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

[JBMAC]

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).

In comparison but 22 test with an average of about 32 odd I feel he is overated.BEFORE everybody jumps up and down take into consideration his reported Tantrums, his behaviour on and off the field, his ability to intimidate Umpires to reverse their decisions against him etc etc...It was his persona which brought Cricket to the fore NOT his ability.If he was playing the game today I would liken him to Shane Warne and his little escapades and that is not taking anything away from either player.

 

[archie mac]

In comparison but 22 test with an average of about 32 odd I feel he is overated.BEFORE everybody jumps up and down take into consideration his reported Tantrums, his behaviour on and off the field, his ability to intimidate Umpires to reverse their decisions against him etc etc...It was his persona which brought Cricket to the fore NOT his ability.If he was playing the game today I would liken him to Shane Warne and his little escapades and that is not taking anything away from either player.

As I have a lot of respect for you opinion mate I won't jump down your throat

Except to say I would rank the all time greats in this order"

One: WG Grace

Two: Don Bradman

Three: Too many to choose from

 

[Richard]

In comparison but 22 test with an average of about 32 odd I feel he is overated.BEFORE everybody jumps up and down take into consideration his reported Tantrums, his behaviour on and off the field, his ability to intimidate Umpires to reverse their decisions against him etc etc...It was his persona which brought Cricket to the fore NOT his ability.If he was playing the game today I would liken him to Shane Warne and his little escapades and that is not taking anything away from either player.

All of that was after he'd become established as superior to all else, though - most of this came in his old age.

The significant days of WG were the 1870s, when Tests were irrelevant, when he was a genuine athlete, and when he didn't even need to intimidate Umpires (and, at 22 or so, would probably have been laughed-off had he tried).

In those days he averaged in the high 40s, which, when for most, 25 was a stunningly good average, does indeed make him the Bradman of the day.

 

[JBMAC]

As I have a lot of respect for you opinion mate I won't jump down your throat

Except to say I would rank the all time greats in this order"

One: WG Grace

Two: Don Bradman

Three: Too many to choose from

Thanks Richard, I appreciate that.This could be an interesting Thread Starter?? I think I may be one up on you alittle though.I saw Bradman play albeit towards the end of his playing days and you would probably have to produce film footage for me to change my mind.

 

[archie mac]

Thanks Richard, I appreciate that.This could be an interesting Thread Starter?? I think I may be one up on you alittle though.I saw Bradman play albeit towards the end of his playing days and you would probably have to produce film footage for me to change my mind.

Richard???

Yes I will always envy you for that (watching Bradman that is)JBMAC

 

[Dasa]

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.

Haha, worst logic ever. May as well shut down the forum then.

 

[JBMAC]

Richard???

Yes I will always envy you for that (watching Bradman that is)JBMAC

Sorry Chum, Dyslexic Pots and Pans Disease

 

[bagapath]

if tony can choose such a bad all time england xi and get paid for it, why cant i post my england xi here ?

hobbs
hutton
may (c)
hammond
compton
botham
knott (wk)
rhodes
barnes
truman
laker

 

[Days of Grace]

Apart from Barrington ahead of May, that's fairly close to what I would pick.

 

[Fiery]

I know it's early but I would have Pietersen ahead of May and Barrington already tbh...but knock him down to 5 and move the others up

 

[JBMAC]

I know it's early but I would have Pietersen ahead of May and Barrington already tbh...but knock him down to 5 and move the others up

Disagree Fiery,, Definitely shows the potential at this stage but put him in front of Barrington or Peter May.....I don't think so

 

[The Sean]

A question - how many on here are judging May by his fairly underwhelming Test average of 46.77, rather than the opinion of almost all the men he played with and against?

Not judging either way, just genuinely curious.

 

[Craig]

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?

As for Ken Barrington and people go on about how dour of a batsman he was, IIRC Barrington was quite an aggressive batsman but had to change his way to keep his spot on the team such was the mindset of the English selection panel. If resisdent cricket historian Archie (or anybody) can comfirm this would be a big help please.

As for the title, and admittly I'm thinking outside the square but I think you could make a case for having an All-Time England XI and then having an alternative one as well. Would be interesting to see how it would pan out if it were possible for that to happen. And as gun as he is, does that make KP one of the most over-rated cricketers if he is included in all all-time Test XI? If it were for ODIs then I'd probably agree...

 

[The Sean]

For the record, my all time team (so I'm including pre-1900 players) would be:

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
WG Grace
Walter Hammond
Denis Compton
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Jim Laker
Fred Trueman
George Lohmann
Sydney Barnes

I can't bring myself to pick Hobbs or Hutton at no.3. To me they both have to open. My exception to the rule was Grace who was nominally an opener but I've picked at no.3, and this is based on my (possibly prejudiced and wrong) opinion that the game wasn't as well developed in his era and that batting positions weren't so clearly defined and were more interchangeable.

Frank Woolley would just edge out Peter May or Wilfred Rhodes to be 12th Man I think. Sutcliffe and Bedser both very unlucky, but as with an Australian XI you could pick three or four sides and have very little between them. And while I'd love to see KP develop to the point where I could consider him for this team he's nowhere near it yet.

It says something about the relative strengths of Australian and English cricket in the modern era that only two of this England side played during my lifetime, whereas 5-6 of my all time Australian XI could be made up of players I've seen.

 

[Engle]

01. Hobbs
02. Sutcliffe
03. Barrington
04. Hammond
05. May
06. Botham
07. Knott
08. Trueman
09. Tyson
10. Laker
11. Barnes

12th Underwood

Hobbs and Sutcliffe were the greatest opening p'ship and it would take a batsman of Bradmanesque abilities to separate this pair.

Similarly an opening attack of Trueman and Tyson w/b formidable. A speed merchant is essential.
Barnes selects himself, folly to leave him out.

Toyed with :
a. Hutton at # 3.
b. Rhodes in place of Botham for AR balance. Too much seam, not enough spin
c. May or Hammond as captain

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'd have Compton over May tbh. TWC did a post war side, and it was something like:

1) Hutton
2) Gooch
3) May
4) Compton
5) Barrington
6) Botham
7) Knott
8)
9) Laker
10) Trueman
11) Bedser

Can't remember the other though.

 

[Richard]

A question - how many on here are judging May by his fairly underwhelming Test average of 46.77, rather than the opinion of almost all the men he played with and against?

Not judging either way, just genuinely curious.

I've honestly never heard any testimony from foreigners on the two of them. I have heard plenty, from Surrey fans of the time, which almost all says that May was the superior. May being much the superior performer to Barrington for his county, that makes sense. As I say, if I was picking a Surrey All-Time XI May would be ahead of Barrington every time.

But for England - for whatever reasons, and it makes precisely no sense at all, but is fact nonetheless - Barrington was much the superior performer.

And what's more, but for him there'd probably have been no Ian Botham, so take out Barrington and you take out Botham. (Just kidding)

 

[Richard]

One other general comment - can't believe the number of people who'd have Laker over Rhodes, Verity and Underwood. All were (though Underwood alone had the nickname) deadly on wickets that had had just the slightest of rain-effect.

It's possible, indeed, that Underwood was the best of the lot due to the pace he was able to put on the ball, which none of the other 3 left-armers or Laker could manage.

 

[Jamee999]

I'd have Compton over May tbh. TWC did a post war side, and it was something like:

1) Hutton
2) Gooch
3) May
4) Compton
5) Barrington
6) Botham
7) Knott
8) Clarke
9) Laker
10) Trueman
11) Bedser

Can't remember the other though.

I believe

 

[Richard]

I'd have Compton over May tbh. TWC did a post war side, and it was something like:

1) Hutton
2) Gooch
3) May
4) Compton
5) Barrington
6) Botham
7) Knott
8)
9) Laker
10) Trueman
11) Bedser

Can't remember the other though.

Gooch > Boycott?

Gooch was my inaugural cricketing hero, and in 1990-1994 was peerless (the latter, funnily enough, is the reason for the former). But for most of his career, he averaged a no-more-than-good 36. Boycott managed over 10 runs higher.