England’s best-ever Test XI – ECB survey

[trundler]

Don't forget Gilchrist

Fmd. Gilchrist is really the first lock in after Bradman.

 

[a massive zebra]

I'm not sure how larwoods missed games played out.

That low % Larwood played vs weak teams may have been him out injured, being dropped for that series, him not bothering to play, something related to finances, or some sort of rotational policy with selectors. He gets a free pass on the last two in my book, but drops in my estimation on any of the others.

I think it was more that in those days England chose to play experimental or second string sides against lesser teams because they wanted to trial younger or lesser players at the international level and were confident they could win without fielding a full strength side. In those 30 matches against weaker teams, no frontline bowler played more than 12 matches. Ewart Astil played 9, Greville Stevens played 7, Maurice Allom played 5, Nigel Haig played 4, Fred Barratt played 5. Although Larwood only played 6, I am certain none of these guys were considered superior to the great Notts bowler at any point in this period.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al1=span;team=1;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Bolo]

I think it was more that in those days England chose to play experimental or second string sides against lesser teams because they wanted to trial younger or lesser players at the international level and were confident they could win without fielding a full strength side. In those 30 matches against weaker teams, no frontline bowler played more than 12 matches. Ewart Astil played 9, Greville Stevens played 7, Maurice Allom played 5, Nigel Haig played 4, Fred Barratt played 5. Although Larwood only played 6, I am certain none of these guys were considered superior to the great Notts bowler at any point in this period.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Could be. Could be that they weren't confident in any of the bowlers, including Larwood. Larwood prebodyline had an average of 34 or 35. Even if they thought he was better than this, it probably would have made sense to give him more than 3 tests a year to get used to playing test cricket. With him getting dropped on multiple occasions vs AUS plus him not expecting to make the squad for bodyline, it doesn't look like he was being saved to play AUS, it just looks like he wasn't considered good enough at times.

The bats don't seem to have the same experimentation issue. If you were good enough, you generally played.

 

[JBMAC]

Fmd. Gilchrist is really the first lock in after Bradman.

Then you have not watched enough good cricket. Aussie keepers in front of Gilchrist must be Tallon, Grout and Maclean ( That I have seen) and going by contemporary reports of the time you would have to add Blackam and Oldfield

 

[Starfighter]

Then you have not watched enough good cricket. Aussie keepers in front of Gilchrist must be Tallon, Grout and Maclean ( That I have seen) and going by contemporary reports of the time you would have to add Blackam and Oldfield

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssss!!

 

[trundler]

Then you have not watched enough good cricket. Aussie keepers in front of Gilchrist must be Tallon, Grout and Maclean ( That I have seen) and going by contemporary reports of the time you would have to add Blackam and Oldfield

Yeah I'm sure they were signification better but since it's the keeper-bat position I tend to go with him.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Then you have not watched enough good cricket. Aussie keepers in front of Gilchrist must be Tallon, Grout and Maclean ( That I have seen) and going by contemporary reports of the time you would have to add Blackam and Oldfield

Would any fit the modern mantra of needing a batsman first keeper second though?

In fairness to Gilchrist compared to most of the keepers of the last 20 years he was actually one of the best in his own right regardless of his ridiculous batting ability.

 

[Days of Grace]

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Botham
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

England all-time XIs always look a batsman short with Botham at no.6 but none of those bowlers are droppable.

 

[Slifer]

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Botham
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

England all-time XIs always look a batsman short with Botham at no.6 but none of those bowlers are droppable.

And England has a pretty solid top 5

 

[Engle]

Only 1 man stands between an Aus ATG XI running thru an Eng ATG XI


Jardine

 

[Red]

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Botham
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

England all-time XIs always look a batsman short with Botham at no.6 but none of those bowlers are droppable.

Ive always like the inclusion of Les Ames at either 6/7 with Beefy in an Eng XI to add some extra batting.

 

[Coronis]

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Botham
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

England all-time XIs always look a batsman short with Botham at no.6 but none of those bowlers are droppable.

Root over Compton?

 

[Red]

Root over Compton?

Pretty comparable.

 

[Coronis]

Pretty comparable.

Horrible conversion rate and in fact rate of centuries per match/innings really hurts from my point of view.

 

[AndrewB]

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Botham
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

England all-time XIs always look a batsman short with Botham at no.6 but none of those bowlers are droppable.

Are you allowed to specify that you want "early-career Botham" (say 1977-81), when he was a terrific swing bowler (200 wickets at 21) but less consistent as a batsman?
If so. you could bring in Stanley Jackson for Larwood, open the bowling with Trueman and Barnes, and have Botham and Jackson/Hammond as the change pace bowlers. (There's a case for picking Jackson for his batting - it's hard to judge a player who never toured, but his record in England in the era he played is way ahead of those of Hill, Trumper, Ranji, Hayward, Fry etc).

 

[Pratters]

Honestly I'd take Jimmy over Larwood. Larwood was quality but never quite reached his peaks consistently at the International stage, and one of his highlights was Bodyline which does carry an asterix next to it given so many great pacers never got a chance to try that out themselves. Jimmy A has got just so much more volume of elite performances

I'd probably go Barnes - Trueman - Laker as locks in the bowling attack, with Jimmy competing against Snow, Willis, Larwood, Statham, Voce, etc. Also depends on how many all-rounders you pick - plenty of bowling in Botham, Grace, Hammond, Rhodes. Also could play two spinners with Verity.

Jimmy A definitely in the conversation

Body line is to Larwood's credit, not discredit. It wasn't some thing every one could execute. Because Larwood and Voce were such great bowlers, they could go ahead and then execute it well.

 

[Pratters]

If we're going down the 'FC Averages Count' route then there are a whole host of bowlers with records more impressive than Larwood who never even got a Test

Larwood's great it's just that he didn't have enough international cricket at his peak, and Jimmy's sustained quality over a long period of time deserves credit.

It is not just about the FC average. Larwood was a great and when were are selecting the side, we select the best players. Which begs the question, why is Frank Tyson not in the discussion more..

 

[Pratters]

What you've done is added up all the balls faced figures while forgetting that those for tests and ODIs are included in the FC and LA figures. Big mistake.

Trueman: 99701 (FC) + 986 (LA) = 100767. Anderson: 46556 (FC) + 12414 (LA) + 933 (T20) = 59903

That doesn't mean that much. Those days there were more FC matches per season.

 

[Starfighter]

That doesn't mean that much. Those days there were more FC matches per season.

Please elaborate on how that relates to what I was saying.

 

[Pratters]

Ill do some stats mining later when I have the time to get a few examples, and to see if this stance of mine is actually justified or not. Did a quick search now to see if I can find all the season by season county stats from the 1920s onwards but no luck.

Larwood's selection for me is a lot like the Mitchell Johnson for Australia one, if you focus purely on their Test records. At their peaks they both were terrifying, and bowled at a level that is as good as express pace bowling is ever going to get (relevant to their eras). But they also have underwhelming performances on their record, which then poses and question about what qualifies a player to get into an ATG team. How do you balance peak quality Vs longevity.

Anderson and Lillee were, at their absolute peaks, not as terrifying as Larwood and Mitch. But they have more complete records, and sustained their peak quality over a longer stretch of Test cricket (and WSC cricket in the case of Lillee).

Don't think there is a wrong answer either way, just preference.

Larwood did have a long peak, just not reflected in test stats. Also, you have to understand that during that time, FC was quite important. It wasn't as much of a sideshow as it is now.