Wisden's Greatest Post War England XI

[Craig]

Bob Taylor on a purely wicket keeping basis anyone?

Or would you go for Alan Knott (one of my favourite keeper-batsmen of all-time) who has the added bonus of his batting as well?

Or even Godfrey Evans?

(Eddie saw these guys play so he could tell us when he re-appears)

 

[marc71178]

From what I've heard, all 3 were superb keepers, and very close in standards, so in this situation using batting to an extent is more justifiable IMO.

However, you do miss one name out of the list of all time great English Keepers Craig, one who for some reason kept being left out owing to his inferior batting (and ironically for a large part of his career averaged more than his replacement did when his replacement kept wicket)

 

[wpdavid]

so you would choose Tyson over Bedser even though Tyson only played 17 tests,,,but you wouldnt choose Gooch because he was only good for 4 years (even though in reality he was one of the very best batsmen in the world for a good 7 or 8 years, if not longer)

Tyson was great for most of his test career, although I admit that 17 games maybe isn't enough to justify my selection, whereas Gooch was great for about a third of his test career. And I'm afraid I don't think he was one of the best in the world for 7-8 years. He was certainly one of the most over-rated for a long period of time, but he did very little for most of the 1980's, even when he wasn't getting himself banned, refusing to tour or sulking.

 

[wpdavid]

Botham was the best allrounder England have produced without a doubt since the war...cant really beleive there is a debate brewing about whether he should be in this XI

Well, it is a fair question when you remember that most of his best performances were against pretty weak sides. Greig was unquestionably a better batsman, which is relevant when the allrounder is playing at number 6 in this side (as I said before, Botham's best years were at number 7). And Bailey may just have been a more consistent performer against good sides , but he didn't stand out as much because he was playing in a much better England team.

 

[aussie_beater]

Conveniently ignoring his Test record which was superb, and far better than the Essex man.

Yeah I would say Boycott's claim to that opener slot is bigger then Gooch's.

 

[wpdavid]

No to both, but was there a better all round player who provides so much more to the side than a mere specialist?

Any England All Time side without Botham is either a) wrong, or b) in 5 or 6 years time (assuming Flintoff continues from the last year for another 5 or 6 years)

Botham vs Flintoff is an interesting one. Flintoff is already a better oneday player than Botham ever was, but even in the last year you couldn't say he has matched Beefy's best batting performances in tests as he really hasn't had to do it against bowling sides who were anything more than average. Whilst a lot of Botham's best performances came against weak sides, he did manage hundreds against Aus lineups in 1979/80 and 1981 that were better than anything Flintoff has faced in the last 12 months. Plus, of course, Botham at his peak was a much better bowler. I only realised the othe day that he'd been number 1 in the PWC ratings around Spring of 1980, which, even allowing for the quality of sides he'd faced before then and the fact that most of the other contenders had missed a couple of years due to Packer, is still not an achievement to be sniffed at.

None of which affects my reservations about Beefy at number 6 in a post WW2 England XI, but enough of those. Suffice to say the issue isn't nearly as clear-cut as you suggest, IMHO.

 

[wpdavid]

still (Gower)...on his day a great batsman

Sure, but I wouldn't include him either. Considering Cowdrey & Graveney also missed out, I think we can say this is one of the tougher parts of the side to call. But I'm happy enough with Barrington, May & Compton.

 

[Richard]

still...on his day a great batsman

Yes, but an average of 44 doesn't exactly shout out for selection amongst some of these other players.
Magnificent as he was to watch, and undoubtedly dominant as he could be at the crease, he didn't score enough runs to be considered amongst some of these.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff has only been successful for around 12 months, he has yet to dominate a top class side, and his overall career record is still no better than average.

The first two points could also be thrown at Harmison.

Harmison has been successful in 7 out of 11 Tests of the last 7 months.
Nothing close to demanding selection in an XI such as this and comments such as this:

No Freddy or Harmison!

exemplify yet again that most recent is most fondly remembered. A problem that afflicts all too many cricket fans, and sports fans in general.

 

[a massive zebra]

Could not agree with you more.

 

[tooextracool]

Harmison has been successful in 7 out of 11 Tests of the last 7 months.
Nothing close to demanding selection in an XI such as this and comments such as this:

exemplify yet again that most recent is most fondly remembered. A problem that afflicts all too many cricket fans, and sports fans in general.

maybe just maybe it was a joke?

 

[Richard]

Boycott was a selfish idiot, who should not be allowed anywhere near an 'All Time XI'.

Plus, Gooch is class.

Gooch between 1989 and 1993 was pure unbridled class and was the first player who drew me into the World of international cricket, and hence has become my favourite England player of my time watching.
However, there is no doubting Boycott was a fantastic player, whose selfishness was often purely theoretical and I can't think of many occasions where it actually cost matches.
I don't really understand why Goochie has been selected ahead of Boycott.

 

[Richard]

maybe just maybe it was a joke?

Maybe it was.

 

[Richard]

My opinion is Statham should be in place of Bedser. He was more reliable and his accuracy was legendary.He was the McGrath of his time.IMO, Tyson played too little to be considered in the best post-war team for England

Statham and Bedser by common consent had effectively nothing between them in terms of accuracy.
I'd certainly have had Statham instead of Laker or Underwood if we were talking about the match being played after 1969, but if it were any time up to then I'd agree with the whole bowling attack.
Certainly I think we can guess that Bedser was selected because any match would be played in England.

 

[Craig]

From what I've heard, all 3 were superb keepers, and very close in standards, so in this situation using batting to an extent is more justifiable IMO.

However, you do miss one name out of the list of all time great English Keepers Craig, one who for some reason kept being left out owing to his inferior batting (and ironically for a large part of his career averaged more than his replacement did when his replacement kept wicket)

Would he be Keith Andrew?

I have read he was a brilliant wicket keeper, but wasn't much chop with the bat.

 

[SJS]

Would he be Keith Andrew?

I have read he was a brilliant wicket keeper, but wasn't much chop with the bat.

If one was to choose the best keeper on keeping merits alone then Taylor would be high on most lists. Some others would have Evans or even Keith Andrews who has the disadvatage of lack of international exposure.

But, Knott was such a great keeper himslef (even if Taylor and others were better), that this plus his far superior batting would have always ensured his selection even if any of these guys were his contemporaries.

I have always struggled in my all time best England teams for a choice between Taylor and Knott. I have seen both and Taylor WAS better and old fashioned cricketing logic makes me choose Talylor but I am sure if I was the captain, I would have prefered Knott.

Difficult choice this.

 

[SJS]

It is really surprising that Botham's position should be disputed in an England XI. When we choose players from different times we consider their merits in totality but surely the assumption is that in the side these guys would not be (theoretically) at the fag end of their careers. At the peak of his prowess , he was the greatest all rounder England has produced.

The fact that someone has put him at number six and we feel he is better suited at seven (though contentious) is no reason to discard him

 

[wpdavid]

It is really surprising that Botham's position should be disputed in an England XI. When we choose players from different times we consider their merits in totality but surely the assumption is that in the side these guys would not be (theoretically) at the fag end of their careers. At the peak of his prowess , he was the greatest all rounder England has produced.

The fact that someone has put him at number six and we feel he is better suited at seven (though contentious) is no reason to discard him

The bottom line is that you're probably right, but there is a great deal of mythology about Botham and it's no bad thing to question it from time to time. The reality is that most of his good performances were against weak sides and that he was pretty ordinary from the age of 26 onwards - not just the fagend of his career. In terms of England's post WW2-XI, I would probably play him (or at least the 1978-1982 version) at 7 or 8 as a third quick/FM bowler who can also bat more than a bit. I know that leaves the side with only four bowlers, but that doesn't seem to have hampered the great Aus & WI sides of the last 30 years.

Is he our best ever allrounder? I can't really compare him to guys like Rhodes & Hirst, but I do query the unquestioning assumption that he is. Even postWW2, the fact is he was a lesser batsman than Greig (albeit a better bowler), so it isn't clearcut. And I do think Bailey is criminally under-rated.

 

[marc71178]

Would he be Keith Andrew?

I have read he was a brilliant wicket keeper, but wasn't much chop with the bat.

No, Jack Russell. As Keeper, Stewart averaged about 33 with the bat (career average of 40, so makes his non-keeping average very respectable)

Russell averaged 27 with the bat.

I for one cannot see from that why they persisted with Stewart the Keeper so long, when there was a far better keeper available without any loss of runs to the side (since Stewart's batting-only average is that much better, it more than compensates for the 6 runs he had on Russell as a keeper)

 

[Richard]

And that would compensate for dropping Robin Smith, Hussain, Gatting or any other batsman who had more than earned his place, then?