All-time XI: England

[Lillian Thomson]

Yep I'm perfectly happy with that team. I'd go for Hick rather than Lamb I think, but it's a six and two threes really.

I'm not sure what statsguru says about Willis either, but I can't imagine him being an easy bowler to score quickly against come what may, and he had the ability to take wickets, so I'm content to include him.

I'd be happy with Hick as well, in fact you could throw in any one of Knight, Stewart, Hick, Gower and Thorpe without weakening the team too much.
In fact if it wasn't for their aging limbs in the field I'd still prefer most of these to the sorry bunch of nimrods current masquerading as International cricketers.

 

[aussie]

Why?

I would like to see the modern players cope without helmets and on uncovered pitches, Langer for one would be dead

I was talking more about the uncovered wickets. Thats is something past generations couldn't avoid - thats why in hypotetical all-time matchups those condtions shouldn't be considered.

With the helmets i reckon Viv would still bat with the cap though.

Yet you cannot accept that the yesteryear batsmen will have likewise evolved?

No. Because that is too much of stretch. That is a total different world of cricket some post war & 19th centurty batsmen encountered. So to expect them to be just as good in hypotetical match is wishful thinking.

If it's All Time surely conditions should reflect all of those faced, rather than the current identikit global pitch/

Its not really that current. Since the 1950s the conditions for pitches & standard of cricket has been fairly similar. The only difference as i said, is the period of 8 ball overs in AUS & the last phase of uncovered wickets.

 

[marc71178]

No. Because that is too much of stretch. That is a total different world of cricket some post war & 19th centurty batsmen encountered. So to expect them to be just as good in hypotetical match is wishful thinking.

So how come current players would be able to adapt then?

 

[aussie]

So how come current players would be able to adapt then?

Well if Mike Atherton could score runs solid hundreds againts great bowlers of the 90s & its clear he wasn't half the talent of a Jack Hobbs. Its not impossible to expect batsmen of the past to score runs in hypotetical match-ups.

But just that clearly it will take them a while to adapt. So lets say in series England All-time toured the West Indies, you wouldn't expect Hobbs in conditions he never faced in his career to be dominating. He would either take a while to adapt or be utterly dominated by the WI pacers. So that would make him & others post war batsmen like him under similar circumstances an achillies heel in certain circumstances in hypotetical match-ups.

 

[MrIncredible]

Aussie i see the point u r trying to make and that is a issue i often have a hard time resolving. Outside of Gavaskar and Hayden, most modern very good/great openers average anywhere from 45 to 48. None ne where close to 55 (like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton) and i suspect its because of the sheer amount of different conditions modern batsmen have had to deal with. I neither doubt nor do i support the idea that Hobbs et al would still average 55+ in modern times (i doubt they would tbh)

 

[marc71178]

But just that clearly it will take them a while to adapt. So lets say in series England All-time toured the West Indies, you wouldn't expect Hobbs in conditions he never faced in his career to be dominating.

Yet you've decided present day batsmen could adapt immediately...

 

[aussie]

Aussie i see the point u r trying to make and that is a issue i often have a hard time resolving. Outside of Gavaskar and Hayden, most modern very good/great openers average anywhere from 45 to 48. None ne where close to 55 (like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton) and i suspect its because of the sheer amount of different conditions modern batsmen have had to deal with. I neither doubt nor do i support the idea that Hobbs et al would still average 55+ in modern times (i doubt they would tbh)

I would lean towards the idea that post war batsmen like Hobbs etc would tend to struggle.

 

[aussie]

Yet you've decided present day batsmen could adapt immediately...

Well of course they would. They have would have grown up in the system from youth cricket. But that doesn't mean an Cook or Strauss could handle 90mph bowlers better than Hobbs or Sutcliffe, since they clearly weren't as naturally talented as those greats.

In the ENG ATXI. The openers that would be generally considered for selection are Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Boycott & Gooch. Only Hutton, Boycott, Gooch got runs againts 90 mph bowlers at various points in their respective careers, that they would face in hypotetical ATXI match-ups. Thats why they should be ahead of Hobbs & Sutcliffe.

But i have soft spot for Hobbs so i would generally chose Hutton/Hobbs to open intially in my ENG ATXI.

 

[marc71178]

Well of course they would. They have would have grown up in the system from youth cricket.

What system? Uncovered wickets?

 

[aussie]

Mark are you lost?. Which cricketer over the last 30 years would have encountered uncovered wickets in their unbringing from youth to international cricket?

 

[marc71178]

Erm, that's kind of my point.

 

[aussie]

Erm, that's kind of my point.

Well then i dont understand the comparison you trying to draw. I never suggested players over the past 30 years would have encoutered uncovered wickets like the post war batsmen.

I did say, given that the likes of Hobbs & Sutcliffe played in that uncovered wickets era & never faced 90 mph bowlers, reverse swing, Perth & Kensington Oval like pitches. In hypotetical match-ups where they would be facing some of the greatest bowling attacks ever compiled, it would be very naive to expect them to be a success.

 

[zaremba]

They're also dead, which makes real-life match-ups pretty difficult.

You have to make appropriate allowances when you make cross-generational comparisons. Which means allowing (say) Hobbs the chance to have a bit of practice against reverse-swinging yorkers.

Besides which, I don't know why these hypothetical match-ups have to take place today. It'd be interesting to see how the great batsmen of today would have fared against Verity or Barnes or Laker on an uncovered wicket.

 

[marc71178]

Spot on Mr Z - but clearly Aussie doesn't think that modern players would have a problem. The whole concept of all time means that every condition would be encountered IMO.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Spot on Mr Z - but clearly Aussie doesn't think.

Well spotted.

 

[aussie]

They're also dead, which makes real-life match-ups pretty difficult.

Well of course, these match-ups will never happen in real life. All we can do is use the circumstances & bowlers these post war batsmen faced in their respective careers, to use as a guide to how they could possible fear againts such bowlers, in hypotetical ATXI matches.

You have to make appropriate allowances when you make cross-generational comparisons. Which means allowing (say) Hobbs the chance to have a bit of practice against reverse-swinging yorkers.

Indeed. Hobbs & Sutcliffe could face Trueman, Snow, Larwood etc in the nets or they could organise matches againts these bowlers.

But as i just said, we could use circumstances in their careers. Sutcliffe for example if you want to check in Yorkshire vs Nottinghamshire matches where he faced Larwood in the 20s & 30 came out second best. That is a KEY stat IMO, because as you the 30 basically had no fast bowlers & it was full of flat wickets.

The fact that they need the practise makes them a bit of weak link in these hypotetical match-ups. Blokes like Hutton, Boycott & Gooch dont have these issues since they where tested & did well againts those type of fast-bowling. Thus Hutton's partner in the ENG ATXI should be one of Boycott or Gooch. But i personally would start Hutton/Hobbs regardless.

Besides which, I don't know why these hypothetical match-ups have to take place today. It'd be interesting to see how the great batsmen of today would have fared against Verity or Barnes or Laker on an uncovered wicket.

Uncovered wickets was something cricketers & administrators could not avoid in those days due to lack of proper ground maintenance , so the batsmen had develop techniques to counter it. Since spinners became almost unplayable.

Surely batsmen post war batsmen (and of the 60s) would have preferred to have pitch covered from the rain.

Test Cricket since the 1960s has seen a very common trend:

- A regular diet of two new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers.

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.

All post-war batsmen except Bradman would be an achilles heel to their respective teams, since the circumstances they played where very different to the last 40+ years of test cricket.

 

[aussie]

Spot on Mr Z - but clearly Aussie doesn't think that modern players would have a problem.

Modern day players is irrelevant to this argument. I dont understand why you keep bringing it up. We talking about the two (2) opening options the ENG ATXI would have to chose from between Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Boycott & Gooch.

The whole concept of all time means that every condition would be encountered IMO.

Uncovered wickets was an unfair adavantage to the bowlers. Its not like comparable to batting at Perth or Kensington Oval at its peak, a sub-continent dustbowl or a the Headingley greentop at its peak.

Why else do you think it has ceased to exist?. Would you want to also include 8-ball overs, the old LBW rule & timeless tests too?. Come on now..

 

[aussie]

Well spotted.

Haa. Sir if you disagree with one of my points - quote me on it. Childish posts like this are pathetic, you are one of senior cats on this site - behave like it.

 

[marc71178]

Well of course, these match-ups will never happen in real life. All we can do is use the circumstances & bowlers these post war batsmen faced in their respective careers, to use as a guide to how they could possible fear againts such bowlers, in hypotetical ATXI matches.

Yet you ignore uncovered wickets, with no valid reason.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Haa. Sir if you disagree with one of my points - quote me on it. Childish posts like this are pathetic, you are one of senior cats on this site - behave like it.

If it's more than two lines I can't be arsed reading it never mind quoting or commenting on it.