All-time XI: England

[chasingthedon]

No they don't, because those two dominated their eras more than the other potential picks did theirs.

I did a piece on Lohmann which concluded with this table, showing the records of other players who bowled in the same Tests:-



These averages compare favourably with Lohmann's, though the wickets per match are inferior.

 

[AndrewB]

Grace could also bowl a bit, if we are not discounting round-arm.

Must be the only cricketer with fc best batting of 300+ and best bowling of all ten wickets?

Looks like it: Giffen (271) and Tarrant (250) got pretty close; Hammond, Hirst and Foster each had a 300+ and a nine-for.

 

[watson]

Not talking about his test career ffs watson.

If his test stats were as good as I had described, there wouldn't be a debate at all ffs.

Our point is that if you consider WG's accomplishments in fc cricket enough to judge him in a Test scenario, then on the back of his fc record, he's better than everyone bar Bradman (and even that's debatable). If you don't have his fc record in consideration, then he shouldn't get in ahead of all those other great English openers.

I was agreeing with OS point.

But yeah, WG's FC comparisons are incredible.

 

[the big bambino]

Watson.

Re your post at #207. I like Hammond's frankness regarding fast bowling. He's only saying what they're all thinking. Besides admitting a healthy fear of fast bowling is not confessing an inability to play it. Its the fear that provides an impetus to succeed and overcome as Hammond eventually did.

Woolley's 30 better men comment is worse than an exaggeration its just untrue. It generally asserts Woolley's generational bias and indirectly implies his own superiority. After all he doesn't name any of them but we do know Frank got test matches ahead of them as he was a virtual regular after his debut and up to the war. He is basically saying "I'm better than Hammond".

This can be tested. Whenever the selectors could make the direct choice they picked Hammond regularly whereas Woolley sometimes didn't even make the MCC tour squad. You might argue this is unfair as Woolley was older but at the time of the 28/29 tour Hammond did not have the reputation he was to eventually make for himself. In fact at the time Woolley was better credentialed. Hammond got to Australia Woolley didn't. He had to be satisfied with a consolation B tour the following summer.

If you still believe the age difference discriminates against Woolley then remember how posterity has rated them when comparing their full careers. Hammond is basically a lock for a best ever Eng team as you can see on this thread. Whereas Woolley and his 30 contemporaries hardly get a mention. You might wish to play him at 4 and the reasons you offer are fair enough. For the same reason I'd strongly consider playing Laird for Aus v WI and Raja for Pak against the same opponent. I think 4 is Hammond's natural spot and with a record of succeeding against pace men and equipped with protective gear and present restrictions on bouncers believe he could adequately justify his position.

 

[watson]

Agree your points BB.

 

[Coronis]

I think 4 is Hammond's natural spot and with a record of succeeding against pace men and equipped with protective gear and present restrictions on bouncers believe he could adequately justify his position.

Well to be honest 3 is his natural position, despite him playing more at 4, as evidenced by his success there. Though his record at 4 shows his flexibility.

 

[the big bambino]

I guess that's right. I have a feeling that 3 is a young man's spot. Well I mean say years 25-31. Not a hard and fast rule though. But that age range generally combines peak reflexes with adequate experience. Its such a challenging spot that I think players tire of it and can be moved down one spot to preserve their careers for the benefit of the team. So on reflection I'd say Hammond's natural spot was at 3, being the side's best bat, and gravitate to 4 as he got older.

I've just checked that his 240 at Lords in 38 came at 4 so yay for my theory. However he came in at 2/20 so was a virtual 3 so there you go.

 

[Days of Grace]

Hutton
Hobbs
Grace
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Knott
Verity
Larwood
Trueman
Barnes

*Taking FC and test cricket into consideration.

8 bowling options. Verity and Larwood to help shore up the batting as well as being the equal of any of their competitors.

 

[91Jmay]

Sutcliffe
Hobbs
Grace
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Prior
Foster
Lohmann
Trueman
Barnes

 

[the big bambino]

Enjoying seeing FR Foster getting some love.

 

[91Jmay]

Been reading everything I can about him for last few days. I 'knew' about the Bears surprising Championship win in 1911 but for some odd reason I'd always connected it with Frank Field rather than Foster. Delving deeper into that season I can see I was very wrong! Foster contributing with bat and ball, although Field was great as well with 122 wickets @ 19s on what seem to be very batting friendly pitches.

 

[bagapath]

In my mind, WG's incredible first class record and his good test record (for his times) make him an all-time great opener for sure; he is certainly among the top five batters who took on the new ball first up. hobbs, hutton, gavaskar and sutcliffe are the other four. greenidge, hayden, trumper, sehwag and boycott complete the top ten. (there is a case for g.smith and ponsford to be included in the top 10 in place of boycott and sehwag)

Even in such a distinguished bunch, hutton and hobbs stand clearly as the leaders, even better than grace, gavaskar and sutcliffe.

Don't ask me how I arrived at this conclusion. Obviously, there is no science behind this belief. may be because they played against a wider range of bowlers and in alien lands and they did so well for so long setting and breaking records throughout their illustrious careers, I always imagine them as two of the greatest opening batsmen of all time. men for all seasons.

 

[Red]

Smith > Hayden for mine.

 

[Pothas]

Have picked Foster in many a draft but it still seems willfully obscure to actually pick him an all time side, just not enough Tests for me.

 

[Furball]

Didn't he once score 800 odd runs in 2 weeks one year? Couple of triple tons IIRC.



Found it. That is ridiculous.

I think he'd scored near enough half of the first 100 First Class centuries, nobody else had scored more than 10.

 

[zaremba]

That's incredible. I knew this was a thing but to see it in raw numbers is very impressive. And yeh, Bradmanesque.

Maybe exceeds Bradman's dominance. 1871 is just bonkers, and the other years prove it wasn't a flash in the pan.

 

[AndrewB]

I think he'd scored near enough half of the first 100 First Class centuries, nobody else had scored more than 10.

They weren't the first 100 first-class centuries, but in 1869-74 there were 98 first-class centuries scored in England and Grace scored 41 of them.

 

[watson]

Grace love is all very well, but do you really want someone snobby in your team who is going to punch your best bowler?

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton were a lot nicer.

CRICKET

The following telegrams from Adelaide appear in the Melbourne evening journals of Wednesday, 9 April 1892 : —

"The English cricketers left this morning. The launch, Mermaid, proceeded on board the Valetta. They were seen on board by Major Wardle, and Messrs. Giffen, Lyons, Blackham, Jock Dougharty, and several local sportsmen. Some of the team had gone on board early, there having been an unpleasentness between Grace and some of his men on account of an interview with Lohmann published by some paper, in which he condemned Grace. This morning, at the hotel, Grace and Lohmann had some hot words, and a few blows were exchanged."

"After the launch moved off from the pier not a single cheer wae raised. The departure was of a melancholy character. - It is rumored that Grace and Lohmann came to blows this morning the subject of dispute being an interview published by the Bulletin, crediting Lohmann with a frank avowal of the dislike of the professionals to travelling with Grace."

09 Apr 1892 - CRICKET. - Trove

 

[harsh.ag]

Grace love is all very well, but do you really want someone snobby in your team who is going to punch your best bowler?

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton were a lot nicer.

No one's hitting Marshall.

EDIT: Forgot it was an England thread. But yeah, no one's hitting Trueman either. Plus that was a wanker statement given by Lohmann.

 

[the big bambino]

Maybe a new thread Best punches in cricket. A few were thrown before the Australian tour to England in 1912. Percy McDonnell caused an Englishmen to miss a test by riling him up and then ducking the haymaker which went on to connect the wall behind him.