I have to believe that the people at the telegraph are in their 20s, so they don't know much about cricket. Stokes, Cook and Kevin have no business being in an England XI.
England hasn’t had an ATG bat in like 50 years, its quite sad. Aus, WI, India have all had multiple, SA, Pak and SL have all had at least 1. Root and Williamson could still change it for England and NZ.Some All-Time England XIs from the past:
1914 [AE Stoddart]: Grace, Hobbs, Shrewsbury, MacLaren, Jackson, Ranjitsinhji, Lockwood, Peel, Lohmann, MacGregor+, Barnes.
1932 [Pelham Warner & English team touring Australia]: Grace, Hobbs, Ranjitsinhji, Hammond, Woolley, Ames+, AG Steel, FR Foster, Lockwood, Lohmann, Barnes.
1976 [Arlott, Swanton and Frith for The Cricketer]: Grace*, Hobbs, Hammond, Compton, Woolley, Ames+, Rhodes, Tate, Larwood, Laker, Barnes.
1980 [Fingleton]: Hobbs, Hutton, Grace*, Hammond, Compton, May, Hirst, Rhodes, Evans+, Larwood, Barnes.
2009 [Cricinfo - 10 English journalists]: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Barrington, Pietersen, Botham, Knott+, Larwood, Trueman, Underwood, Barnes.
2009 [Martin-Jenkins]: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Compton, May, Botham, Knott+, Rhodes, Laker, Trueman, Barnes.
2020 [The Roar, Australian website]: Hobbs, Hutton*, Hammond, Compton, Barrington, Botham, Knott+, Trueman, Underwood, Anderson, Barnes.
Mike Atherton said the best four England batsmen he has seen during the past forty years are Gooch, Gower, Pietersen and Root. He declined to place them in order.
Bill Ponsford surely if we go pre-War.An article in Wisden today selecting an All Time XI of players whose Test career was less than ten years. It seems that only post-war players were considered.
Ranji and McCabe were two who leapt out for me as well.Bill Ponsford surely if we go pre-War.
Leyland came to mind too but he misses the cutoff by 9 days.Ranji and McCabe were two who leapt out for me as well.
And most of the great 19th Century bowlers (Spofforth, Lohmann, Turner, Richardson) if we're going back that far.
It's probably fair enough at least to exclude pre-WWI though, as most careers were shorter then anyway.
They obviously didn't consider any of Eddie Barlow, Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, and Mike Procter because they'd all be shoo ins. Actually Barlow v Hunte would be close, but Eddie's bowling gives him the edge.An article in Wisden today selecting an All Time XI of players whose Test career was less than ten years. It seems that only post-war players were considered.
Richardson still being there in 79 is kind of surprising.Two more England teams from members of The Cricket Society, thirty years apart:
1949: Grace*, Hobbs, Ranjitsinhji, Hammond, Compton, Jackson, Ames+, Rhodes, Lockwood or Larwood, Richardson, Barnes.
1979: Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Grace*, Hammond, Compton, Rhodes, Knott+, Laker, Larwood or Richardson, Trueman, Barnes.
Cardus had annointed him as one of the Six Giants of the Wisden Century in the 1960s, so that's have been relatively fresh in the memory.Richardson still being there in 79 is kind of surprising.
Ames‘ batting average against Australia was 27, a significant drop from his over all average of 40. And as we all know Botham failed against the best bowling attack of his era, the West Indies.Hutton
I think it's that if you rate Larwood over Anderson, you really have no desire to apply appropriate longevity and era-adjusting standards (yadda yadda)What is a “meme opinion”?
I’ve read most of the books written on Larwood and I rate him incredibly highly as a cricketer.