Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by vezpe » Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:20:13


It's difficult if not impossiable to select an all time World X1 from
differnt era's,however,it's not so hard for a alphabetic(A-Z) World
eleven X1 from all era's.
I know some of you have done this before but it's fun to doit again,
For those who are exposed to it for the first time may find it to be a
lots of hours of fun and may want to try other 'letters', I'm selecting
just two , The letters 'W' and 'B', and I have justified my selection,

Geoff  Boycott
Boycott was a great accumulator of runs in English cricket for 15 years,
He was a controversial figure,misunderstood by many, and often accused
of playing selfishly. As a bat, he was capable of playing most strokes,
but emphasized defence, often scoring slowly and taking on a sheet
anchor role. He was dropped by England following his highest test
innings of 246*, due to slow scoring in the intial stages of the
innings. Despite this he played many match saving or winning
innings, and was the best English batsman of his generation. . (David
Liverman, Jan 1998)

David Boon
Quite possibly Tasmania's all-time favourite cricketing son, David Boon
was a pugnacious right handed batsman who served
his state and country with enormous distinction. He was not always the
most stylish player but for what he lacked in fluency he
more than compensated with his ardour for occupying the crease and
accumulating runs when they were most needed.

Don Bradman
Probably the best batsman to have played the modern game he was a
relentless accumulator of runs, often at a rapid rate. His
test record was such that he needed to score only 4 in his last test
innings to average 100- he was bowled by Eric Hollies
second ball for a duck. He took few risks, but was proficient with all
strokes. His best scoring stroke was probably the pull,
played all along the ground in the arc from mid on to backward square
leg. He was an excellent field, particularly in the covers,
and a capable leg-break bowler. He made 19 hundreds against England
between 1928 and 1948, inlcluding two triple centuries
 and 6 double centuries. He was Australia's captain between 1936 and
1948, during which time his side won 11 tests, to
 England's 3. He kept the Ashes through 4 series. (David Liverman, Jan
1998)

Allan Border
Allan Border is one of cricket's greatest players. A feisty competitor,
His record is brilliant: 156 Tests, 11174 runs, an average above 50.56.
He scored more Test fifties than any player in history and only two
players have scored more hundreds. As a batsman, Border became renowned
for his fighting qualities, His slow orthodox left arm bowling was
underrated, and perhaps under used, as in the right conditions he was
capable of bothering the best batsman. In fact, he holds the record for
the best Test match bowling analysis for an Australian captain, 11-96
(7-46 and 4-50), which he took against the West Indies at the SCG in
1989.

Ken Barrington
Ken Barrington was a tenacious right handed batsman, with an aptitude of
scoring runs when the conditions were most difficult.
His method was based on a very solid defence, and stready accumulation
of runs, although he was a powerful hitter.  Reliable no 5. Had all the
strokes but strongest in defense, and sometimes a slow scorer.
Pre***ly a backfoot player.  Died whilst on tour in the West Indies
whilst managing the England team.  (David Liverman, Jan 1998)

Ian Botham
Ian Botham was the single undoubted world class player in the England
sides of the 1980's, whose ability to turn the course of a
game with either bat or ball was best seen in the 1982 series against
Australia, where he in effect won two matches single handed.
He was an aggressive fast medium bowler, able to swing the ball away
from the batsman, and obtain movement off the pitch. He
was capable of scoring runs quickly against any attack, driving and
hooking with enormous power. He took chances, hitting the ball
in the air often, but his strength allowed even mishits to clear the
field. He was also an exceptional fielder in any position. "He bats
the way small boys dream of batting, with his shoulders opened wide
whenever he decides to hit, with great swings and sweeps of
his blade that sends the ball bounding past fieldsmen who can only stand
and gape.      (David Liverman, Jan 1998)

Jack Blackham ,Wicket keeper

By virtue of his capacities as a wicketkeeper in the very early days of
Australian first class cricket, Jack Blackham is widely
reputed to be one of the finest cricketers that his nation has ever
produced. In an era in which the flimsy texture of wicketkeeping
gloves provided little protection from the consistent pounding of balls
into a wearer's hands, Blackham displayed extraordinary
skill and it is said that he rarely failed to seize an opportunity to
effect a dismissal in his position behind the wicket. He was so
competent in fact that he was regarded as Australia's first choice
wicketkeeper for a period of no less than eigh*** years, occupying the
role right from the time of his country's first ever Test in 1877.
Unlike many of his peers or those who have followed him, Blackham was
just as happy to stand up to the stumps to pace bowlers as he was to
spinners. He was also a stubborn batsman in the lower order, and played
many valuable innings. Of these, the 74 that he made against England in
Sydney in 1894-85 stands out statistically, for it was both his own
highest score and allowed him to form an association with
Syd Gregory that delivered Australia what still remains its all time
record partnership for the ninth wicket.
As a reflection of the extent of his ability, Blackham was named by
Wisden as one of its Cricketers of the Year in 1891. More
recently, he was honoured by being selected as one of the inaugural
members of the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame. (John
Polack)

Alec Bedser
A stalwart of England and Surrey for many years, Alec Bedser was a fine
fast- medium bowler, with ability to move the ball in the
air, and off the pitch. He obtained many wickets through his steady and
accurate bowling, but in the right conditions could be
almost unplayable. He was much over-bowled in the England teams of the
late 40's and early 50's, as the only world class bowler
in the side. He bowled superbly in the 1953 series against Australia (39

England's recovery of the Ashes following the Bradman years. He could
bat usefully at times, making on one occasion 70+ after
coming in as a night-watchman against Australia. Was part of one of the
great Test finishes of all time, when he and Gladwin
 scored 8 runs of the last over to beat South Africa by one wicket in
1948. He lost 6 years due to WWII (he and his twin Eric were
 21 on the outbreak of war). He later served as chairman of the England
selectors for many years. (David and John Liverman, Jan

Briggs Johnny
Ultimately a tragic figure, Johnny Briggs was a left arm bowler of
classical style, with a looping flight, subtle spin, and considerable
 accuracy. Almost unplayable on wet wickets D his 2212 first class
wickets costing only 16 runs apiece D he was also effective in
less helpful conditions. He came into the Lancashire side as a dashing
bat, with a sizzling cover drive, but in later years it was his
bowling that kept him a first choice for England, as his batting
suffered from impetuousness. He was a superb fielder, both to his
 own bowling, and at cover point. He toured Australia on six consecutive
occasions, and in 1888-89 took 300 wickets at less than 5
 runs each on a tour of South Africa. HS Altham wrote "With his round
but resilient figure, his quips and pranks and generous heart,
 Johnny Briggs was immensely popular wherever he went, and as long as he
was on the field the game was sure to be alive and
 human". His career ended when after being hit over the heart by a drive
from Tom Hayward, he suffered an epileptic seizure during
 the 1899 Headingley Test against Australia. This brought on mental
illness that resulted in a complete loss of confidence, and he
was confined to an asylum eventually ending his days there. It is said
that he would bowl up and down the wards, a sad end for a
 much loved and talented cricketer (Dave Liverman, 1998).

Barnes S.F
The finest bowler ever to play the game? Possibly, certainly one of the
most effective and versatile. His county and international
career (only 27 tests) were sadly brief, due to disputes with the
establishment, but Barnes was capable of troubling the best
 batsmen in the world on a good wicket, and was unplayable on a bad
wicket. He was a high class spin bowler, but operated at
 pace. Right arm medium or fast medium bowler, leg breaks, off breaks,
late swing, perfect length, and often dismissed great
 batsmen for small scores with unplayable balls. Could bowl very fast if
it suited him to do so. A ball with which he bowled Trumper
 was described by Charlie Macartney, the non-striker as the sort of ball
a sick man might see in a dream, fast on the leg stump,
 moving late in the air to the off stump, and cutting on off the pich to
take the leg stump out of the ground. Not impressed by
captains, he usually set his own field. He allegedly deliberately let
Jessop hit him all over Old Trafford as Maclaren had set what he
  considered an unacceptable field for him. In the second test of the
1911-12 series at Melbourne, Barnes produced one of the great
  bowling spells. After a poor performance in the first Test (likely in
part due to his annoyance at not opening the bowling), he
  destroyed the Australian innings. He took 5 of the first six wickets
to fall, with an analysis at one point of 4 for 1, later 5 for 6 runs.
  He and his opening partner, Foster, took 66 wickets in the five tests
of this tour, against an Australian side boasting Trumper,
 Armstrong, and Hill. A competent bat, but not really interested in
batting or fielding. He did, however, put on 29 runs for the last
  wicket with Arthur Fielder to win the
...

read more »

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Stephen Devau » Sat, 02 Sep 2000 04:50:18

Quote:

> It's difficult if not impossiable to select an all time World X1 from
> differnt era's,however,it's not so hard for a alphabetic(A-Z) World
> eleven X1 from all era's.
> I know some of you have done this before but it's fun to doit again,
> For those who are exposed to it for the first time may find it to be a
> lots of hours of fun and may want to try other 'letters', I'm selecting
> just two , The letters 'W' and 'B', and I have justified my selection,

(Snip)

Quote:
> W vs B

> Worell,Frank          Boycott Geoff
> Woodfull,Bill         Boon, Dean
> Weeks,Everton         Bradman,Don
> Walcott,Clyde         Barrington,Ken
> Walters,Doug          Border,Allan
> Waugh,Steve           Botham,Ian
> Waite,John WK(RSA)    Blackman,Jack(Aus)WK
> Wasim Akram           Bedser,Alec(Eng)
> Warne,Shane           Blythe,Charlie(Eng)
> Waqar Younis          Briggs,Johnny(Eng)
> Walsh,Courtney        Barnes,S.F (Eng)
> Waugh,Mark(12th)      Benaud,Richie 12th man

For the W's:

Not much argument here, except I might prefer to have a real opener
instead of Worrell.  In that case, I'd use Cyril Washbrook to open and
bat Worrell in Walters' spot.

Interestingly, when Graveney picked the "W" team in 1982 in Tom
Graveney's Top Ten Cricket Book, he felt it was one of the strongest
"letter" teams because of its batting.  Yet five great new W players
have come along since: all four bowlers plus SWaugh.  Graveney's bowling
choices of Wardle, Willis, Max Walker and Doug Wright would give the W
team tremendous bowling depth.    

For the B's:

Botham batting at #6 seems a bit odd, a bit Flintioakish.  I'd probably
want a better batsman there.  Basil Butcher would be my choice (indeed,
I'm not sure he wouldn't belong in the team ahead of Boonie!).

If I wanted a bowler, chances are I'd take either Benaud or Bedi.

And if I *really* wanted a Botham-type player, I'd take Trevor Bailey.

But it's actually your choice of Twelfth Man here that seems all wrong
-- it's just gotta be Colin Bland!

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan
--
http://www.totalprojectcontrol.com/

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Mad Hami » Sat, 02 Sep 2000 06:08:09

Quote:

>David Boon
>Quite possibly Tasmania's all-time favourite cricketing son, David Boon
>was a pugnacious right handed batsman who served
>his state and country with enormous distinction. He was not always the
>most stylish player but for what he lacked in fluency he
>more than compensated with his ardour for occupying the crease and
>accumulating runs when they were most needed.
>Woodfull,Bill         Boon, Dean

???

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Mike Holman » Sat, 02 Sep 2000 07:38:42



Quote:
>For the B's:

>Botham batting at #6 seems a bit odd, a bit Flintioakish.  I'd probably
>want a better batsman there.  Basil Butcher would be my choice (indeed,
>I'm not sure he wouldn't belong in the team ahead of Boonie!).

>If I wanted a bowler, chances are I'd take either Benaud or Bedi.

>And if I *really* wanted a Botham-type player, I'd take Trevor Bailey.

Why on earth would you take Bailey over Botham in what is clearly
supposed to be a batting all-rounder's spot? (In this selection - I'm
not suggesting that that is always what a number six is for.) Bailey was
a more *economical* bowler, though not necessarily as aggressive, but
otherwise I can't see what advantages he offers over Botham.

I'd say, though, that Botham as a bat at six in this line-up is
defensible. Apart from Bradman, of course, which sort of makes all bets
off, you have Boycott, Boon, Border, and Barrington, four of the most
stodgy batsmen cricket has seen. Ignoring Bradman, none of these have
the ability to turn a match in an hour or two of hitting. If you want to
argue that Basil Butcher was quite capable of that, thank you very much,
then I defer to your judgement, as Butcher is but a name to me, and I
don't think statistics can tell me anything about this sort of question,
so I can't do a Mad Hamish and decide the thing mathematically, old
feller-me-statrat.

The B XI is full of Bores. You could admire the clinical excellence of
their play for days on end, and would probably be given the opportunity,
as they would bat for weeks. And their bowling is of unrelieved
seriousness, miserly, accurate and damned difficult to score off.

Botham would give the team some verve and e***ment and
unpredictability. With so many Mr Reliables about, I think you can
afford a 0 or 100, 5-23 or 1-132 guy: his failures with the bat probably
won't matter all that much, and you've got quite enough bowlers to take
him off if he bowls rubbish, but his inspirational performances could
take the team to heights they'd otherwise only dream of.

Quote:
>But it's actually your choice of Twelfth Man here that seems all wrong
>-- it's just gotta be Colin Bland!

Absolutely.

Cheers,

Mike
--
"I'm a little confused here." - Ashes

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Stephen Devau » Sat, 02 Sep 2000 22:28:23

Quote:



> >For the B's:

> >Botham batting at #6 seems a bit odd, a bit Flintioakish.  I'd probably
> >want a better batsman there.  Basil Butcher would be my choice (indeed,
> >I'm not sure he wouldn't belong in the team ahead of Boonie!).

> >If I wanted a bowler, chances are I'd take either Benaud or Bedi.

> >And if I *really* wanted a Botham-type player, I'd take Trevor Bailey.

> Why on earth would you take Bailey over Botham in what is clearly
> supposed to be a batting all-rounder's spot? (In this selection - I'm
> not suggesting that that is always what a number six is for.) Bailey was
> a more *economical* bowler, though not necessarily as aggressive, but
> otherwise I can't see what advantages he offers over Botham.

> I'd say, though, that Botham as a bat at six in this line-up is
> defensible. Apart from Bradman, of course, which sort of makes all bets
> off, you have Boycott, Boon, Border, and Barrington, four of the most
> stodgy batsmen cricket has seen. Ignoring Bradman, none of these have
> the ability to turn a match in an hour or two of hitting. If you want to
> argue that Basil Butcher was quite capable of that, thank you very much,
> then I defer to your judgement, as Butcher is but a name to me, and I
> don't think statistics can tell me anything about this sort of question,
> so I can't do a Mad Hamish and decide the thing mathematically, old
> feller-me-statrat.

For Basil Butcher, think Poor Man's Steve Waugh.  Not as good a batsman,
obviously, but (1) capable of batting stylishly, or curbing his natural
inclination and getting very valuable runs; (2) played lots of important
innings while those about him collapsed; (3) tough to get out,
especially in the second innings.  In a lineup of Hunte, Kanhai, Sobers,
and Worrell/Nurse/Lloyd, he was easy to overlook: but his 133 out of 229
in the 2d innings at Lord's in '63 saved WI and set up the exciting
finish; his 209* in the 2d innings at Old Trafford in '66 when WI were
90 behind on 1st innings turned the match and led to WI taking a 2-0
lead in the series; his 118 in the 2d innings at Adelaide in '69 left WI
a whisker from (perhaps temporarily) knotting the series 2-2 when
Sheehan and Connolly barely hung on for a draw with the last wicket.  In
his last Test, at Headingley in '69, he topscored in both innings, his
2d innings 91 being not quite enough as WI fell 31 short of the 303
needed to tie the series (Sobers got a duck, Fredericks 6 and Lloyd
23).    

Quote:
> The B XI is full of Bores. You could admire the clinical excellence of
> their play for days on end, and would probably be given the opportunity,
> as they would bat for weeks. And their bowling is of unrelieved
> seriousness, miserly, accurate and damned difficult to score off.

> Botham would give the team some verve and e***ment and
> unpredictability. With so many Mr Reliables about, I think you can
> afford a 0 or 100, 5-23 or 1-132 guy: his failures with the bat probably
> won't matter all that much, and you've got quite enough bowlers to take
> him off if he bowls rubbish, but his inspirational performances could
> take the team to heights they'd otherwise only dream of.

I take your point, especially re Trevor Bailey.  I'd still rather
Butcher for that XI, though.

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan
--
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by vezpe » Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:04:09



Quote:

> >David Boon
> >Quite possibly Tasmania's all-time favourite cricketing son, David
Boon
> >was a pugnacious right handed batsman who served
> >his state and country with enormous distinction. He was not always
the
> >most stylish player but for what he lacked in fluency he
> >more than compensated with his ardour for occupying the crease and
> >accumulating runs when they were most needed.
> >Woodfull,Bill         Boon, Dean

> ???

 I see,,how about
Ajit Wadekar for Woodfull
and Eddie Barlow for Boon David/Dean
and forget about the***up... oops can I say that?

--
cheers
Peter
' i don't like cricket , I LOVE IT'...

Sent via Deja.com http://SportToday.org/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by vezpe » Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:26:22



Quote:


Devaux

> > >For the B's:

> > >Botham batting at #6 seems a bit odd, a bit Flintioakish.  I'd
probably
> > >want a better batsman there.  Basil Butcher would be my choice
(indeed,
> > >I'm not sure he wouldn't belong in the team ahead of Boonie!).

> > >If I wanted a bowler, chances are I'd take either Benaud or Bedi.

> > >And if I *really* wanted a Botham-type player, I'd take Trevor
Bailey.

> > Why on earth would you take Bailey over Botham in what is clearly
> > supposed to be a batting all-rounder's spot? (In this selection -
I'm
> > not suggesting that that is always what a number six is for.) Bailey
was
> > a more *economical* bowler, though not necessarily as aggressive,
but
> > otherwise I can't see what advantages he offers over Botham.

> > I'd say, though, that Botham as a bat at six in this line-up is
> > defensible. Apart from Bradman, of course, which sort of makes all
bets
> > off, you have Boycott, Boon, Border, and Barrington, four of the
most
> > stodgy batsmen cricket has seen. Ignoring Bradman, none of these
have
> > the ability to turn a match in an hour or two of hitting. If you
want to
> > argue that Basil Butcher was quite capable of that, thank you very
much,
> > then I defer to your judgement, as Butcher is but a name to me, and
I
> > don't think statistics can tell me anything about this sort of
question,
> > so I can't do a Mad Hamish and decide the thing mathematically, old
> > feller-me-statrat.

> For Basil Butcher, think Poor Man's Steve Waugh.  Not as good a
batsman,
> obviously, but (1) capable of batting stylishly, or curbing his
natural
> inclination and getting very valuable runs; (2) played lots of
important
> innings while those about him collapsed; (3) tough to get out,
> especially in the second innings.  In a lineup of Hunte, Kanhai,
Sobers,
> and Worrell/Nurse/Lloyd, he was easy to overlook: but his 133 out of
229
> in the 2d innings at Lord's in '63 saved WI and set up the exciting
> finish; his 209* in the 2d innings at Old Trafford in '66 when WI were
> 90 behind on 1st innings turned the match and led to WI taking a 2-0
> lead in the series; his 118 in the 2d innings at Adelaide in '69 left
WI
> a whisker from (perhaps temporarily) knotting the series 2-2 when
> Sheehan and Connolly barely hung on for a draw with the last wicket.
In
> his last Test, at Headingley in '69, he topscored in both innings, his
> 2d innings 91 being not quite enough as WI fell 31 short of the 303
> needed to tie the series (Sobers got a duck, Fredericks 6 and Lloyd
> 23).

> > The B XI is full of Bores. You could admire the clinical excellence
of
> > their play for days on end, and would probably be given the
opportunity,
> > as they would bat for weeks. And their bowling is of unrelieved
> > seriousness, miserly, accurate and damned difficult to score off.

> > Botham would give the team some verve and e***ment and
> > unpredictability. With so many Mr Reliables about, I think you can
> > afford a 0 or 100, 5-23 or 1-132 guy: his failures with the bat
probably
> > won't matter all that much, and you've got quite enough bowlers to
take
> > him off if he bowls rubbish, but his inspirational performances
could
> > take the team to heights they'd otherwise only dream of.

> I take your point, especially re Trevor Bailey.  I'd still rather
> Butcher for that XI, though.

I'm big fan of Eddie Barlow, and have always picked him, not only for
his e***ment but also for his bowling,not that this side needs any
more bowlers but his performance at Lords in 1970 still lingers in my
mind, 4 wickets in 5 balls including hartrick
so,,, replace Boon with Barlow

--
cheers
peter
' i don't like cricket , I LOVE IT'...

Sent via Deja.com http://SportToday.org/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Mike Holman » Sun, 03 Sep 2000 09:57:43



Quote:

>For Basil Butcher, think Poor Man's Steve Waugh.  
<snip>

>> Botham would give the team some verve and e***ment and
>> unpredictability. With so many Mr Reliables about, I think you can
>> afford a 0 or 100, 5-23 or 1-132 guy: his failures with the bat probably
>> won't matter all that much, and you've got quite enough bowlers to take
>> him off if he bowls rubbish, but his inspirational performances could
>> take the team to heights they'd otherwise only dream of.

>I take your point, especially re Trevor Bailey.  I'd still rather
>Butcher for that XI, though.

Matter of taste, then, innit?

But how about:

Hobbs
Hutton (c)
Headley
Hammond
Howarth
Harvey
Healy (k)
Hadlee
Holding
Hayward
Hearne

I realise Howarth's a bit elevated, but think of the openers who've been
left out: Haynes and Hanif Mohammad. I'd love to include Hanif at 6 and
promote Harvey, as he did make 203* v NZ in one of the nine innings he
batted there. John Hall may have opinions about whether Hearne and
Hayward were natural ten-jacks, or whether Holding should go to 11. Of
course, you could argue that there should be a place for a Hollioake in
this team of all the talents.

Cheers,

Mike
--
"I'm a little confused here." - Ashes

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Yuk Tan » Sun, 03 Sep 2000 14:53:16

Quote:

>But how about:

>Hobbs
>Hutton (c)
>Headley

^^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:
>Hammond
>Howarth
>Harvey

^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:
>Healy (k)
>Hadlee
>Holding
>Hayward

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:
>Hearne

Dunno about Hollioake, but what are Dean, Ian and Nantie doing here? :-)

Cheers, ymt.

PS. Would Holmans be the team mascot? :-) :-)

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by zito.. » Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:04:57



Quote:


> >But how about:

> >Hobbs
> >Hutton (c)
> >Headley
> ^^^^^^^^^^^

> >Hammond
> >Howarth
> >Harvey
> ^^^^^^^^^^

> >Healy (k)
> >Hadlee
> >Holding
> >Hayward
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^

> >Hearne

> Dunno about Hollioake, but what are Dean, Ian and Nantie doing here?

:-)

Don't know but I suspected that you were taking the mickey out
of Mike...OTOH, Headley in this case is George Alphonso, grandfather of
Dean and known to all all as "Atlas"; Harvey is the great Australian
Robert Neil Harvey (and not my professor Harvey!) and Hayward is
obviously not Nantie of South Africa but someone else whose first name
escaped my brain cells...

Cheers
Zito.

Quote:
> Cheers, ymt.

> PS. Would Holmans be the team mascot? :-) :-)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by John Hal » Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:59:50



Quote:
>But how about:

>Hobbs
>Hutton (c)
>Headley
>Hammond
>Howarth
>Harvey
>Healy (k)
>Hadlee
>Holding
>Hayward
>Hearne

>I realise Howarth's a bit elevated,

Why not choose Patsy Hendren - Test average 47?

Quote:
> but think of the openers who've been
>left out: Haynes and Hanif Mohammad. I'd love to include Hanif at 6 and
>promote Harvey, as he did make 203* v NZ in one of the nine innings he
>batted there. John Hall may have opinions about whether Hearne and
>Hayward were natural ten-jacks, or whether Holding should go to 11.

I don't think JT Hearne had any pretensions as a batsman. I'm puzzled as
to who you mean by Hayward. It can't be Tom Hayward, who made over 100
f-c centuries as an opener.
--
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Mike Holman » Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:46:35



Quote:


>Why not choose Patsy Hendren - Test average 47?

Because I'd forgotten about him. I remembered in the middle of the
night, but trusted you to correct my error.

Quote:

>> but think of the openers who've been
>>left out: Haynes and Hanif Mohammad. I'd love to include Hanif at 6 and
>>promote Harvey, as he did make 203* v NZ in one of the nine innings he
>>batted there. John Hall may have opinions about whether Hearne and
>>Hayward were natural ten-jacks, or whether Holding should go to 11.

>I don't think JT Hearne had any pretensions as a batsman. I'm puzzled as
>to who you mean by Hayward. It can't be Tom Hayward, who made over 100
>f-c centuries as an opener.

Another brainstorm.

Oh well. So that's another class opener we've got to leave out - I mean,
how can you surpass Hobbs and Hutton?

Anyway, I'd been hoping I could get Schofield Haigh in instead.

So we get:

Hobbs
Hutton (c)
Headley
Hammond
Hendren
Harvey
Healy (k)
Hadlee
Haigh
Holding
Hearne

I'll put that team up against anyone. Come on the H's.

Cheers,

Mike H

--
"I'm a little confused here." - Ashes

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Stephen Devau » Mon, 04 Sep 2000 01:35:04

Quote:





> >Why not choose Patsy Hendren - Test average 47?

> Because I'd forgotten about him. I remembered in the middle of the
> night, but trusted you to correct my error.

> >> but think of the openers who've been
> >>left out: Haynes and Hanif Mohammad. I'd love to include Hanif at 6 and
> >>promote Harvey, as he did make 203* v NZ in one of the nine innings he
> >>batted there. John Hall may have opinions about whether Hearne and
> >>Hayward were natural ten-jacks, or whether Holding should go to 11.

> >I don't think JT Hearne had any pretensions as a batsman. I'm puzzled as
> >to who you mean by Hayward. It can't be Tom Hayward, who made over 100
> >f-c centuries as an opener.

> Another brainstorm.

> Oh well. So that's another class opener we've got to leave out - I mean,
> how can you surpass Hobbs and Hutton?

IMO, you're leaving out a better opener than Haynes, too:  Conrad Hunte.

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan
--
http://www.totalprojectcontrol.com/

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by John Hal » Mon, 04 Sep 2000 01:06:36



Quote:
>So we get:

>Hobbs
>Hutton (c)
>Headley
>Hammond
>Hendren
>Harvey
>Healy (k)
>Hadlee
>Haigh
>Holding
>Hearne

Certainly a very good side. One other omission that has occurred to me
is Wes Hall.

Quote:

>I'll put that team up against anyone. Come on the H's.

Absolutely. They're my side too, of course.
--
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

 
 
 

Elven'Ws' playing an 'B'XI

Post by Yuk Tan » Mon, 04 Sep 2000 06:19:37

Quote:




>> >But how about:
>>............
>> >Headley
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>............
>> >Harvey
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>...........
>> >Hayward
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>...........
>> Dunno about Hollioake, but what are Dean, Ian and Nantie doing here?
>:-)

>Don't know but I suspected that you were taking the mickey out
>of Mike...OTOH, Headley in this case is George Alphonso, grandfather of
>Dean and known to all all as "Atlas"; Harvey is the great Australian
>Robert Neil Harvey (and not my professor Harvey!) and Hayward is
>obviously not Nantie of South Africa but someone else whose first name
>escaped my brain cells...

I know, hence the smiley.  I think that Hayward is Tom, who played in the
early C20, and possibly a contemporary of Wilfred Rhodes and George Gunn,
and others of that period.  I think he was a line-and-length medium pacer.

Cheers, ymt.