Would Botham make it to your England ATG XI?

[Sliferxxxx]

So you are saying Pollock is ok, as a 3rd seamer but Anderson, Willis, Snow, Tyson, Larwood and Broad are not, that makes no sense what so ever,

Pollock imo, is significantly better than Broad, Snow, Larwood, Willis and Anderson.

 

[Johan]

dunno about Pollock over Jimmy but he can bat so

 

[capt_Luffy]

Pollock imo, is significantly better than Broad, Snow, Larwood, Willis and Anderson.

Purely as a bowler, not sure how much better is he to Jimmy

 

[Coronis]

Pollock still getting underrated..

 

[kyear2]

If he plays, then so does Rhodes.

If you want a better spinner as in Laker, Verity or Underwood; then drop him. Grace and Hammond will be fine 5th options.

The confidence in how Grace would be able to do is absolutely insane to me.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The confidence in how Grace would be able to do is absolutely insane to me.

Same but with Barry.

 

[Coronis]

Same but with Barry.

Cue post

 

[kyear2]

It is pretty big yes. However the downside is his batting compared to whomever would replace him. I think this has been said on here before, but realistically, your 5th bowler is not going to bowl that many overs on average. I feel in that case the batting disadvantage outweighs the advantage of his bowling.

This I would fully agree with but for one factor.

With a batting lineup with Hutton, Barrington and Hammond (can't go with Sutcliffe), you almost need that 2nd explosive batsman. Someone besides Root who can aid with a quick chase if needed, or just to turn the course of an innings.

 

[Johan]

Hammond doesn't deserve to be called slow, he was very much a situation player but he could accelerate easily.

 

[kyear2]

No. You're comprising the bating/bowling quality. I'd personally go:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton
Knott+
Verity
Anderson
Trueman
Barnes

Hammond can roll his arm over if needs be.

No Root is one thing, not having a single batsman besides Hobbs who has a strike rate over 50 is interesting.

 

[kyear2]

That's great. After Hayden, Simpson, Bradman, Ponting and Chappell have tired out the 3 pacers Miller and Gilchrist can come in and feast off Hammond lol

Anyone that doesn't pick a top 5 ATG allrounder when you have one available is crazy imo. People seem to think 4 main bowlers is all you need as they are ATG's and can bowl any side out, but seem to forget they're bowling against ATG batsmen at the same level as them

But with everything else it's balance as well.

It's what you're gaining as a bowler, but also the sacrifice you're making for a legitimate batsman as well.

Not an easy decision either way, I don't think.

 

[kyear2]

If they can see off the main bowlers, Botham won't make a difference. Besides even at peak, Botham sucked balls vs the one atg batting he faced during his time in both disciplines. You really think he's doing anything against Bradman and co. assuming Truman failed. I don't. An all rounder can be included provided that they are at least atg/great in one of those disciplines: Imran, Hadlee, Sobers, Kallis hell even Pollock etc.

Yup, Sobers, Kallis, Gilchrist, they are the real cheat codes.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, can you really say that against Australia, Windies or SA? Though tbh idk how well they can compete with those 3 teams anyway. Perhaps the main focus of the construction of the team should be to ensure victory over Ind/Pak and ensure their place as #4

Makes sense

 

[kyear2]

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Herbert Sutcliffe
3. Len Hutton (C)
4. Walter Hammond
5. Ken Barrington
6. Joe Root
7. Alan Knott (WK)
8. Ian Botham
9. Jim Laker
10. Fred Trueman
11. Sydney Barnes

sadly, the lack of a third Elite ATG pacer lets England down, always. For Botham vs Jimmy, well, think Botham won England a lot more games than Jimmy, and honestly, that's all that matters at the end of the day.

3rd?

There's a second? We have no idea how fast Barnes was or what he really bowled.

But seriously, Tyson.

 

[Johan]

3rd?

There's a second? We have no idea how fast Barnes was or what he really bowled.

But seriously, Tyson.

Tyson lacks the longevity or reliability really.

 

[kyear2]

Well, there is an argument that stacking the batting with Compton/Root at 6 and Botham at 8 at least shores up your chances of draws.

I think they can compete well against SA ATG XI though.

How?

Richards | Smith | Kallis | Pollock | Nourse | de Villiers | wk of choice | Procter | Tayfield | Donald | Steyn

That team is challenging the WI and Aus.

 

[kyear2]

Hutton is an opener/ he will not bat at 3

Sir John Berry Hobbs
Sir Len Hutton (C)
Walter Hammond (6)
Joe Root
Denis Compton
Ben Stokes (5)
Lord Ian Botham (3)
Alan Knott (Wk)
Jim Laker (4)
Fred Truman (1)
Syd Barnes (2)

12th man: Wilfred Rhodes

And not at all suited to the no 3 role.

 

[kyear2]

Purely as a bowler, not sure how much better is he to Jimmy

Are we being serious right now?

He's a tier above, at least.

 

[kyear2]

Same but with Barry.

Oh wow, didn't think anyone would have fallen for that.

This is like the time I asked someone which was more palatable...That a finger was snapped and the earth was formed or that everything happened as we see daily in a proto planetary disk over millions of years.

Grace, the one we've never seen, him nor the level of competition, as it was in 1880 of course.

Or

Barry who actually faced all of the great fast bowlers of his era and did well against all of them. Some of whom actually called him the best they've seen.

This argument is actually getting silly now... You have more faith in Grace than Barry Richards who we've seen destroy Dennis Lillee, Mike Procter, Snow, Thompson. Just stop.

 

[kyear2]

Cue post

Yup.