Interesting point. It was around fifty years ago that the build-up to the Centenary Test sparked reminiscence, comparisons and all-time England teams. A rough consensus of those teams looked something like this: Grace*, Hobbs, Hammond, Compton (or Hutton at No.3), Woolley, Ames or Evans, Hirst or Tate, Rhodes, Larwood, Laker, Barnes.
Ranji and Richardson had faded into the past, the former due partly to Indian independence, but there was still nobody who had played for England since 1960. Benaud stated that only one world-class English batsman had emerged since the war: Peter May. He wasn't considered either.
The team reflects a continuing devotion to overall first-class cricket, team balance (left-hand bat, two spinners), and a respect for bowlers with outstanding series in Australia. In 1962 EW Swanton wrote that Grace, Rhodes and Woolley were the greatest all-round cricketers to date. Lord Hawke had described Hirst as the greatest county cricketer. Sunday Times correspondent Robin Marlar included Alfred Mynn in his side.
During the 1980s Botham would take the main all-rounder spot, allowing a wicket-keeping upgrade to Knott (from Ames if not Evans). A greater emphasis on Tests sees Gower replace Woolley as the left-hander, and Hutton replace Grace. West Indian dominance dilutes the Ashes effect. On more uniform pitches fast bowlers are now more important than a balanced attack. Trueman's reputation rises. He took more wickets against West Indies than Australia, and would replace one of the spinners, probably Rhodes.
In 2011-12 England topped the ICC Rankings. The growth of the internet led to more stats-based analysis, with less fashionable names such as Barrington and Underwood making Cricinfo's England XI in 2009. Their readers still preferred Gower and Laker. Pietersen was chosen by both readers and panel after only four years in the side, taking Compton's place.
Mike Atherton recently said the best four England batsmen he has seen are Gooch, Gower, Pietersen and Root. For some time now commercialised English media has been promoting its own product by talking up current players and elevating them to all-time status. A side without decent 21st century representation no longer seems acceptable.
So Root for Gower? Anderson for Larwood? If Gower goes then Stokes arguably also comes in as left-hand bat, fast bowler, all-purpose fielder and popular captain, replacing Trueman and shortening the tail in the process. Possible current consensus all-time team, if there is now such a thing: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Root, Pietersen, Stokes*, Botham, Knott+, Laker, Barnes, Anderson.
Only four men keep their places from fifty years ago: Hobbs, Hammond, Barnes and Laker. Is the current side actually stronger than the old one?
