OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd go
Tendulkar
Gilchrist(wk)
Ponting
AB de Villiers
Bevan
Dhoni (c)
Flintoff
Lee
Akram
Murali
McGrath
Bevan, Dhoni and Flintoff may shuffle places according to conditions
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Tendulkar
Gilchrist(wk)
Ponting
AB de Villiers
Bevan
Dhoni (c)
Flintoff
Lee
Akram
Murali
McGrath
Bevan, Dhoni and Flintoff may shuffle places according to conditions
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
**** you and your ****ty guitar
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Post 1993 - Bevan, Hussey, Watson, Klusener all good picks as well.
a massive zebra
International Captain
All Time England XIs by Era
18th Century
Tom Walker
James Aylward
Robert Robinson
William Beldham*
John Small snr
Richard Miller
Tom Sueter+
John Wells
Thomas Boxall
Lumpy Stevens
David Harris
19th Century Pre Test
Richard Daft
Robert Carpenter
Fuller Pilch
Thomas Hayward
George Parr*
Lord Frederick Beauclerk
Alfred Mynn
Ted Pooley+
George Freeman
John Jackson
Fred Lillywhite
Pre WWI Test Era
WG Grace
Arthur Shrewsbury
AE Stoddart
KS Ranjitsinhji
Tom Hayward
Stanley Jackson*
Wilfred Rhodes
Arthur Lilley+
George Lohmann
Tom Richardson
Sydney Barnes
Inter War
Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe*
Walter Hammond
Patsy Hendren
Phil Mead
Maurice Leyland
Leslie Ames+
Maurice Tate
Harold Larwood
Hedley Verity
Bill Bowes
Post War to 1969
Len Hutton
Colin Cowdrey
Peter May*
Ken Barrington
Denis Compton
Ted Dexter
Godfrey Evans+
Johnny Wardle
Jim Laker
Fred Trueman
Alec Bedser
1970 to 1999
Geoff Boycott
Graham Gooch*
Alec Stewart
David Gower
Robin Smith
Ian Botham
Alan Knott+
Darren Gough
John Snow
Bob Willis
Derek Underwood
21st Century
Alastair Cook
Michael Vaughan*
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Graham Thorpe
Matt Prior+
Andrew Flintoff
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom
James Anderson
18th Century
Tom Walker
James Aylward
Robert Robinson
William Beldham*
John Small snr
Richard Miller
Tom Sueter+
John Wells
Thomas Boxall
Lumpy Stevens
David Harris
19th Century Pre Test
Richard Daft
Robert Carpenter
Fuller Pilch
Thomas Hayward
George Parr*
Lord Frederick Beauclerk
Alfred Mynn
Ted Pooley+
George Freeman
John Jackson
Fred Lillywhite
Pre WWI Test Era
WG Grace
Arthur Shrewsbury
AE Stoddart
KS Ranjitsinhji
Tom Hayward
Stanley Jackson*
Wilfred Rhodes
Arthur Lilley+
George Lohmann
Tom Richardson
Sydney Barnes
Inter War
Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe*
Walter Hammond
Patsy Hendren
Phil Mead
Maurice Leyland
Leslie Ames+
Maurice Tate
Harold Larwood
Hedley Verity
Bill Bowes
Post War to 1969
Len Hutton
Colin Cowdrey
Peter May*
Ken Barrington
Denis Compton
Ted Dexter
Godfrey Evans+
Johnny Wardle
Jim Laker
Fred Trueman
Alec Bedser
1970 to 1999
Geoff Boycott
Graham Gooch*
Alec Stewart
David Gower
Robin Smith
Ian Botham
Alan Knott+
Darren Gough
John Snow
Bob Willis
Derek Underwood
21st Century
Alastair Cook
Michael Vaughan*
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Graham Thorpe
Matt Prior+
Andrew Flintoff
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Ryan Sidebottom
James Anderson
Last edited:
ImpatientLime
International Regular
Sidebottom ahead of Hoggard, Jones and Harmison?
England 1990-present day.
Gooch (c)
Stewart
Trott
Pietersen
Thorpe
Prior (wk)
Flintoff
Swann
Gough
Anderson
Fraser
England 1990-present day.
Gooch (c)
Stewart
Trott
Pietersen
Thorpe
Prior (wk)
Flintoff
Swann
Gough
Anderson
Fraser
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Love these teams.
A few personal differences: I reckon I'd find a spot for Frank Woolley in the inter-war side, probably over Mead (who was more of an opener anyway, wasn't he?) and I'd have Voce, Farnes and Allen all ahead of Bowes.
Your first post-war team looks to be short a quick - Statham instead of Wardle?
And yeah, a bunch of guys over Sidebottom.
Last edited:
From John Arlott's obituary on cricinfo :Love these teams.
I reckon I'd find a spot for Frank Woolley in the inter-war side, probably over Mead (who was more of an opener anyway, wasn't he?) and I'd have both Farnes and Allen ahead of Bowes.
No one who saw Philip Mead bat will ever forget him. At the fall of Hampshire's second wicket he would emerge from the pavilion with a peculiar rolling gait, his sloping shoulders, wide hips and heavy, bowed legs giving him the bottom-heavy appearance of those lead-based, won't-fall-down dolls of our childhood.
So I think Mead was a number 4. The obit is a good read, so good I've changed my mind and am happy to keep Mead in that side ahead of Jardine and Paynter.
England had some pretty prolific batsmen in that era - a second xi top 6 is Woolley, Russell, Tyldesley, Jardine, Paynter, Hardstaff jr.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
After reviewing every book/stat/opinion that has ever been made and completely disregarding them, I have come up with:
1. Jack HOBBS
2. Sunil GAVASKAR
3. Donald BRADMAN
4. Kumar SANGAKKARA
5. Brian LARA
6. Garry SOBERS
7. Adam GILCHRIST
8. Shane WARNE
9. Malcolm MARSHALL
10. Curtly AMBROSE
11. Glenn MCGRATH
1. Jack HOBBS
2. Sunil GAVASKAR
3. Donald BRADMAN
4. Kumar SANGAKKARA
5. Brian LARA
6. Garry SOBERS
7. Adam GILCHRIST
8. Shane WARNE
9. Malcolm MARSHALL
10. Curtly AMBROSE
11. Glenn MCGRATH
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, you're right he hardly ever opened - no idea why I had him down in my head as an opener.
Last edited:
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nice teams. Agree with almost everything. And even the things I disagree with I agree with somewhat
Want Trescothick in the 21st century side though! But how?
a massive zebra
International Captain
I'm pleased to see my selections have incited interest and proved worthy of discussion.
Farnes and Allen were certainly quicker bowlers than Bowes, but I would generally favour the latter due to his greater consistency. I might grant you Farnes on a greentop or Allen if we wanted to add some some batting depth.
I don't see an imbalance in the bowling options of the first post war team. England generally played two spinners in the 1950s and were the most successful side of the decade. Remember the game played in the decades following the war was different to modern cricket, not least because of the presence of wet wickets. If you want to add some pace to the side, I would prefer the selection of Tyson over Bedser, but the Surrey man led the England attack successfully for a much longer period.
Yes, there are several modern bowlers who have had longer England careers than Sidebottom. But in my opinion, he was a much more skillful and canny bowler than many England regulars (including Steve Harmison), and if England had been coaching by anyone without an obsession with raw pace, he would have had a much longer and highly successful England career.
I'm glad you have changed your mind on Mead.
I've already expressed my view on the bowling options of the first Post War team. In my opinion, your views are blinkered by using modern bowling conditions to select a team from two generations ago.
Re the 1970-99 team, I suppose the team looks much more balanced with Greig than Gough. With this change, we probably do gain more batting depth than we lose in bowling penetration. If this team were behind in a series, I think Gough should come in to give them the best chance of bowling the opposition out twice. Otherwise, Greig it is.
In the era in question, Washbrook made just over 2,500 runs at 42 with 6 centuries while Cowdrey made over 7,000 runs at 46 with 22 centuries, including significant experience as an opener. Yes, stats are certainly not everything, but in this case they do suggest Cowdrey was a clear level above Washbrook as a Test batsman. Care to explain your preference for Washbrook? His successful partnership with Hutton?
Mead may have opened on occasion but, as Flametree has already shown, this was not his primary batting position for the majority of his career. Mead was a considerably more prolific run scorer than Woolley in county cricket and generally did well when selected for England. But Woolley was often preferred for England as a) his wonderfully elegant batsmanship was far prettier on the eye than Mead's more workmanlike style, and b) he added another bowling option with his left arm spin. With four quality Test bowlers plus Hammond, this team already has enough bowling options. So I am happy to go with the better batsman, and for me, Mead's substance trumphs Woolley's beauty.Love these teams.
I reckon I'd find a spot for Frank Woolley in the inter-war side, probably over Mead (who was more of an opener anyway, wasn't he?) and I'd have Voce, Farnes and Allen all ahead of Bowes.
Your first post-war team looks to be short a quick - Statham instead of Wardle?
And yeah, a bunch of guys over Sidebottom.
Farnes and Allen were certainly quicker bowlers than Bowes, but I would generally favour the latter due to his greater consistency. I might grant you Farnes on a greentop or Allen if we wanted to add some some batting depth.
I don't see an imbalance in the bowling options of the first post war team. England generally played two spinners in the 1950s and were the most successful side of the decade. Remember the game played in the decades following the war was different to modern cricket, not least because of the presence of wet wickets. If you want to add some pace to the side, I would prefer the selection of Tyson over Bedser, but the Surrey man led the England attack successfully for a much longer period.
Yes, there are several modern bowlers who have had longer England careers than Sidebottom. But in my opinion, he was a much more skillful and canny bowler than many England regulars (including Steve Harmison), and if England had been coaching by anyone without an obsession with raw pace, he would have had a much longer and highly successful England career.
Obviously Grace was good enough for the pre Test 19th century team. He is excluded as I operated a strict policy of not selecting anyone for more than one era, and as he played for a longer period in the Test era, he fits more neatly into there. A good argument could be made in support of the notion that Grace was at his best in the Pre Test era. So perhaps he could replace Beauclerk in the pre Test team (batting much higher in the order of course), and someone like Abel or Fry could open in the Test era team.
I'm glad you have changed your mind on Mead.
I've already expressed my view on the bowling options of the first Post War team. In my opinion, your views are blinkered by using modern bowling conditions to select a team from two generations ago.
Re the 1970-99 team, I suppose the team looks much more balanced with Greig than Gough. With this change, we probably do gain more batting depth than we lose in bowling penetration. If this team were behind in a series, I think Gough should come in to give them the best chance of bowling the opposition out twice. Otherwise, Greig it is.
Thanks for the kind words.
In the era in question, Washbrook made just over 2,500 runs at 42 with 6 centuries while Cowdrey made over 7,000 runs at 46 with 22 centuries, including significant experience as an opener. Yes, stats are certainly not everything, but in this case they do suggest Cowdrey was a clear level above Washbrook as a Test batsman. Care to explain your preference for Washbrook? His successful partnership with Hutton?
Last edited:
watson
Banned
If averages are anything to go by then Hutton and Washbrook formed one of the most successful opening partnerships in history. For example, there have been only 4 opening partnerships who have put together more than 2000 runs and averaged 60 or more at the same time.
Plus Washbrook played between 1937 and 1956 so he would have played many of his Test matches against Lindwall and Miller at their peak.
Hobbs & Sutcliffe
Innings: 38
Runs: 3249
AVERAGE: 87.82
Hobbs & Rhodes
Innings: 36
Runs: 2146
AVERAGE: 61.31
Simpson & Lawry
Innings: 62
Runs: 3596
AVERAGE: 60.94
Hutton & Washbrook
Innings: 51
Runs: 2880
AVERAGE: 60.00
Other examples.....
Hayden & Langer
Innings: 113
Runs: 5655
AVERAGE: 51.88
Gooch & Boycott
Innings: 49
Runs: 1354
AVERAGE: 38.13
Greenidge & Haynes
Innings: 148
Runs: 6482
AVERAGE: 47.31
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283663.html
Plus Washbrook played between 1937 and 1956 so he would have played many of his Test matches against Lindwall and Miller at their peak.
Hobbs & Sutcliffe
Innings: 38
Runs: 3249
AVERAGE: 87.82
Hobbs & Rhodes
Innings: 36
Runs: 2146
AVERAGE: 61.31
Simpson & Lawry
Innings: 62
Runs: 3596
AVERAGE: 60.94
Hutton & Washbrook
Innings: 51
Runs: 2880
AVERAGE: 60.00
Other examples.....
Hayden & Langer
Innings: 113
Runs: 5655
AVERAGE: 51.88
Gooch & Boycott
Innings: 49
Runs: 1354
AVERAGE: 38.13
Greenidge & Haynes
Innings: 148
Runs: 6482
AVERAGE: 47.31
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283663.html
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I tend to think picking someone just because someone else in his side was also a good player is rather silly, tbh.