Now this is probably going to be the hardest part, deciding the number 4 batsmen in the team. I've decided that my choices are between George Headley, Graeme Pollock, Everton Weekes, Ken Barrington, Wally Hammond, Sachin Tendulkar, Clyde Walcott, Dudley Nourse and Viv Richards.
Lets take a look at the 8 players, I've got choose who is the best from:
George Headley 2190 runs at 60.83 Refined: 2183 runs at 60.64 Graeme Pollock 2256 runs at 60.97 Refined: 2223 runs at 60.08 Everton Weekes 4455 runs at 58.61 Refined: 4348 runs at 57.21 Ken Barrington 6806 runs at 58.67 Refined: 6496 runs at 56.00 Wally Hammond 7249 runs at 58.45 Refined: 7175 runs at 57.86 Sachin Tendulkar 8870 runs at 58.07 Refined: 8565 runs at 56.72 Clyde Walcott 3798 runs at 56.68 Refined: 3675 runs at 54.85 Dudley Nourse 2960 runs at 53.81 Refined: 2797 runs at 50.85 Viv Richards 8540 runs at 50.23 Refined: 8469 runs at 49.81
George Headley is hard to look past. He is an absolutely great cricketer, and unfortunately he had the times against him, and only played in 22 tests. He still managed to average just above of 60, to accompany his 69 average in FC cricket. Also in his favour was that he played in a depleted team and constantly had to come up against the best attacks, without ever getting to face his own. Strong all round the wicket, and widely considered the best after Bradman. Average in excess of 70 batting at number 3 in the line-up. Only average 37.33 against Australia, who were the best at the time in which he played.
Greame Pollock's best was never seen due to South Africa being thrown out because of the apartheid. Bradman describes him as the best left-hander he seen. A very good player on the off side, he was good against both Australia and England, and at either venue. In front of Headley due to the fact that he was good against any team and we missed his best years because of the apartheid. Also strengthening his claim is that he is a specialist number 4, which would be his position in the team given Bradman is guaranteed number 3.
Everton Weekes is one of the most damaging batsmen the game has seen once he gets going, often capitalizing on his tones with even bigger scores. He also scored tons more often than most, averaging a ton every 5.40 innings, which is better than all except Bradman, Sutcliffe, Walcott and maybe a couple of others. His biggest problem is that he doesn't average 50, against either England or Australia (who he averages 39.66 against), with his average boosted significantly by his performances against India (in particularly), New Zealand and Pakistan. I think based on that reason Weekes will be ruled out of this team, because his ability to be against the best can be questioned.
Ken Barrington had a simple strategy to the game - sound defence, and punish the bad balls. A top back foot player, but he sometimes scored slowly, which is to his detriment. However, his best ability was the fact he would rise to the occasion. He was at his best against Australia, while he struggled against the Windies. I've still put him below Pollock and Headley, mainly because of the fact he could let the bowlers get on top of him, which even if it doesn't create pressure on himself, it does create pressure on the other batsmen, who would try to make up for their partners slow scoring. Was a very useful leg break bowler.
Wally Hammond would've been given more credit had he not played in the same era as Bradman. A great average, and was more often than not at his best. Was good against all teams, however his average does get slightly boosted by the fact he averages 112 from 9 matches against New Zealand. Still averaged above 50 v Australia. Also a very useful medium pace bowler. Perhaps though, his biggest detriment was that his averaged suffered immensely (more so then most) when his team lost, which tends to make me think he couldn't handle it when the pressure was on. Still below Pollock, who has his hands on the number 4 batting position.
Sachin Tendulkar has a great pedigree, included being branded the best since Bradman, by Bradman himself. Tendulkar is often criticised for not being able to perform against the best consistently but he does average 54 against Australia including a 46 average in Australia. He does tend to struggle against South Africa, although in South Africa he is good, while Pakistan have the wood on him, but he's only played 7 tests v Pakistan. Can bowl a bit, however he probably wouldn't be used in this team that already has 6 bowlers. Even more so in his favour, is the fact his average 58 or more for the past 6 calendar years, and that he is only going to get stronger. At the moment though, he is still below Pollock, but that may change in the future.
Clyde Walcott was one of the most sound technical batsmen ever, able to hit any ball to the boundary, with a vast array of strokes. He was superb against all teams, however he did struggle in Australia and England. Had a terrific period between in 1953-1958 where he averaged above 70 in those years. Average 41.56 in losing teams, which is marginally behind Nourse to be second best in losing teams from this group (8th best overall). So far is the biggest challenger for Pollock, and a more in-depth investigation between these two will take place later.
Arthur Nourse doesn't have the average of some of the others, but then he was always playing against the best. His average within a losing team of 41.59 is the best of any of the 9 on the list, which is definitely one quality of a player that always appeals a selector of a team. Also a specialist number 4 batsmen which is another good attribute because he is vying for the number 4 spot in this team. Nourse was also never seen at his best due to WWII not playing between the ages of 28 (1939) and 37 (1948). Perhaps his biggest detriment though is his inconsistency, having 4 ordinary years (averaging under 40) out of his 9 years participating in test years. He is one of the biggest challengers yet to Pollock (along with Walcott and Headley), mainly because he was constantly against the best, and played more often than not in a losing team, yet still averaged so high.
Viv Richards may not have the near-60 average that most of the other guys have, but he is often regarded as the most entertaining batsmen and attacking batsmen ever. This perhaps, is why he didn't have such a high average, because of his willingness to put team above individual. His quick scoring, would often take the pressure off the other batsmen. However, he tended to have "off-periods" in his career, only averaging above 50 in 8 of his 18 test years, whilst averaging below 40 in 8 of the years, which means he has no middle ground - he was either as good as anyone, or struggled. Was a good bowler, but Pollock still has the wood.
I'll take Nourse out, however, and have narrowed my selection down to between Headley, Pollock and Walcott.
Now looking at the 3 against the best (Australia and England) it does pretty much disqualify Walcott from the calculations as he averages in the high 40's while the others are averaging in the low 60's, however, when Walcott wasn't keeping his average was 58 against those 2 teams, so maybe it the pressures of keeping that kept him from scoring runs. I think though, the Walcott is a step down from the other 2 and I'm going to go for Pollock, because of his attacking style and one other factor is that he is left handed.
So the team now looks like:
Herb Sutcliffe (England)
Len Hutton (England)
Don Bradman (Australia)
Graeme Pollock (South Africa)
Gary Sobers (West Indies)
Adam Gilchrist (Australia) - wicketkeeper
Imran Khan (Pakistan) or Keith Miller (Australia)
---------
Malcolm Marshall (West Indies)
---------
---------