the inter-war Sussex and England captain in the days when cricket tours were expected to be monastic affairs. He rapidly lost his appetite for the game after this.

I think May's career was ruined by having to follow in the footsteps of Len Hutton as England captain in 1955 (he didn't follow Stuart Surridge as Surrey captain until 1957). Ioften wonder how he might have progressed had someone like Trevor Bailey succeeded Hutton instead. He was probably the most outstanding schoolboy cricketer of his generation (at Charterhouse) and the most gifted university cricketer of his time (at Cambridge) in an era when batting talent was not in short supply so the burden to perform at both f/c and Test level must have been enormous. He was reputedly one of the fiercest cover drivers in cricketing history, between Gilbert Jessop and Viv Richards, leaving fielders wringing their hands in merely stopping the ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
I'm going to have to ask for some justification of that assessment of Weekes.

His record isn't quite as brutally embarrassing as Clyde Walcott's...

brutally embarrassing records??

I assume this is based on the fact that they both failed in the only series they in played in Australia. Its hardly fair to judge on the basis of so little opportunity, or does failing in Australia - even if its only once - mean that no matter what is achieved elsewhere, a player is useless?

Its probably a shame that the WIndies didn't tour Aus again in the 50s so they would have had a chance to correct the record which i have no doubt they would have done. Everything i've read about Walcott and (especially) Weekes has suggested true greatness with magnificent technique and brutal power. For example Wisden in 1951 said:

"Weekes possessed in full measure those gifts which are the hall-mark of all really great batsmen--exceptional quickness of eye and foot--so that he always had more than average time to make his strokes. Correct and sound in defence, he was extremely punishing in attack, and showed special strength in strokes off the back foot. Despite his short stature, strong forearms and wrists enabled Weekes to cut, pull and drive tremendously hard, and seldom did he lift the ball. Many bowlers must have been astonished at the speed with which the ball hurtled straight back past him from a typical back-foot drive, and he also drove past cover most effectively off the back foot. He dealt summarily with any short leg-side balls with a fierce and well-controlled mid-wicket pull, and rarely hit the ball to square-leg or finer. Perhaps the most attractive of Weekes' strokes, and his own favourite, was the square cut, which he made with remarkable power and, on a fast and true pitch, often with great daring"

His average in England suffered in his 2nd tour as he carried a debilitating illess and had a broken finger. He should not have played (and probably wouldn't had the WIndies had a more successful tour).

Of Walcott Wisden in 1958 said:
"Standing six feet two inches and turning the scales at fifteen stone (now he is slightly heavier), Walcott has a commanding presence on and off the field. Modest and quietly spoken, he remains completely unspoiled despite all the publicity he has received for his wonderful achievements. His powerful physique enables him to drive with tremendous force. He has a peerless off-drive and a dazzling square cut, and is no less adept with the pull and hook, so that on his day he is rarely lost for a stroke"

His reptation was so high that Wisden was determined to include him as one of the 5 cricketers of the year (even though his form in 1957 didn't justify it) as they had not had room to include him in 1951.

Walcott averaged 69 on the Windian pancakes and 40 elsewhere. Weekes it was 69 and 49. For Worrell, 55 and 45.

Weekes at least had a good tour of England in 1950. Walcott played one substantial innings in a meaningless situation - apart from that he was shocking. In 1957 it was the same again - one innings of substance, on a flat track. Weekes was of course unwell on the 1957 tour as we know.

Various people on here like to bash Matt Hayden for 'only' averaging 43 overseas, 20 less than his home average. How about 29 less than your home average?

Walcott is the only rival to Graeme Smith I've seen for the title of all-time FTB.

I'll grant you Weekes may be comparable to Peter May, though I still favour the Englishman myself. But not Walcott.

quote:

He received enormous criticism on that tour for bringing out his fiancee, Virginia Gilligan, daughter of Arthur, the inter-war Sussex and England captain in the days when cricket tours were expected to be monastic affairs.

I thought Virginia was Harold Gilligan's daughter.

When dealing with great players like Davidson and Trueman you can't prove one is better than the other, only state you're opinion.

It's not like comparing Andrew Symonds to Keith Miller where only a fool would think Symonds is a better all rounder.

quote:

Originally posted by Wide Wally:

quote:

He received enormous criticism on that tour for bringing out his fiancee, Virginia Gilligan, daughter of Arthur, the inter-war Sussex and England captain in the days when cricket tours were expected to be monastic affairs.

I thought Virginia was Harold Gilligan's daughter.

As usual, Wally, you thought perfectly correctly. I thought I might have made a mistake at the time but was just too lazy to check and made a (wrong!) guess. Mrs May was the niece of Arthur and daughter of Harold, who also captained Sussex and England in New Zealand's inaugural Test series in 1930 (Arthur had captained England on the Ashes tour of 1924-5) making Peter related (by marriage) to not one but two previous England skippers. Many apologies, but it just proves that nothing gets past our Wally.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:
Walcott averaged 69 on the Windian pancakes and 40 elsewhere. Weekes it was 69 and 49. For Worrell, 55 and 45.

Weekes at least had a good tour of England in 1950. Walcott played one substantial innings in a meaningless situation - apart from that he was shocking. In 1957 it was the same again - one innings of substance, on a flat track. Weekes was of course unwell on the 1957 tour as we know.

Various people on here like to bash Matt Hayden for 'only' averaging 43 overseas, 20 less than his home average. How about 29 less than your home average?

Walcott is the only rival to Graeme Smith I've seen for the title of all-time FTB.

I'll grant you Weekes may be comparable to Peter May, though I still favour the Englishman myself. But not Walcott.

A player doing better at home than away is worth considering but seems to have assumed an exagerated importance of late. In fact I think the whole FTB thing is rather exagerated - Graeme Smith's two magnificent doubles against England in 2003 were not the work of a FTB for instance.

Walcott's achievements against all comers in the West Indies are sufficient to establish him as an all time great. If you disqualify him on the basis of his relatively poor performance away