Most Competitive All-time XI

[archie mac]

Award?, anyway it wasn't a typo i'm serious even though Grace was probably the legendary player of the early days i think England have produced better players down the years i.e openers or all-rounders where Grace would like be considered in an All-time English team.

I don't think England have ever had a player Ave: twice as much as next best batsman season after season, as Grace did for a few years. He is fact the only person I can entertain as better than the Don.

Yes award, we gave you an award this week in the CW awards. Is SS the only one who reads them?

 

[marc71178]

We ar enot judging people's peaks. we are juidging 'em on their performance through-out their careers. botham for most of his career was useless

Hmm, that's a bit OTT.

 

[JBH001]

ENGLAND

1. Len Hutton* - Captain
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Peter May
4. Walter Hammond
5. Dennis Compton
6. Les Ames+ - W/Keeper
7. Ian Botham
8. Harold Larwood
9. Freddie Trueman
10. Jim Laker
11. Syd Barnes

BACK-UPS: Andrew Flintoff, Ken Barrington, Hedley Verity, Allan Knott.

Well, I do think you can drop Larwood and include John Snow instead.
One of the great English fast bowlers (highly respected by the Aussies) and I think, generally quite under-rated. IMO better than Larwood or Willis, and perhaps Statham or even Trueman. The fact that Hutton was another Yorkshireman like Illingworth, and was a captain in a similar mould, may also mean that he could get the best out of Snow.

I also would rather include Verity or Rhodes or Underwood (depending on batting requirements in which case Rhodes is your man) over Laker - Laker was good, no question, but I sometimes see him as a one series pony.

Also, definitely include Barrington over May/Compton who can take the no.5 spot with Hammond batting at no.3. May/Compton (perhaps May?) can then bat no.4.

IMO I prefer Knotty over Ames (or for that matter Evans) but that may just come down to personal preference.

 

[grecian]

Surely Hammond has to be in & Botham at his best was England's best all-rounder..

Yeah, Hammond and May could of been picked, but I just feel Hendren is incredibly under-rated in the world of cricket, his figures add up rather well to that of Hobbs.

Seen Botham, seen Flintoff, think Freddies better. In fact I would choose Grace ahead of Beefy.

Actually on reflection, I'd pick Barnes ahead of Statham. I totally forgot about him

 

[Goughy]

We ar enot judging people's peaks. we are juidging 'em on their performance through-out their careers. botham for most of his career was useless

Seen Botham, seen Flintoff, think Freddies better.

 

[grecian]

Sorry Goughy, but I saw them both in their peaks, it is still my opinion that Flintoff is a better batsmen, and their bowling was similar in effectiveness.

I guess its all about personal opinion.

 

[Goughy]

it is still my opinion that Flintoff is a better batsmen, and their bowling was similar in effectiveness.

I guess its all about personal opinion.

Flintoffs batting is light years behind Bothams. It is nothing to do with personal opinion but to do with facts and truths.

I could handle someone taking Flintoffs bowling over Botham as he is quicker. They would be wrong, but I could understand the choice.

Flintoff is a long way behing Botham in all areas.

There is no logical way in which Flintoff could be ahead of Both and I would love to see how paper thin an argument for it would be.

 

[grecian]

I saw them, I think Flintoff is better. Its not rocket science.

I'm sorry maybe stats won't back me up, which only reminds me of the truism, lies, damned lies and statistics.

Botham also dropped a lot more catches then the legend says. For someone who loves his technical stuff goughy, what did you think of beefys waiting at slip with his hands on legs.

Also Flintoff performed against the best side in the world at the time, Ian didn't. Hey if Freddie has a bad series this winter, I may review my opinion, as hes still work in progress.

To say hes a long way ahead in all respects is wrong IMO.

 

[Goughy]

I saw them, I think Flintoff is better. Its not rocket science.

I'm sorry maybe stats won't back me up, which only reminds me of the truism, lies, damned lies and statistics..

Its also called performance. If the performance levels were close there could be room for discussion but they are not close. If you want to look statistically then it needs to be undertood that Bothams downside of his career is included whereas Flintoff has not reached that stage and statistically he is weighted towards the peak of his career.

Also, if it just from eyeball analysis (I also have seen them both) then Botham was one of the best swing bowlers the world has seen and his big hitting often hid the fact that he was one of the better technical English batsmen of his generation.

I started to list the list the 1000 reasons why Botham is superior, then realised that there was not much point. Irreconcilable differences of opinion I guess.

For someone who loves his technical stuff goughy, what did you think of beefys waiting at slip with his hands on legs.

I certainly would not coach it that way. It worked for him though and there is a growing body of thought that believes it is a more relaxed position and less 'braced'. People also think it is easier to take the hands both up and down from there.
I dont coach the hands on knees style, but there are its advocaats.

Im certainly not trying to change your view and obviously I respect your right to have it. I just think differently and Im just putting my POV across.

EDIT- If we are talking ODIs then I agree that Flintoff is a different class. Also captaincy.

 

[grecian]

Its also called performance. If the performance levels were close there could be room for discussion but they are not close. If you want to look statistically then it needs to be undertood that Bothams downside of his career is included whereas Flintoff has not reached that stage and statistically he is weighted towards the peak of his career.

Also, if it just from eyeball analysis (I also have seen them both) then Botham was one of the best swing bowlers the world has seen and his big hitting often hid the fact that he was one of the better technical English batsmen of his generation.

I started to list the list the 1000 reasons why Botham is superior, then realised that there was not much point. Irreconcilable differences of opinion I guess.


I certainly would not coach it that way. It worked for him though and there is a growing body of thought that believes it is a more relaxed position and less 'braced'. People also think it is easier to take the hands both up and down from there.
I dont coach the hands on knees style, but there are its advocaats.

Im certainly not trying to change your view and obviously I respect your right to have it. I just think differently and Im just putting my POV across.

EDIT- If we are talking ODIs then I agree that Flintoff is a different class. Also captaincy.

Well agreed on ODIs, but I was loathe to use them, as I think that they're rubbish. We'll have to see on the captaincy, I have my doubts, I wish Brockett was cap TBH.

I just hope and feel freddys career is a mirror-image of beefys, hes getting better at a time Botham was more or less finished. I'm hoping Flintoffs career will then stack up against his performance-wise.

The fact that Flintoff has worked hard at his fitness over the last 6 years may be why I prefer him, who knows what botham could of achieved if he'd stayed fitter.

There is no comparison of the two at 22, Botham was 50 times better at that age, as I say work in progress. Of course this POV may be utterly wrong-headed if Freddie never gets his bowling back after these injuries.

Interesting about the catching, still think a more orthodox approach may have worked better, but it did work most of the time.

 

[marc71178]

Its also called performance. If the performance levels were close there could be room for discussion but they are not close. If you want to look statistically then it needs to be undertood that Bothams downside of his career is included whereas Flintoff has not reached that stage and statistically he is weighted towards the peak of his career.

But by the same token, can't it be argued that Flintoff's also include his downside in his career?

 

[Goughy]

But by the same token, can't it be argued that Flintoff's also include his downside in his career?

No, he is still to reach his physical decline. Just because he started poorly does not mean he has reached his peak and is on the downside.

Flintoff had a poor start but he will also decline (prob not as much as Botham) as he gets older and less physically commanding.

 

[aussie]

Well, I do think you can drop Larwood and include John Snow instead.
One of the great English fast bowlers (highly respected by the Aussies) and I think, generally quite under-rated. IMO better than Larwood or Willis, and perhaps Statham or even Trueman. The fact that Hutton was another Yorkshireman like Illingworth, and was a captain in a similar mould, may also mean that he could get the best out of Snow.

Hmm well not so sure, when i picked the England All-time side, with the bowlers for me Trueman & Barnes would have been automatic choices based on the records & reputation they have. So the third seamer for me between the likes of Larwood, Snow, Statham Willis & probably Tyson would have been based on what i read of time & what i saw of them on video.

I went for Larwood since to me he would be a perfect 1st change bowler to Trueman & Barnes added to the slight fact that of all the great English fast bowlers he was probably the best batsman.

I also would rather include Verity or Rhodes or Underwood (depending on batting requirements in which case Rhodes is your man) over Laker - Laker was good, no question, but I sometimes see him as a one series pony.

Yea thats an option, its a bit harsh to call Laker a one-series pony, i reckon at his best Laker as a bowler was England's best spinner ever.

Also, definitely include Barrington over May/Compton who can take the no.5 spot with Hammond batting at no.3. May/Compton (perhaps May?) can then bat no.4

Yea i thought of that, but i just rathered to have a middle order of May/Hammond/Compton

IMO I prefer Knotty over Ames (or for that matter Evans) but that may just come down to personal preference.

Ames was arguably the greatest keeper/bat ever, his record his superb & in the balance of the side i think having him batting @ 6 would do England pretty well, then you can have Botham 7 & the bowlers.

 

[silentstriker]

If Flintoff is better than Botham, then he would be on the same level or better than as Imran Khan? Cause most agree that Botham at his best vs. Imran at his best, were pretty close. I rate Imran higher, but I think Goughy rates Botham higher. In any case, you are pretty much stating that Flintoff is as good as or is better than Imran Khan?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Rhodes is the greatest spinner of all time IMO, any all time XI should have him in at 7 or 8.

 

[nightprowler10]

In any case, you are pretty much stating that Flintoff is as good as or is better than Imran Khan?

Or that Flintoff is the best all rounder to play cricket.

 

[grecian]

I rate Imrans career well ahead of both. At their respective peaks, I'd say it was close, between all three. Imran would just win it there IMO, too.

Imrans career was interesting, because he changed from a bowling allrounder, to a batting allrounder. So its hard to pinpoint when he was at his best for both disciplines.

He wasn't a great catcher compared to the other two though, if your figuring that in, it could be closer.

 

[Fratboy]

Personally, I rate Miller and Imran as the best all rounders of all time.

 

[aussie]

Rhodes is the greatest spinner of all time IMO, any all time XI should have him in at 7 or 8.

Very debatable but as you said just a matter of opinion.

 

[aussie]

Personally, I rate Miller and Imran as the best all rounders of all time.

Don't forget that superb individual who played for the windies between 1954-1973..