Most Competitive All-time XI

[silentstriker]

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

Lance Gibbs?

 

[Fratboy]

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

I know mate, it's just that I personally prefer 37 and 22 to 57 and 34. For instance, look at the battle of the Australians' thread. I'm sure there are atleast a few pure batsmen averaging 35-40 in the list, but hardly any pure bowlers averaging 34 with the ball. Of course, it could also be because I support India, and we have always wanted a bowling all-rounder, which could be playing on the subconscious.

 

[Slifer]

Sobers better batsman and fielder (at any position) than Imran. Imran simply a better bowler. So overall, give it to Sobers (but not by that much).

 

[silentstriker]

I know mate, it's just that I personally prefer 37 and 22 to 57 and 34. For instance, look at the battle of the Australians' thread. I'm sure there are atleast a few pure batsmen averaging 35-40 in the list, but hardly any pure bowlers averaging 34 with the ball. Of course, it could also be because I support India, and we have always wanted a bowling all-rounder, which could be playing on the subconscious.

Actually, from 1961-1968, he averaged 28 with the ball and 64 with the bat.

Plus, he was as good a fielder as you're going to get in the slips.

Try and beat that.

 

[Slifer]

Actually, from 1961-1968, he averaged 28 with the ball and 64 with the bat.

Plus, he was as good a fielder as you're going to get in the slips.

Try and beat that.

Really I actually never knew that but i do know about an outstanding series he had in England in the 60s where he score 700+ runs and took 20+ wickets. to me that has to be one of the greatest achievements ever in a test series (yes even matching Bradman's 974 runs in 5 tests against England.)

 

[Fratboy]

Actually, from 1961-1968, he averaged 28 with the ball and 64 with the bat.

Plus, he was as good a fielder as you're going to get in the slips.

Try and beat that.

You can prove anything with selective stats.

Imran averaged 50 with the bat and 21 with the ball in the latter phase of his career.

I support India. Give me a choice between an allrounder who, in the bowling dept averages the same as McGrath, and another who averages little better than Balaji, I'll have no hesitation going for the former.

 

[JBH001]

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.

Fair enough. It is just that I do not think Larwood really played enough to demand serious consideration - iirc, he only took 78 or so wickets, and a significant proportion of those were in the Bodyline Series, where you could say things were weighted towards him - though I do not want to take anything away from what was generally regarded as great bowling. But if you remove Bodyline from the equation his average, and SR and wickets/test ratio really balloons up dramatically.

He was undoubtedly quick - but in that case I would rather use him as an opening bowler along with Trueman, who was another genuine quickie, rather than as a first change. I have always seen Barnes as a first change bowler (at least in a side containing two genuine quicks) as he seems to have been the archetypal English Medium Pacer. The accounts I have read place him either as a fast cutter/spinner and/or a medium swing/seam bowler. It is quite possible he did all these things (given his genius) and as such I see him as a forerunner of Tate, Bedser, Cartwright, Hendricks etc. In other words a bowler who is ideal for the first change spot, and who will not be hampered too much by a loss of shine and hardness in order to weave his wiles.

Therefore I would turn to John Snow who I think was better than Statham and Larwood and Tyson and Willis, and was also one of Englands few real quicks who had a certain degree of longevity in the game. Moreover he seems to have been a bowler somewhat in the McGrath mould and that would complement Trueman ideally at the other end - the fact that his stock ball was an inswinger (iirc) and Truemans an outswinger complements them further. Another reason I rate Snow was that he was significantly better outside England than in England, as contrasted to many other famous English Quicks. Trueman for instance took 78 wickets/20 tests outside England from 307 wickets/67 tests overall. Snow, on the other hand, took 62 wickets/12 tests overseas from 202 wickets/49 tests overall. He also played a crucial role in two of Englands away series wins with 27 wickets in 4 tests vs WI 68/69 (I think) and 31 wickets/6 tests vs Aus in 70-71. It does seem however that he usually required some handling to bring the best out of him - but if Illingworth could do it, I do not see why Hutton could not.

I have been reading a bit about Snow recently (Ian Chappell rated him and Andy Roberts the best he ever faced) and it is a mystery to me how he seems to go unremarked and unrated - in a way similiar to Garth McKenzie for Australia at the same time. In a way that period was somewhat similar to ours, as there was a general paucity of decent fast bowlers and pitches (though I am unsure about this) were perhaps batsman friendly. In a 15-20 year period post Trueman and pre Willis, Snow was England's only real fast bowler - in the same way that McKenzie post Lindwall and pre Lillee was Australia's only genuine quick. Both bowled without significant support at the other end in contrast to Hall and Griffith.

So yeah, IMO, Snow to open with Trueman.

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.

Yeah, the one series thing was a bit of an exaggeration but even so, if you remove that series Laker's figures suddenly look a lot less impressive - despite generally favourable pitches. Moreover, iirc, Laker was not even a regular pick for England for most of that time - btw, I think I read that latter bit here on CW so take it with a pinch of salt. Therefore if shoring up the batting is a concern, then Rhodes is the way to go - batted all the way from 11 to 1 and a very fine left armer, who would thus also add some variety to the attack. He could slot in at 7/8 along with Botham and perhaps tone down some of Beefy's excesses - Trueman and Snow were no mugs with the willow either, and so you would have a batting lineup that stretched to no.10, as well as a potent attack.

 

[Armadillo]

Interesting fact for you, none of India's bowlers have ever finished with an average of below 27. That's why winning games in aLftA was near impossible as Indian manager.

 

[silentstriker]

Interesting fact for you, none of India's bowlers have ever finished with an average of below 27. That's why winning games in aLftA was near impossible as Indian manager.

Thats just sad.

I am astonished we win at all.

 

[aussie]

Fair enough. It is just that I do not think Larwood really played enough to demand serious consideration - iirc, he only took 78 or so wickets, and a significant proportion of those were in the Bodyline Series, where you could say things were weighted towards him - though I do not want to take anything away from what was generally regarded as great bowling. But if you remove Bodyline from the equation his average, and SR and wickets/test ratio really balloons up dramatically.

He was undoubtedly quick - but in that case I would rather use him as an opening bowler along with Trueman, who was another genuine quickie, rather than as a first change. I have always seen Barnes as a first change bowler (at least in a side containing two genuine quicks) as he seems to have been the archetypal English Medium Pacer. The accounts I have read place him either as a fast cutter/spinner and/or a medium swing/seam bowler. It is quite possible he did all these things (given his genius) and as such I see him as a forerunner of Tate, Bedser, Cartwright, Hendricks etc. In other words a bowler who is ideal for the first change spot, and who will not be hampered too much by a loss of shine and hardness in order to weave his wiles.

Therefore I would turn to John Snow who I think was better than Statham and Larwood and Tyson and Willis, and was also one of Englands few real quicks who had a certain degree of longevity in the game. Moreover he seems to have been a bowler somewhat in the McGrath mould and that would complement Trueman ideally at the other end - the fact that his stock ball was an inswinger (iirc) and Truemans an outswinger complements them further. Another reason I rate Snow was that he was significantly better outside England than in England, as contrasted to many other famous English Quicks. Trueman for instance took 78 wickets/20 tests outside England from 307 wickets/67 tests overall. Snow, on the other hand, took 62 wickets/12 tests overseas from 202 wickets/49 tests overall. He also played a crucial role in two of Englands away series wins with 27 wickets in 4 tests vs WI 68/69 (I think) and 31 wickets/6 tests vs Aus in 70-71. It does seem however that he usually required some handling to bring the best out of him - but if Illingworth could do it, I do not see why Hutton could not.

I have been reading a bit about Snow recently (Ian Chappell rated him and Andy Roberts the best he ever faced) and it is a mystery to me how he seems to go unremarked and unrated - in a way similiar to Garth McKenzie for Australia at the same time. In a way that period was somewhat similar to ours, as there was a general paucity of decent fast bowlers and pitches (though I am unsure about this) were perhaps batsman friendly. In a 15-20 year period post Trueman and pre Willis, Snow was England's only real fast bowler - in the same way that McKenzie post Lindwall and pre Lillee was Australia's only genuine quick. Both bowled without significant support at the other end in contrast to Hall and Griffith.

So yeah, IMO, Snow to open with Trueman..

Top assesment yo, didn't my own little research on Snow along with the likes of Larwood, Willis, Statham, Tyson & your right he is horribly under-rated during a very long period in which he was England's only top-class bowler, plus he does have the best record of any great England fast bowler overseas a very important stat. So i agree that Snow should be in.

Yeah, the one series thing was a bit of an exaggeration but even so, if you remove that series Laker's figures suddenly look a lot less impressive - despite generally favourable pitches. Moreover, iirc, Laker was not even a regular pick for England for most of that time - btw, I think I read that latter bit here on CW so take it with a pinch of salt. Therefore if shoring up the batting is a concern, then Rhodes is the way to go - batted all the way from 11 to 1 and a very fine left armer, who would thus also add some variety to the attack. He could slot in at 7/8 along with Botham and perhaps tone down some of Beefy's excesses - Trueman and Snow were no mugs with the willow either, and so you would have a batting lineup that stretched to no.10, as well as a potent attack.

Agree here as well, Laker even though he produced that Brilliance in 1956, Rhodes probably would offer an All-time England XI more.

 

[aussie]

Well i didn't put down a Zimbabwe side since i think they would be very competitive but after a rethink i guess they would put together a decent side:

1. Alastair Campbell
2. Grant Flower
3. Murray Goodwin
4. Dave Houghton
5. Andy Flower+
6. Neil Johnson
7. Duncan Fletcher*
8. Kevin Curran
9. Heath Streak
10. Paul Strang
11. Eddo Brandes

Back-ups: Andy Pycroft, John Traicos, Stuart Carlisle, Andy Blignaut

Decent batting, probably still would get wasted in Test matches, but in ODI's with all those all-rounders, top-fielders n deep batting would be VERY competitive.