Knott's as good as Prior. Ames is a good alternative if you want a wk-batsman.if you're worried about englands lower order then you have to pick ames or dare i say it, prior over one of the superior gloveman.
two batsman of undoubted quality who greatly strengthen the batting.
Les Ames averaged 27.00 against Australia. Not overly exciting.if you're worried about englands lower order then you have to pick ames or dare i say it, prior over one of the superior gloveman.
two batsman of undoubted quality who greatly strengthen the batting.
True, but the runs he did score against Australia were against either Grimmett or O'Reilly or both. Ames scored thousands of runs at home in First Class against so many great bowlers.Les Ames averaged 27.00 against Australia. Not overly exciting.
Ames did average 58.57 against NZ, but during the 1930s I'm not overly excited about that either. Especially as Cowie didn't feature during his 2 centuries.
the other one was better imoMy intuition is to leave Botham out, play an ATG batsman at 6, and be happy with 4 front line bowlers plus Dexter/Hammond who actually weren't that bad. If you had the likes of Hadlee coming in at No.8 after Knott/Ames then that might swing things in favour of picking Botham. But with Verity or Larwood being the best tailenders (unless you pick Tate), then 6 to 11 looks quite vulnerable over all. In recent years we've seen the value of lower order runs, but with most of the above England XIs we are looking at a probable collapse once 5 or 6 wickets are down.
But because Botham is such an icon you are completely going against the cricketing zeitgeist if you leave him out of any England XI. And understandably so.
If I were to rethink then my team might be;
12. Watson's XI
01. Jack Hobbs
02. Len Hutton
03. Ted Dexter
04. Peter May
05. Walter Hammond
06. Denis Compton
07. Alan Knott
08. Hedley Verity
09. Alec Bedser
10. John Snow
11. Fred Trueman
Better balanced?
That's a good reason to play Botham at No.6 and give the attack extra depth.The question of Botham, like Thomson for Australia, is whether you're picking "peak player" or "whole test career". After 50 tests Botham was averaging almost 37 with the bat and just under 23 with the ball.
When I put him in these sides, I tend to think I'm picking the slim, fit, Botham who could swing it late both ways at genuine pace, not the peroxided, big bellied medium pacer he became.
With Botham, Knott, Trueman and Barnes in the latter half of the batting order you almost have to pick Verity and Larwood at 8 & 9 to shore-up the tail. If you pick Underwood and Willis for example, then a final 4 of Trueman-Underwood-Barnes-Willis would be unacceptably weak.Interesting and slightly surprising to see neither Willis or Anderson in any of the sides. I don't think I would pick them either but I do think they belong in the discussion. For me 9 names come quite easily with my only doubt being Barrington. I can see the logic of leaving out Botham but really he just has to be in it. Grace would be an automatic choice if we were not just talking Test cricket.
Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Barnes
That leaves two spots. One to a spinner, although I suppose you could just go with Barnes but it would seem a bit strange not to have another one. Don't really have strong opinions on who it should be, any of Laker, Vertiy or Underwood. Probably Laker but I might personally side with Verity.
Then there are loads of candidates for the last spot. Most people seem to go with Larwood and I can easily go along with that but I do think Anderson and Willis are real contenders, hell maybe even Broad in a couple of years. I suppose you have to think about who is number 8 so one of those last two places needs taking by someone who was decent with the bat.
But if someone feels all of Trueman, Larwood, Barnes, and Snow are better bowlers than Botham (not to mention Bedser), then having six batsmen and four bowlers with Hammond serving as the 5th bowler may yield a better team.If you have a man with over 5000 runs, 14 centuries and 383 wickets you pick him and build around it not scratch around wondering if he should get in. Of course the last 5 years were pants, but when people name Muhammad Ali as the greatest ever boxer they're not referring to the shuffling wreck that fought Holmes and Berbick.