-
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.
England’s best-ever Test XI – ECB survey
- Thread starter MagicPoopShovel
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
Are we talking strictly English cricket in the 1920s-1930s, or FC cricket anywhere around the world? Because a lot of South Africans would come into consideration, as well as bowled before and after Larwood who regularly topped domestic/country charts but never got selected (or just got a handful of games)
EDIT: Sorry this is the England ATG thread, not the fast bowlers one. Scope limited to English County Cricket and English bowlers only. I'm sure there are a few players throughout history who had great stats domestically (for their era) and never got a proper shot at Tests. And that's my broader point really, that Test XIs should be limited to Test cricket performances and not include FC stuff. Not trying to argue against Larwood being dominant in FC cricket for his era.
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I'd be surprised if there's many if any players who have better FC records than Larwood who played no tests, or so few tests. Discounting the ones who missed their careers due to apartheid or war.
Larwood was right royally shafted by the English establishment. Last series was the Bodyline Ashes, 32/33 where he took 33 wickets in 5 tests at 19.5 a piece, SR of 40. Outstanding.
Larwood was right royally shafted by the English establishment. Last series was the Bodyline Ashes, 32/33 where he took 33 wickets in 5 tests at 19.5 a piece, SR of 40. Outstanding.
King Pietersen
International Captain
This is mental. 8 of the 11 are modern era players or blokes who commentate for Sky. I'm surprised Nasser and Bumble didn't get in the team. Isa Guha also unlucky to miss out.
My team would probably be:
Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
Pietersen (obvz)
Barrington
Botham
Knott +
Larwood
Laker
Barnes
Anderson
cnerd123
likes this
Ill do some stats mining later when I have the time to get a few examples, and to see if this stance of mine is actually justified or not. Did a quick search now to see if I can find all the season by season county stats from the 1920s onwards but no luck.
Larwood's selection for me is a lot like the Mitchell Johnson for Australia one, if you focus purely on their Test records. At their peaks they both were terrifying, and bowled at a level that is as good as express pace bowling is ever going to get (relevant to their eras). But they also have underwhelming performances on their record, which then poses and question about what qualifies a player to get into an ATG team. How do you balance peak quality Vs longevity.
Anderson and Lillee were, at their absolute peaks, not as terrifying as Larwood and Mitch. But they have more complete records, and sustained their peak quality over a longer stretch of Test cricket (and WSC cricket in the case of Lillee).
Don't think there is a wrong answer either way, just preference.
Larwood's selection for me is a lot like the Mitchell Johnson for Australia one, if you focus purely on their Test records. At their peaks they both were terrifying, and bowled at a level that is as good as express pace bowling is ever going to get (relevant to their eras). But they also have underwhelming performances on their record, which then poses and question about what qualifies a player to get into an ATG team. How do you balance peak quality Vs longevity.
Anderson and Lillee were, at their absolute peaks, not as terrifying as Larwood and Mitch. But they have more complete records, and sustained their peak quality over a longer stretch of Test cricket (and WSC cricket in the case of Lillee).
Don't think there is a wrong answer either way, just preference.
Rating larwood is a bit similar to rating an apartheid south African. The circumstances he exited the team under mean his FC record deserves a bit of look as well. But his test career lasted 7 years, and he was available for selection for about 2/3 of his FC career. The fact that he played so few tests was largely because he played in less than half the tests between his debut and retirement. A lot of these are because he was not considered good enough for selection, because his performances in tests were extremely patchy pre bodyline.
I'm not sure the extent to which he was an overperformer at FC level. I don't really have a problem putting him in an England test 1st XI or a 3rd one. He's a bit of an enigma either way.
I'm not sure the extent to which he was an overperformer at FC level. I don't really have a problem putting him in an England test 1st XI or a 3rd one. He's a bit of an enigma either way.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm not bothered to dig up sources pointing either way atm, but I'm not sure that's the case at all.
Slifer
International Captain
Curious to know why u left out Trueman??
Very true on here
cnerd123
likes this
If you're annoyed by cricket nerds then stay off the forum dedicated to talking cricket.
Lol it was more aimed at the "by naming atg teams made up of purely pre war cricketers" not the cricket nerds
. Plus this forum seems more about that Mr Miyagi dude repeating himself 1,000000 times in one thread
Last edited:
a massive zebra
International Captain
That statistic is slightly misleading but still partially true. Only one England bowler (Maurice Tate) played more Tests than Larwood between his debut and final Test. Many of the matches he missed were those against then weak sides like India, New Zealand and West Indies, against which England often only fielded a second string side in those days. Between his debut and final Test, Larwood played 15 of the 19 Tests against Australia (79%) and 6 of the 30 Tests against lesser teams (20%).
However, Larwood was dropped for the 2nd and 4th Tests of the 1930 Ashes after he had been decimated by Bradman and took just 4 wickets in 3 matches @ 75 in this series. It is difficult to argue Larwood was out of form at the time as he took 89 wickets @ 12.64 for Notts in the county championship that year. He was also dropped for the 3rd and 4th Tests of the 1926 Ashes, although his performances in the matches he did play in that series were perfectly respectable.
Last edited:
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Larwood wasn't decimated by Bradman in the 1st test in 1930. He only bowled 20 overs in the match (and took 2/21) before being, according to Wisden, invalided out with gastritis. On the other hand Tate was the only survivor of the four bowlers to play at Headlingley, unsurprisingly. From Wisden: while Larwood still looking very drawn as the result of his illness, had not the stamina to bowl at his full pace and was terribly expensive indicating that he wasn't fit. There's a devil hiding in the detail of his county average: even with three tests 89 wickets is not a terribly large amount for then, especially for someone averaging 13. So it is very possible that his illness and subsequent fitness was an issue.
I'm not sure how larwoods missed games played out.
That low % Larwood played vs weak teams may have been him out injured, being dropped for that series, him not bothering to play, something related to finances, or some sort of rotational policy with selectors. He gets a free pass on the last two in my book, but drops in my estimation on any of the others.
On the amount he played compared to compatriots, 7 years is a long time. I don't think any other bowlers had test careers over this entire period, so you are comparing bowlers who have retired/yet to debut. It would make a lot more sense to look at the % of matches they played over their careers than his. Hammond arrived a year and a half after larwood and played 36 tests until bodyline to larwoods 21. Why is this?
That low % Larwood played vs weak teams may have been him out injured, being dropped for that series, him not bothering to play, something related to finances, or some sort of rotational policy with selectors. He gets a free pass on the last two in my book, but drops in my estimation on any of the others.
On the amount he played compared to compatriots, 7 years is a long time. I don't think any other bowlers had test careers over this entire period, so you are comparing bowlers who have retired/yet to debut. It would make a lot more sense to look at the % of matches they played over their careers than his. Hammond arrived a year and a half after larwood and played 36 tests until bodyline to larwoods 21. Why is this?
I'm a cricket need too who if I could find someone willing would sit and talk about cricket all day. Just puzzles me how some people feel they have to only include players in atg teams from 100 years ago as if just to try to prove how much they know about the game.
Ffs I've seen Aussie xis on here with no one from the 1995-2007 team. Not even earns which is just ridiculous
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well McGrath walks into an Aussie all time XI comfortably. Warne vs O'Reilly is tough. Ponting and Hayden have incredibly tough competition.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Don't forget Gilchrist