The all-time great alphabet teams: Alphabet Ashes, Part 3

Team B - Not sure why you think that Australia's tailend easily edge England's when four of the five have better records than their Australian counterparts. Mind you you I would put Johnny Briggs - a man with ten first class hundreds including a test century in ahead of Broad. Team M - If you were looking for another England bowler in order to promote Mynn you might consider allrounder Geoff Miller who had a decent test record taking 60 wickets (Av. 30) with his offspin. Team S - The England opener should be Herbert Sutcliffe. Bert Sutcliffe was a very fine NZ player. Given how close it is between your two top sides, perhaps England's secret weapon might be deployed in the form of George Simpson-Hayward the last lob bowler to play test cricket (23 wickets in 5 tests at 18.26). With the exception of Billy Murdoch it would take the other batsmen time to adjust to this type of bowling although I don't suppose it would take too long given the inventiveness of batsmen in the modern age.

That should of course be Trott not Noble.

I'd make some significant changes to the England H team. Out would go Hussein, Hicks, Humphries, Headley and probably Hendrick. In I would bring Tom Hayward, Joe Hardstaff Jnr, Warren Hegg, Ken Higgs and Eric Hollies to provide some legspin. Hayward was a giant of the Golden Age and a contempary of Clem Hill who became the second man after Grace to score a hundred hundreds. Joe Hardstaff's test career was limited by a falling out with the chairman of selectors but he averaged 46+ in his twenty tests. Like Humphreys, Hegg only played a handful of tests but his first class career record shows he was a much better batsman averaging 28 and scoring seven hundreds and fifty five fifties. Ken Higgs played 15 tests for England in the 1960's taking 71 wickets at 21.74 a record made more impressive in that they were almost all top five batsmen. As you point out there us no spinner in the England team so I have included Hollies who famously included the wicket of Bradman for nought in his final test innings among his 44 test victims (Av. 30). Hutton Av. 56.67 Hobbs 56.94 Hammond 58.45 Hayward 34.46 Hendren 47.63 Ha4dstaff Jnr 46.74 Hussey 51.52 Hayden 50.73 Harvey 48.41 Hill 39.21 Hassett 46.46 Hughes 37.41 Every England batsman has a better record than his Australian counterpart with the exception of Hayward and I would challenge your view that the two sides are evenly matched in this department. Clearly Australia hold an advantage in the wicketkeeping department but there is little to choose between the bowling lineups. I think this match up needs reassessing.

I can't agree with your assessment on the T teams, particularly regarding allrounders. Albert Noble only played in five test matches which is hardly enough to judge him as a fully test class all rounder. In his first class career he averaged just 19 with the bat. By contrast Maurice Tate (39 tests) had a batting average of 25 in both tests and first class cricket and unlike Trott had a higher first class batting average than bowling average which is usually regarded as the test of a quality allrounder. The Australian team has a very long tailend with the number six batsmen having a first class average of 19 and both Tallon and Trumble having poorer records than their opposite numbers. You give Tallon (Av, 17.13, 2 50's) the edge over Taylor (Av. 16.28, 3 50's) as a batsman but it is very marginal at best. Overall I think England just edge this one.

Agree ADRAD - it's essentially impossible to compare across eras Cricket, like almost all sports, is relational. It's bowler A bowling to batsman B in conditions C. It's not an absolute eg B is the best bowler in history A certain player may do well in a given circumstance but it's very hard to extrapolate. Does thriving on the dusty subcontinental decks compare to facing off against the WI attack fo the 80's or Larwood in the bodyline series? Uncovered pitches, seven day tests, balls per over, modern bats, helmets, roped off boundaries ... the list of changes is almost endless Some individual sports that have very stable conditions really open up to absolutes a lot more eg ten pin bowling, darts even snooker Anyway even if it might be impossible, it gives mugs like us something to talk about during the odd pandemic lockdown so I'm not complaining

Is there an implication that if you're born as eg. "N" surname then you're destined to be a mediocre cricketer? I'm changing my surname to start with B and buying a new bat

Depends who asking...

For me, England's S team sums up perfectly this series' beauty and fascination. How is it even possible to fairly compare champions of different eras ? Only with a Tardis. Perhaps the modern attack of Snow, Statham, Stokes and Swann would be better complemented by the 19th century's Alfred Shaw, than Ryan Sidebottom ? If the legendary Alfred Mynn (who died 21 years before the Ashes were created) can make the M team, maybe Shaw is also worth a punt ? Sidebottom was more of a fringe Test player, and white-ball specialist. He played 43 ODIs and T20Is, but in only 22 of the 116 Tests that England played over a 9-year period. And he didn't play a single Test against Australia, during his 17 years of first-class cricket. Shaw was initially a medium-paced seamer, who turned to spin as he aged. He bowled the first delivery in Test cricket, at the age of 35 to Charles Bannerman. His figures in that inaugural Test were 3/51 and 5/38, from 89.3 four-ball overs. He then played in 7 of cricket's first 8 Tests, 4 as captain, but more as tour manager/captain than bowler. WG Grace described him as England's finest bowler between 1872 and 1880. In 404 first-class matches during 1864-1897, he took 2,027 wickets at 12.12, with 177 five-fers. Two-thirds of his four- and five-ball overs were maidens. He bowled more overs than he conceded runs, or in today's terms an economy rate below 1.5 runs per over. His career batting average was higher than his bowling one, so arguably he meets the criteria for all-rounder status. Plus he led Notts to four consecutive County championships during 1883-1886, and arranged the first-ever British Lions rugby tour to Australia. Matth, a massive final thanks for the opportunity to participate in this forum. I hope that you've enjoyed it as much as your army of readers and contributors obviously has.

Did you use to play for Roseville in Shires?

Win the toss, bat first, and bat all day. A common call from the boundary to two team-mates in the middle, many many decades ago...

Hi All day - what's the meaning behind your name/ handle?

Gosh. Australia's pace battery of four great bowlers plus MacGill makes me lean toward them although in retrospect I think I've underestimated the English attack. Particularly Swann and Snow. Then there is Stokes. Easy to see why there is half a point in it. Can't stop staring at both teams. England's H team had an impressive batting line up. Another quality bowler and we could be singing a different tune.

Credit where credit's due, matth ! :thumbup: I've suggested maybe 1-2 changes, to 3-4 of the 46 teams ? You've done an amazing job. But next time, you'll definitely need a personal assistant to deal with the literally thousands of responses that you get !

You already spilt the beans in another comment. But to be honest I did stop and look at the B team with my intuition telling me something was different but I couldn't put my finger on it as I actually can't remember what the B team was as that article was about two months ago now.

I am not sure that even rates as mediocre!

Bill Brown wasn't it?

How do you think Hussey got in the Test team Brian?