Tony's at it again: His all-time England XI

[silentstriker]

I think the thread title says it all...it is HIS all time team.

Its only is opinion!!! I dont really know why people take it so to heart.

Well people might be surprised if someone picked an all time Aussie XI and neglected to mention Bradman...especially if the guy in question used to be a captain of your country!

At the very least, he needed to provide a reason why Hobbs wasn't even in the running (as he did with others who were in the running) to avoid looking like a complete idiot.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton (c)
Hammond
Barrington
Botham
Knott (wk)
Laker
Larwood
Trueman
Barnes

Would eat the Indian XI alive, methinks.

 

[Perm]

I think the thread title says it all...it is HIS all time team.

Its only is opinion!!! I dont really know why people take it so to heart.

We like to think that former international players actually know some of the history of the game, heck I'd expect your average English cricket fan to have hard of Hobbs. Really it just highlights how moronic Greigy is that he never even mentioned Hobbs, probably because he'd never heard of him.

 

[silentstriker]

We like to think that former international players actually know some of the history of the game, heck I'd expect your average English cricket fan to have hard of Hobbs. Really it just highlights how moronic Greigy is that he never even mentioned Hobbs, probably because he'd never heard of him.

And he wasn't just any former player...he was the captain of the freaking England Test team....

 

[Swervy]

We like to think that former international players actually know some of the history of the game, heck I'd expect your average English cricket fan to have hard of Hobbs. Really it just highlights how moronic Greigy is that he never even mentioned Hobbs, probably because he'd never heard of him.

I would fully expect one of the best captains and all rounders to play for England and commentator for the past 25+ years to know who Hobbs is. I am sure he has his reasons, or it might be an error on his part.

He aint gonna please all of the people all of the time!!!!

 

[silentstriker]

I would fully expect one of the best captains and all rounders to play for England and commentator for the past 25+ years to know who Hobbs is. I am sure he has his reasons, or it might be an error on his part.

He aint gonna please all of the people all of the time!!!!

But thats the thing, the two scenarios he mentioned:

1) He has his reasons: Well, what are they? He mentioned other places where there was competition, so why would he fail to mention someone who most people regard as the best opener in Test history? He mentioned Zaheer Khan and Irfan Pathan for Christ's sakes! And he mentioned other players who were close but for one reason or another, he did not pick them. Why leave out Hobbs, without even mentioning it?

2) He made an error. This is the likely reason, but one that is even more damning. If a random cricket fan on the streets in England forgets about Hobbs, thats regrettable. If a professional cricketer in England has no idea who Hobbs is, it is very dissapointing. But if a former freaking Test captain of England, who also is writing for the most respected internet publication on cricket 'forgets' about Hobbs, it is simply unacceptable.

It's like a mathemetician forgetting the value of pi.

 

[Swervy]

But thats the thing, the two scenarios he mentioned:

1) He has his reasons: Well, what are they? He mentioned other places where there was competition, so why would he fail to mention someone who most people regard as the best opener in Test history? He mentioned Zaheer Khan and Irfan Pathan for Christ's sakes! And he mentioned other players who were close but for one reason or another, he did not pick them. Why leave out Hobbs, without even mentioning it?

2) He made an error. This is the likely reason, but one that is even more damning. If a random cricket fan on the streets in England forgets about Hobbs, thats regrettable. If a professional cricketer in England has no idea who Hobbs is, it is very dissapointing. But if a former freaking Test captain of England, who also is writing for the most respected internet publication on cricket 'forgets' about Hobbs, it is simply unacceptable.

It's like a mathemetician forgetting the value of pi.

I doubt he has never heard of Hobbs. God, maybe, just maybe, he did what we have all done before, and forgotten a player he shouldnt have done. Its no crime

 

[silentstriker]

I doubt he has never heard of Hobbs. God, maybe, just maybe, he did what we have all done before, and forgotten a player he shouldnt have done. Its no crime

'Forgettinng' Hobbs when talking about English cricket is not a crime, but probably should be, and certainly would be if I were the dictator of England.

Sent some cricinfo feedback telling Tony Greig what I think of him, not that it matters of course, but makes me feel better.

 

[Swervy]

'Forgettinng' Hobbs when talking about English cricket is not a crime, but probably should be, and certainly would be if I were the dictator of England.

Sent some cricinfo feedback telling Tony Greig what I think of him, not that it matters of course, but makes me feel better.

good luck to ya...it would be great to get a reply

 

[Richard]

Agree with a lot of that, though I'd need my head examined because personally I'd have Compton and May ahead of Barrington, for all my admiration of Ken and his absolutely superb Test record.

As for the Bedser-Trueman-Statham triumvirate - not denying their greatness but is the absence of Barnes an indicator that a) like Matt (and Bradman, if you like) you consider him more a fast spinner in the O'Reilly mould, or b) you just don't think he's as good as those three?

Always considered Barnes a spinner, TBH. Though even more remarkable than O'Reilly.

How he escaped me is beyond me. Would have him ahead of any seamer or spinner, as he might possibly have been the greatest man ever to pick-up a cricket-ball.

May and Compton may have been more natural-looking batsmen, and better at the domestic level (May would make almost any Surrey XI ahead of Barrington) but for me there's just no arguing with a Test average of 58. It's stunning.

 

[Richard]

Sent some cricinfo feedback telling Tony Greig what I think of him, not that it matters of course, but makes me feel better.

Vintage ss!

 

[Richard]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton (c)
Hammond
Barrington
Botham
Knott (wk)
Laker
Larwood
Trueman
Barnes

Would eat the Indian XI alive, methinks.

Nah, not in India.

LARWOOD > STATHAM AND BEDSER? Explain yourself!

 

[Swervy]

but for me there's just no arguing with a Test average of 58. It's stunning.

its funny how you can argue against an average of 54 and for one of 37 though

 

[Richard]

Completely and totally different. As I've said many times, if you want someone to bully weak seam-attacks on flat pitches, Hayden's your man. Mostly, though, Test cricket isn't about that.

And Barrington, while good at that (as someone with an average like that has to be) was by almost all accounts good at everything else too (except scoring quickly, but in a game lasting 5 days you don't really need too many phenominally quick scorers).

 

[archie mac]

If he is going by averages than surely George Lohmann would get a run.

Shocked not to see Jack Hobbs, I don't mind Wardle was a fine bowler with a bad disposition, not sure if he should be in the side in front of Barnes, Verity, Rhodes or Laker

 

[Richard]

Lohmann would obviously get in a 19th-century side, but I never think it's fair comparing 19th-century cricket to 20th(and 21st)-century stuff. The two should be kept separate IMO, we'll never know how good said players might have been at the other game.

It's not in dispute, I don't think, that most of us would not really recognise the game in, say, 1886, apart from the most basic things it's so, so different.

 

[Swervy]

Completely and totally different.

well it would be wouldn't it, coz it suits your arguement

 

[archie mac]

Lohmann would obviously get in a 19th-century side, but I never think it's fair comparing 19th-century cricket to 20th(and 21st)-century stuff. The two should be kept separate IMO, we'll never know how good said players might have been at the other game.

It's not in dispute, I don't think, that most of us would not really recognise the game in, say, 1886, apart from the most basic things it's so, so different.

Then don't call it an all time 11

 

[Richard]

well it would be wouldn't it, coz it suits your arguement

I'd not even make the argument if I thought they weren't, would I?

 

[Richard]

Then don't call it an all time 11

True. I always tend to say "1900-and-onwards XI" for these exercises, as I know little to nothing about 19th-century stuff (other than that WG was the Bradman of the day).