Battle of the Australians: Bill Brown vs Hugh Trumble

[barmyarmy]

Taylor - No contest really although Clem Hill certainly sounds like a wonderful player.

 

[puddleduck]

I'm gonna go with Taylor, although I'll be honest it was a fairly tough one for me, I was tempted by Clem Hill, but I think Taylors excellent captaincy, and not the best reason but the fact I got to see him play a lot almost certainly influenced my decision.

Doesn't mean he is legend material. Legends need top have those tales, fables, that are told about them even centuries after they have played. Legends make those unbelievable match-winning performances. Didn't hear anything about Clem Hill.

So scoring 160 after an attack of influenza, and his 188 when Australia had fallen to 57-6 don't count? Fair enough you don't want to vote for him, I haven't either, but just because you haven't heard anything of him, doesn't stop him from being one of the legends of the Australian game.

 

[nightprowler10]

I disagree that it was a no contest. Clem Hill averaged just under 40 in an era when batting was not so easy and anything over 30 was considered pretty damn good. In any case 5-1 to Taylor.

Round 1: Battle 22

Norm O'Neill

Test: 42 matches, 2779 runs @ 45.55, 6 100s, 15 50s

vs

Bill Woodfull

Test: 35 matches, 2300 runs @ 46.00, 7 100s, 13 50s

 

[aussie1st]

Bill Woodfull less matches but scored more 100s and almost the same amount of 50s. Also better average.

 

[puddleduck]

I'm gonna go with Woodfull as well. The higher average and captaincy credentials I think swaying it.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

So scoring 160 after an attack of influenza, and his 188 when Australia had fallen to 57-6 don't count? Fair enough you don't want to vote for him, I haven't either, but just because you haven't heard anything of him, doesn't stop him from being one of the legends of the Australian game.

I didn't know that. And I even read over his profile. Must have not read closely enough

Woodfull here.

 

[nightprowler10]

Bill Woodfull for me as well for the reasons mentioned by aussie.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Bill Woodfull for me as well as I feel that he was the more reliable batsman (I read somewhere that he wasn't bowled in any match at any level for over a year which is quite some feat) besides excluding bodyline he won every series in which he was captain and he was also principal at the college that Keith Miller was taught at and therefore probably played some part in his development.

 

[RoboRocks]

Woodful for me too.
Better average and a good captian.

 

[nightprowler10]

Well my finals are over, so time for a new battle. 6-0 to Woodfull.


Round 1: Battle 23

Arthur Morris

Test: 46 matches, 3533 runs @ 46.48, 12 100s, 12 50s

vs

Ian Johnson

Test: 45 matches, 1000 runs @ 18.51, 6 50s | 109 wickets @ 29.19, 3 5-wicket hauls

 

[puddleduck]

This one's fairly tight I feel, I am going to actually give my vote to Johnson for his contribution to cricket after he finished playing as well as a fairly decent career on the field.

 

[plympilgrim]

i am going to say morris as i have heard of him, and heard about some of his batting in the ashes

 

[aussie1st]

Morris - 46 run average during his time is some feat.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Very tough.
Morris - outscired Bradman is a series, high average for the period, and 46 FC fifties and 46 FC hundreds. What a conversion rate.
Johonson - Fantastic offie when on form, captained, journalist, good for PR.
Hmm...
Can't choose between them really. But I'll go with Johonson, although it's like 50.001 to 49.999...

 

[Michaelf7777777]

I'm voting for Morris because he was a really good openning batsman who could bat well in all conditions as shown by the fact that he scored a century in his 1st 1st class innings in 4 different countries (Australia, England, South Africa and the West Indies). Bradman considered him the greatest left handed openner ever and he was also a handy left arm wrist spin bowler.