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

[JBMAC]

Boycs and Amiss over Hutton? And not a Botham fan? I think your tail is a bit longer than it needs to be there mate.

Care to combine your two XIs into an all-time side?

Fiery asked about that in an earlier...Very difficult to do from my view due to such a vast difference in rules,Pitch conditions etc etc etc....This is why I opted for two teams....I notice Greigy has not included some pretty fair players with what we all would consider "Notable" omissions.The Pre WW2 side is based on stats,what the individual player is noted for,match reports(ie what a particular player did or could do to change a match)
The after 1946 side is based on all of the above PLUS I have seen all those players in their careers at some stage ..so personal perception comes into play.
I include a 12th man in Randall because I believe he could be one of the finest English fielders I have seen if not THE best.

Botham was unlucky not to be included But who could I have left out and would it upset the balance of the Team

 

[Fiery]

Meh, you told me to take note, so I did.

JBMAC told you to take note. Pay Attention

 

[silentstriker]

Hobbs? Compton?

Either Greigy has crap knowledge when it comes to the history of cricket, or he's purposefully riling people up by picking crap XIs.

 

[Days of Grace]

Botham was unlucky not to be included But who could I have left out and would it upset the balance of the Team

But, your team has no balance mate, the tail starts at no.7

 

[JBMAC]

With the preceding batsmen why should not the tail start at seven.?

 

[Perm]

Botham was unlucky not to be included But who could I have left out and would it upset the balance of the Team

You could have left out any one of the bowlers in order to slot Botham in at #6 where he rightfully deserves to be, personally I would Tony Lock, but if you wanted to play two spinners then Bob Willis would be the man to get the chop. The balance of the team is upset because Botham is not there, I mean Knott was a good batsman but he's batting too high and the tail starts at #7.

 

[Perm]

With the preceding batsmen why should not the tail start at seven.?

What happens if you get a couple of dodgy umpiring decisions and you find yourself 100/5? Hardly likely to get to 200 if that was the case.

 

[Richard]

Just about everything I'd say already been said, TBH.

Johnny Wardle? Fair noof, he was a versatile spinner, but > Rhodes, Verity, Lock, Underwood and Laker? No chance.

Me, I'd happily have all 3 of Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe, we've had times in the past when 3 openers are all too good to leave-out so one has batted three. Barrington simply has to be picked ITBT, but Pietersen right now is just plain madness.

I'd say anyone who wouldn't pick the 5 best ever English batsmen since 1900 as:
Hobbs
Hutton
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Barrington
needs their head examined, TBH. Boycott would be the next best opener, and probably Compton as the 6th batsman (you know I'm always in favour of 6 batsmen).

Knott vs Stewart is always an interesting debate, as I've always been of the opinion Stewart's a far better 'keeper-batsman than so many who simply look and say "only averaged 33 as a 'keeper" realise. I'd probably go for Stewart ahead of Knott, IAH.

Botham pretty much picks himself presuming you'd get the 1977-1981 version, and I really would love to have had Bedser, Statham and Trueman in the 1990s. No other English seamer can touch those 3 IMO, regardless of their lesser performances overseas. Tyson was awesome for a time, but only a very short time.

 

[Craig]

The guys an idiot, he based his picks purely on averages and said so. Sutcliffe has the highest batting average, chuck him in. Wardle has the lowest bowling average, he makes the team. ****en ridiculous to even think about having Kevin Pietersen in there, the guy hasn't even played 30 Tests and there is no way he is better than May, Cowdrey, Compton etc. How can you not pick Hobbs? FFS Greigy you just proved yourself to be as thick as pig ****.

Quality rant

 

[Richard]

1.J Hobbs
2.H.Sutcliffe
3.C.Barrett
4.K.Duleepsinji
5.L.Ames
6.P.Fender
7.D.Jardine[Captain]
8.S.Barnes
9.H.Verity
10.H.Larwood
11.W.Voce

G.Boycott
D.Amiss
C.Cowdrey
P.May
E.Dexter
A.Knott[keeper]
Laker
A.Lock
F.Trueman
B.Statham
B.Willis
D.Randall[12th man]

Perm, Note who is opening

How on EARTH could you leave-out Denis Compton from BOTH sides? And why no Wilfred Rhodes in the pre-WWII team? On uncovered wickets, he >>>>>>>> both Larwood and Voce.

 

[Richard]

Quality rant

Praise from the master, now there's a thing.

 

[Perm]

Quality rant

Pleased to have your approval, Master.

 

[Poker Boy]

Tony Greig has made a pig's ear of this one. I'm afraid. Ask me about KP in 10 year's time. To pick Sutcliffe but not Hobbs is baffling (I would say most people rate Hobbs higher. There is a case for picking both but I'd put Sir Lenoard above Sutcliffe). DCS Compton would get KP's place IMO - by all accounts as entertaining and charasmatic but with a full carrer behind him. Wardle is unlucky IMO - had he played in this era he'd have played many Tests but his era coincided with Laker and Lock(Had he not fell out with Yorkshire in 1958 he might have played more Tests).I'd lump him in with Tyson - good career but too short to get into an all time XI. One pace bowler too many - you pick a balanced atack if you have the resources avaliable. Jim Laker should be in this team and with Rhodes, Verity and Underwood to pick from two spinners are a must. I'd pick the former as he would strengthen the bating even more. .

 

[Richard]

I'd love two (even three or four) spinners, but only if the Test was being played in the time of uncovered wickets.

 

[silentstriker]

I am never listening to his cricinfo Audio again, the man has no idea what he is talking about, and being a former Test player it is shameful.

The man was a captain of England, and forgot about Jack Hobbs (and thats the only explanation)....that's just ridiculous.

 

[The Sean]

Just about everything I'd say already been said, TBH.

Johnny Wardle? Fair noof, he was a versatile spinner, but > Rhodes, Verity, Lock, Underwood and Laker? No chance.

Me, I'd happily have all 3 of Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe, we've had times in the past when 3 openers are all too good to leave-out so one has batted three. Barrington simply has to be picked ITBT, but Pietersen right now is just plain madness.

I'd say anyone who wouldn't pick the 5 best ever English batsmen since 1900 as:
Hobbs
Hutton
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Barrington
needs their head examined, TBH. Boycott would be the next best opener, and probably Compton as the 6th batsman (you know I'm always in favour of 6 batsmen).

Knott vs Stewart is always an interesting debate, as I've always been of the opinion Stewart's a far better 'keeper-batsman than so many who simply look and say "only averaged 33 as a 'keeper" realise. I'd probably go for Stewart ahead of Knott, IAH.

Botham pretty much picks himself presuming you'd get the 1977-1981 version, and I really would love to have had Bedser, Statham and Trueman in the 1990s. No other English seamer can touch those 3 IMO, regardless of their lesser performances overseas. Tyson was awesome for a time, but only a very short time.

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?

 

[Engle]

Hobbs is Eng greatest cricketer and listed in the top 5 Wisden cricketers of the 20th centure.

If he lists Sutcliffe, then he knows of Hobbs. And Hobbs/Sutcliffe opening p'ship s/b a given.

Greigy knows that if he lists an uncontroversial XI, it will not garner much attention. Git

 

[PhoenixFire]

Lol at no Hobbs.

AWTA, my first thoughts.

 

[steds]

Disappointed at the lack of Wardle love in this thread. He's was alright ...for a yorkie.

 

[Swervy]

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.