All-time XI: England

[harsh.ag]

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.

My reasoning is any English ATXI has to inlcude at least five of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Hammond, Barrington, and WG. I took all six, banking on Hammond and WG for fifth bowling duties. Larwood, Trueman, Bedser, and Barnes gives you four different kinds of bowlers. Trueman and Bedser to open the bowling. Trueman with his outswingers and Bedser's stock ball being the inswinger. Larwood with his pace as first change, and Barnes to provide O'Reilly-esque spin.

Bedser could be replaced by Jimmy or with Botham even if you wanted to really shore up the batting.

 

[watson]

I find it a difficult decision to choose between Verity and Laker, but I normally pick Verity because he was the only English spinner who competed with Bradman on an equal level. Also, he is a good No.8 option to shore up a tail that is generally weak.

Average
Home: 80 wickets at 22.26
Away: 64 wickets at 27.01

Those raw averages don't tell the whole story. What's interesting is that Verity had to bowl a lot of balls for his wickets, especially away. However, his average stayed low because of a superb Economy Rate.

Strike Rate
Home: 67.8
Away: 89.7

Economy Rate
Home: 1.96
Away: 1.80


Verity's two series in Australia tell a similar story.

1932/33
Tests = 4
Wickets = 11
Average = 24.63
Strike Rate = 73.6
Economy Rate = 2.00

1936/37
Tests = 5
Wickets = 10
Average = 45.50
Strike Rate = 156.7
Economy Rate = 1.74


At first glance Verity's 1936/37 Ashes tour looks awful. However, the series was not an ordinary one. England won the first two Tests after Australia had to bat on two uncovered rain affected pitches. Verity was reduced to a minor support act as the two English fast-bowlers Allen and Voce ran through the Australian line-ups.

However, by the third Test in Melbourne the tables were turned. It was England who were caught on the bad wickets, and rather than score more ducks Bradman decided to demolish the English attack. In the three remaining Tests he scored 690 runs at at an average 138 to help Australia win the series 3-2.

Verity was caught in the middle of this onslaught but still managed to maintain his usual immaculate control. During Bradman's magnificent innings of 270 during the third Test at the MCG (often voted as the best innings in history) he sent down 37.7 overs for just 79 runs before dismissing Bradman on the 5th day. One of eight times that Verity claimed Bradman's wicket in Tests.

Neville Cardus said at the time;

Nothing but consummate length and flight could have checked Bradman, in circumstances made for Bradman. Verity's length dropped with the persistence of water on a rock. I began to look for stalactites hanging down to the earth.

No wonder Bradman later exclaimed;

I think I knew all about Clarrie (Grimmett), but with Hedley I was never sure. You see, there was no breaking point with him. His whole career exemplified all that was best about cricket.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah I wouldn't hold that series against Verity. Quite a few big name spinners have been trashed in Oz.

 

[91Jmay]

Thought it was interesting that Bumble reckons that Broad/Anderson are England's best ever pairing given that he has watched them all. Guessing Trueman would be the best individual bowler.

EDIT - I am talking post-war obviously.

 

[mr_mister]

Atherton *
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Grace
Stewart +
Bedser
Larwood
Trueman
Barnes

 

[viriya]

I think the Eng All-Time XI will be the best by default because Barnes and Lohmann would destroy any side (Bradman's Aus XI included imo).

 

[Red]

I think the Eng All-Time XI will be the best by default because Barnes and Lohmann would destroy any side (Bradman's Aus XI included imo).

You're wrong if you think Barnes and Lohmann were significantly better than any other bowlers.

 

[viriya]

You're wrong if you think Barnes and Lohmann were significantly better than any other bowlers.

Since none of us watched them play and they completely dominated in their time I don't see how it's possible to clearly say that other bowlers were as good. I think saying Barnes was significantly better is not controversial since a lot of people think of him as a potential GOAT. Lohmann is more of a stretch but I think he is underrated (even allowing for the lower averages of his time he outperformed his peers massively).

 

[Red]

Since none of us watched them play and they completely dominated in their time I don't see how it's possible to clearly say that other bowlers were as good. I think saying Barnes was significantly better is not controversial since a lot of people think of him as a potential GOAT. Lohmann is more of a stretch but I think he is underrated (even allowing for the lower averages of his time he outperformed his peers massively).

If you rocked up to a net session and Barnes and Lohmann were in one net, and Lillee and Thommo were in the other, you'd choose Barnes and Lohmann.

All pre WWI cricket stats and results have to be taken with a grain of salt. The game was still developing. To bunch these bowlers from this era with guys like Steyn, Marshall and McGrath doesn't make sense.

 

[viriya]

If you rocked up to a net session and Barnes and Lohmann were in one net, and Lillee and Thommo were in the other, you'd choose Barnes and Lohmann.

All pre WWI cricket stats and results have to be taken with a grain of salt. The game was still developing. To bunch these bowlers from this era with guys like Steyn, Marshall and McGrath doesn't make sense.

That's completely unfair. You can only dominate your era. You have to be rated compared to your era first, not dismissed right away due to it.

 

[watson]

That's completely unfair. You can only dominate your era. You have to be rated compared to your era first, not dismissed right away due to it.

I think the Eng All-Time XI will be the best by default because Barnes and Lohmann would destroy any side (Bradman's Aus XI included imo).

These two statements contradict eachother.

 

[the big bambino]

Hmm I don't think so. I'm presuming to guess he is saying you can draw a line on a player's GOAT selection based on the only info you have which is his performance during his career.

Look I agree with RH and Viriya here. At least in parts. I'd also prefer to face McGrath and Warne over Lillee and Thommo but I reckon the former were the better pair. I think Barnes would still be a great bowler on true pitches and in fact he proved this on the true Australian pitches of his day which were made to accommodate timeless matches. Lohmann I'm not so sure. I think he was a bowler that suited the pitches of his era. His type was preferred to Kortright and Mold types who would have played more tests, and Lohmann fewer if pitches were truer.

 

[the big bambino]

Btw if you have a seam bowling spot available in your all time Eng XI and are considering filling it with Anderson but haven't yet picked John Snow then you've overshot your station imo.

 

[watson]

Hmm I don't think so. I'm presuming to guess he is saying you can draw a line on a player's GOAT selection based on the only info you have which is his performance during his career.

Look I agree with RH and Viriya here. At least in parts. I'd also prefer to face McGrath and Warne over Lillee and Thommo but I reckon the former were the better pair. I think Barnes would still be a great bowler on true pitches and in fact he proved this on the true Australian pitches of his day which were made to accommodate timeless matches. Lohmann I'm not so sure. I think he was a bowler that suited the pitches of his era. His type was preferred to Kortright and Mold types who would have played more tests, and Lohmann fewer if pitches were truer.

I guess I disagreed with Viriya's hyperbole more than anything else. Yes, Barnes and Lohmann were very great bowlers, but to say that they would 'destroy any side' sounds plain silly to me.

I have Barnes in my ATG Eng XI as the Bill O'Reilly style bowler because he would have to be every bit as good. I'd also have Lohmann in my XI except that one medium paced spinner is probably enough. No point in having two.

 

[watson]

On the topic of picking English fast bowlers FS Jackson had this to say in 1944. He also makes some interesting comments about his Australian opponents Ernie Jones and Charles Turner.

The Best Fast Bowler

Of all the fast bowlers the Australians have sent to this country, I think Jones was the best in my time. I have very good reasons for remembering him, as I took part in the first match he played in this country against Lord Sheffield's XI at Sheffield Park, Sussex, in 1896. He was one of the most powerful men I ever met.......

Although I never played against him, I would say that Larwood appeared to me the best fast bowler I saw. I have a great admiration for him, with his beautiful rhythmic run and a perfect action which gave him complete control over pace, direction and length. It was these qualities that made him such a fine bowler. I think that he achieved this because at the moment he delivered the ball he was poised high in the air with his left shoulder well up and pointing towards the wicket. It was then that he was complete master of himself, and the control at the end of his run gave him time to deliver the ball the way he wanted. Jones was similar.

Tom Richardson and Lockwood were great bowlers. Lockwood appeared to me the more difficult of the two owing to his ability to change his pace imperceptibly. He had more kinds of deliveries, and his variety, with an occasional very fast ball, made him great. I think Cotter for a few overs was a bit faster than Jones. Kortwright was generally regarded as the fastest bowler of his time in this country. Not only was he a very fast bowler, but also a very good one.

While on this subject of bowlers I am very sorry that, besides Jones, another old Australian friend, Charles Turner, has passed away. I always regarded Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against. He had a graceful run and lovely action, with clever change of pace.I recall my first Test match (1893) at Lord's; I had made 91 when, late cutting one from Turner that kept lower than I expected, I was splendidly caught by Blackham. It was a grand catch. His gloves must have been almost under my bat, and he remarked "Bad luck, youngster. It is one of the biggest flukes I ever had." In that innings England scored 334, and Turner's analysis was: 36 overs, 16 maidens, 67 runs, 6 wickets.

Wisden - The best fast bowler

 

[the big bambino]

Grace made the same point about Lockwood's change of pace.

 

[watson]

Just been surfing the net during coffee and found an interesting newspaper article from 1946.

In the article Walter Hammond was interviewed by the Advocate newspaper and asked to rate the inter-war bowlers. His opinion is interesting because it by-passes the two usual heroes Larwood and O'Reilly.

The article begins;

Verity -- Greatest Bowler of Inter-War Years

In the opinion of Walter Hammond, English Test cap-
tain, Hedley Verity was the greatest bowler of the
inter-war years.

Of all the bowlers he has met, he regards Grimmett
as the one with whom he could take fewest liberties.

Voce he considers the best fast bowler of the period,
and close behind him Constantine, the West Indian......

26 Oct 1946 - Verity ? Greatest Bowler of Inter-War Years - Trove

 

[the big bambino]

That is interesting. I probably get why he rates Constantine so highly as the West Indian had a good record against Hammond. Nice to see Voce get a bouquet. An underrated and overshadowed bowler.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah always felt Constantine must have been damaged by his weak teammates. Perhaps countless dropped catches is the reason is average is so crap for a so-called 'ATG'

 

[Red]

That's completely unfair. You can only dominate your era. You have to be rated compared to your era first, not dismissed right away due to it.

I agree that you can only dominate your era, but the cricketing era pre WWI (and especially pre 1900) was vastly different from the eras that followed.

I didn't dismiss anyone "right away". I include SF Barnes in my ATG Eng XI. Barnes and Lohmann were greats of their era, but their era was unique in that the game was developing and international cricket was in its infancy.