All-time XI: England

[aussie]

No, you haven't - you're picking and choosing things to suit your argument but ignoring the bigger picture, in spite of the number of people picking the big holes in it.

Well its pretty clear the basics of my arguments have been adopted by the panel on cricinfo that are picking All-time XIs currently. They aren't suggesting to use of things like time-machines - which would basically dictate to use of post-war & pre-war All-time XIs as zaremba suggested - so as the supplement the difficienes that certain pre-war batsman would have to various sides.

They are picking one team based on the history of the game.

 

[Pothas]

While deliberating over what the best hypotetical All-time XI could be for the various nations, you learn about the players & the history of the game.

Not saying you cannot do it but claiming it to be an historical study is just incorrect.

 

[aussie]

Not saying you cannot do it but claiming it to be an historical study is just incorrect.

The fact that while you are deliberating over what the best ATXIs for the various test playing nations could be, you have learn will learn about the history of the game - at least i have. So its although the overall aim picking ATXIs is hypotetical - it is still very much a historical study of the game.

 

[Red]

Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
Root
Compton
Ames
Botham
Larwood
Barnes
Laker
Trueman

 

[Gob]

Kay pe

 

[Pothas]

We had another thread on this not long ago, nobody had Anderson which surprised me at the time. I think he has a really good case to get in now.

 

[Pothas]

Also I really seem to have struggled with typing the word hypothetical.

 

[Howe_zat]

We had another thread on this not long ago, nobody had Anderson which surprised me at the time. I think he has a really good case to get in now.

Yeah as good as anyone. I think Barnes and Trueman are comfortably ahead of everyone else, past them there's quite a few names all in the mix, Anderson among them.

Bedser, Statham, Willis, Snow all have similar records to post 2010 Anderson. Larwood and Lohmann are a bit more unique but I can't see why you'd feel too strongly about it.

 

[harsh.ag]

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe
Ken Barrington
Len Hutton (c)
Wally Hammond
WG Grace
Alan Knott (w)
Harold Larwood
Fred Trueman
Alec Bedser
Sydney Barnes

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't think there's much difference between Root's first 3 years and Pietersen's. Let's see if he makes more of it.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah as good as anyone. I think Barnes and Trueman are comfortably ahead of everyone else, past them there's quite a few names all in the mix, Anderson among them.

Bedser, Statham, Willis, Snow all have similar records to post 2010 Anderson. Larwood and Lohmann are a bit more unique but I can't see why you'd feel too strongly about it.

I can understand why a lot of people go for Larwood, he has a very special place in England history and offers extreme pace, but what Anderson has done over the last six years might just put him above the rest for me.

 

[harsh.ag]

If Trueman and Botham are both there in the XI, then picking Larwood over Jimmy makes a lot of sense.

 

[watson]

We had another thread on this not long ago, nobody had Anderson which surprised me at the time. I think he has a really good case to get in now.

James Anderson wouldn't be out of place in an English ATG XI. However, he tends to be more consistent at Home than Away.

Home: 284 wickets at 25.59.
Away: 145 wickets at 34.86

In Australia he has had two very poor series and one good one. Overall, stand-out performances have been rare.

In Australia: 13 Tests, 43 wickets at 38.44 (5fers = 0)


These stats tend to contrast with the other great England pace bowlers. Harold Larwood is a special case of course because of Body Line and some unfortunate injuries when playing at Home. John Snow seems to have enjoyed touring and Bob Willis should get mentioned more often than he does.


Fred Trueman
Home: 229 wickets at 20.04
Away: 78 wickets at 26.08

John Snow
Home: 140 wickets at 29.21
Away: 62 wickets at 20.91

Sydney Barnes
Home: 63 wickets at 13.38
Away: 126 wickets at 17.96

Ian Botham
Home: 226 wickets at 27.54
Away: 157 wickets at 29.63

Bob Willis
Home: 176 wickets at 23.50
Away: 149 wickets at 27.20

Harold Larwood
Home: 27 wickets at 31.25
Away: 51 wickets at 26.82


Curiously, Anderson seems to have more in common with Alec Bedser who also preferred the softer English pitches, and overcast skies. In these conditions either bowler could justifiably walk straight into any great English team.


Alec Bedser
Home: 167 wickets at 21.55
Away: 69 wickets at 32.98

 

[watson]

Just looked at Jim Laker's stats.

Home: 135 wickets at 18.08
Away: 58 wickets at 28.60


That Home average of 18.08 is remarkable even allowing for 'doctored' pitches.

 

[Tom Flint]

Post black and white xi for me I'm of a younger generation
Boycott
Cook
Gooch
Root
Pieterson
Stewart
Botham
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Willis

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah as good as anyone. I think Barnes and Trueman are comfortably ahead of everyone else, past them there's quite a few names all in the mix, Anderson among them.

Bedser, Statham, Willis, Snow all have similar records to post 2010 Anderson. Larwood and Lohmann are a bit more unique but I can't see why you'd feel too strongly about it.

You're judging them on a whole career and him on half a career, as you imply yourself.

Anderson is a very good bowler and it's not a criticism of him to think he is not particularly close to being in an England all-time XI. There are four people in the bolded who are all ahead of him as pretty much insinuated in said quote. And I'm not sure any of the bolded would get in either.

 

[Pothas]

Not sure who you would have other than those 4, apart from Larwood who is certainly not a stats pick.

I think if Anderson ends he career with 500 wickets at an average of around 27-28 then at the very least he has got to be in the conversation. Broad as well really, both have contributed hugely to what has been on the whole a pretty damn successful period for England.

 

[watson]

If Trueman and Botham are both there in the XI, then picking Larwood over Jimmy makes a lot of sense.

I think that this a good point. If Bothan, Trueman, and Barnes are in the ATG XI (as they should be) then the team already has three bowlers who can swing or 'swerve' the ball. Trueman's outswinger bought him most his wickets apparently.

What is missing from the England attack is an enforcer who can easily intimidate batsman. Both Larwood and Snow were past masters at doing this. Woodfull, Oldfield, Ian Chappell, and Jenner would all agree.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not sure who you would have other than those 4, apart from Larwood who is certainly not a stats pick.

I think if Anderson ends he career with 500 wickets at an average of around 27-28 then at the very least he has got to be in the conversation. Broad as well really, both have contributed hugely to what has been on the whole a pretty damn successful period for England.

Barnes, Trueman, Verity, Bedser (least sold on Bedser and could easily be persuaded otherwise) would be the specialists in my all time attack. Several others ahead of Anderson. Laker and Underwood both streets ahead and only don't get in because Verity is already there. Maybe should be in anyway, particularly Laker. Plus the three others in Howe's post, plus others I may be forgetting.

The point I was making in the post I quoted was I think there is a logical disconnect in saying that Anderson is as good as anyone and deserves to be in the conversation with four bowlers because half of his career is as good as their whole careers. The fact that they played in an era where 450 Test wickets wasn't possible isn't a stick to beat them with. On the flip side, the fact that for half of his career Anderson was miles worse than them and for half of his career was just as good as them strikes me as a perfectly good stick to beat Anderson with.

Anderson is a really good bowler, he has been amongst the best in the world for a good 7-8 years, but personally I don't think he is close to an England all time XI. I think such an opinion is more a statement on how hot the competition is for that XI over 140 years of history as opposed to being a criticism of Anderson.

 

[Coronis]

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe
Ken Barrington
Len Hutton (c)
Wally Hammond
WG Grace
Alan Knott (w)
Harold Larwood
Fred Trueman
Alec Bedser
Sydney Barnes

I do love an all time english xi with Sutcliffe. Think maybe Hutton would be a better fit at 3... maybe something more like this. Definitely think Hobbs, Hammond, Sutcliffe and Hutton are well ahead of the rest of the English batsmen.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton*
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Knott+
Trueman
Laker
Bedser
Barnes

Not 100% sure if the last bowler should be a spinner or if Barnes is enough.