Post-00 ODI XI that I'd enjoy seeing play:
Post-00 ODI XI that I'd enjoy seeing play:
All Time England XIs by Era
John Small snr
19th Century Pre Test
Lord Frederick Beauclerk
Pre WWI Test Era
Post War to 1969
1970 to 1999
Last edited by a massive zebra; 09-08-2014 at 05:18 PM.
THE ULTIMATE CRICKET WEB ARCADE EGGS CHAMPION
RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1990-2006
RIP Craig Walsh (AKA "Craig"), 1985-2012
Sidebottom ahead of Hoggard, Jones and Harmison?
England 1990-present day.
Last edited by ImpatientLime; 09-08-2014 at 04:09 PM.
I reckon I'd find a spot for Frank Woolley in the inter-war side, probably over Mead (who was more of an opener anyway, wasn't he?) and I'd have Voce, Farnes and Allen all ahead of Bowes.
Your first post-war team looks to be short a quick - Statham instead of Wardle?
And yeah, a bunch of guys over Sidebottom.
Grace should surely be in the pre-test side.
Jardine or Paynter for Mead...
Washbrook for Cowdrey, and Tyson/Statham for Wardle.
The 70-99 side has too long a tail. How about Greig-Botham-Knott-Underwood-Snow-Willis
Also never quite sure whether Bowes was better than Farnes or not.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm just explaining why I am right.
No one who saw Philip Mead bat will ever forget him. At the fall of Hampshire's second wicket he would emerge from the pavilion with a peculiar rolling gait, his sloping shoulders, wide hips and heavy, bowed legs giving him the bottom-heavy appearance of those lead-based, won't-fall-down dolls of our childhood.
So I think Mead was a number 4. The obit is a good read, so good I've changed my mind and am happy to keep Mead in that side ahead of Jardine and Paynter.
England had some pretty prolific batsmen in that era - a second xi top 6 is Woolley, Russell, Tyldesley, Jardine, Paynter, Hardstaff jr.
superb effort a massive zebra! but why cowdrey over washbrook as opener?
After reviewing every book/stat/opinion that has ever been made and completely disregarding them, I have come up with:
1. Jack HOBBS
2. Sunil GAVASKAR
3. Donald BRADMAN
4. Kumar SANGAKKARA
5. Brian LARA
6. Garry SOBERS
7. Adam GILCHRIST
8. Shane WARNE
9. Malcolm MARSHALL
10. Curtly AMBROSE
11. Glenn MCGRATH
Hey, I forgot George Gunn for the pre WWI era. Should replace Hayward surely!
I'm pleased to see my selections have incited interest and proved worthy of discussion.
Farnes and Allen were certainly quicker bowlers than Bowes, but I would generally favour the latter due to his greater consistency. I might grant you Farnes on a greentop or Allen if we wanted to add some some batting depth.
I don't see an imbalance in the bowling options of the first post war team. England generally played two spinners in the 1950s and were the most successful side of the decade. Remember the game played in the decades following the war was different to modern cricket, not least because of the presence of wet wickets. If you want to add some pace to the side, I would prefer the selection of Tyson over Bedser, but the Surrey man led the England attack successfully for a much longer period.
Yes, there are several modern bowlers who have had longer England careers than Sidebottom. But in my opinion, he was a much more skillful and canny bowler than many England regulars (including Steve Harmison), and if England had been coaching by anyone without an obsession with raw pace, he would have had a much longer and highly successful England career.
I'm glad you have changed your mind on Mead.
I've already expressed my view on the bowling options of the first Post War team. In my opinion, your views are blinkered by using modern bowling conditions to select a team from two generations ago.
Re the 1970-99 team, I suppose the team looks much more balanced with Greig than Gough. With this change, we probably do gain more batting depth than we lose in bowling penetration. If this team were behind in a series, I think Gough should come in to give them the best chance of bowling the opposition out twice. Otherwise, Greig it is.
In the era in question, Washbrook made just over 2,500 runs at 42 with 6 centuries while Cowdrey made over 7,000 runs at 46 with 22 centuries, including significant experience as an opener. Yes, stats are certainly not everything, but in this case they do suggest Cowdrey was a clear level above Washbrook as a Test batsman. Care to explain your preference for Washbrook? His successful partnership with Hutton?
Last edited by a massive zebra; 10-08-2014 at 07:58 AM.
If averages are anything to go by then Hutton and Washbrook formed one of the most successful opening partnerships in history. For example, there have been only 4 opening partnerships who have put together more than 2000 runs and averaged 60 or more at the same time.
Plus Washbrook played between 1937 and 1956 so he would have played many of his Test matches against Lindwall and Miller at their peak.
Hobbs & Sutcliffe
Hobbs & Rhodes
Simpson & Lawry
Hutton & Washbrook
Hayden & Langer
Gooch & Boycott
Greenidge & Haynes
Last edited by watson; 10-08-2014 at 05:34 AM.
I tend to think picking someone just because someone else in his side was also a good player is rather silly, tbh.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)