Tony's at it again: His all-time England XI

[Richard]

I think the thread title says it all...it is HIS all time team.

Its only is opinion!!! I dont really know why people take it so to heart.

Haha, worst logic ever. May as well shut down the forum then.

Indeed. It's his opinion, but the point is by picking these teams he's going to open himself to criticism. He can pick the team he wants, and people can then say what they want about his picks.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I believe

Ah yes, good old Rikki.

 

[Swervy]

Indeed. It's his opinion, but the point is by picking these teams he's going to open himself to criticism. He can pick the team he wants, and people can then say what they want about his picks.

so you think it is acceptable for people to basically say he has no clue about the game because he missed someone out that none of us ever saw play.

My point is that people take these things a bit to seriously, like its a personal insult or something. Jeez, its HIS team, he might not be picking the best, it might be just the team he would like to see play (much like Benauds XI a couple of years back)

 

[Richard]

That was what I was thinking. IF that was the case, obviously, he can pick whoever he wants and no-one has the right to say "WTF?" Thing is, though, that's obviously not going to generate any great discussion, it'd just be him saying "these are my favourite England players" and us saying "oh, OK, I see". And from the impression I've got, that's not what was being intended. The thread-title includes the word BEST, which means the matter is totally different. Now, I admit I haven't read the article but I presume some have, and if the thread-title gave the wrong impression I presume someone would've said by now.

I'd not put it past question, though, that Greigy and Richie have done the exact same thing and sensible old Richie has had the sense to make sure no-one can misconstrue him, whereas Greigy has just plonked any old title that pops into his head on the thing.

Think it'd be very interesting if he did reply to Manan saying "mate, it's just my fave team".

EDIT: no, the thread title does NOT include the word BEST, don't know why I thought it did.

 

[archie mac]

As for Ken Barrington and people go on about how dour of a batsman he was, IIRC Barrington was quite an aggressive batsman but had to change his way to keep his spot on the team such was the mindset of the English selection panel. If resisdent cricket historian Archie (or anybody) can comfirm this would be a big help please.

As for the title, and admittly I'm thinking outside the square but I think you could make a case for having an All-Time England XI and then having an alternative one as well. Would be interesting to see how it would pan out if it were possible for that to happen. And as gun as he is, does that make KP one of the most over-rated cricketers if he is included in all all-time Test XI? If it were for ODIs then I'd probably agree...

Yes you are somewhat correct, a little like Steve Waugh he made himself into a Test batsman by cutting out any 'get out shots'. He was once dropped for scoring too slowly in a Test.

His natural aggression was shown by his penchant for bringing up a number of his Test hundreds with a six.

I remember reading that he would caution the batsman at the other end if he was scoring too quickly; 'just take a couple of singles each over, no fours, otherwise they might take him off, or he may get his gander up!'

 

[Richard]

And maybe, that might explain his relatively poor record for Surrey.

Perhaps he played more "naturally" for his county, and was nowhere near so effective.

 

[Dasa]

so you think it is acceptable for people to basically say he has no clue about the game because he missed someone out that none of us ever saw play.

Yes. Frankly, a lot of commentators/ex-players/media people have very little knowledge of the intricacies and the history of the game compared to many people on this forum. Nothing wrong with pointing it out - we shouldn't worship ex-players just because they're ex-players.

Anyway, I don't see anyone taking anything personally.

 

[Days of Grace]

Hutton has to be in the team. Just think what he might have done had he not lost arguably his best years to WWII

Wholley actually would go very close to an all-time team, because, there is no left-hander in the top six. Having a lefty adds variety if nothing else.

Regarding the Doctor. Reading his biography at the moment. In 1871 he scored 1,800 first class runs at 71. 71 FFS!!!!! That is incredible for those days. One noted cricket historian said it would be akin to scoring 5000 runs in a season today. That is how great W.G. was.

 

[Swervy]

Yes. Frankly, a lot of commentators/ex-players/media people have very little knowledge of the intricacies and the history of the game compared to many people on this forum. Nothing wrong with pointing it out - we shouldn't worship ex-players just because they're ex-players.

Anyway, I don't see anyone taking anything personally.

I think that is BS . Sure, there are people on here that know their stuff, but you cannot substitute a bit of theory for experience. Your men like Greig obviously understand about the subtle things of the game....he was a progressive, intelligent captain of the type that England have rarely had. That knowledge didnt just stop after he went behind the microphone.

Its one thing posting your opinions on a forum, fairly anonymously, with no real pressure, its another doing so on TV, or for a paper, or for a well read web site such as Cricinfo.

No, we shouldnt worship ex players because they are ex-players, but lets get a bit of perpective on this...probably 0.5% of the people on here have any experience of playing at anything near the standard required to have an understanding of the game in a real competitive level, against other really good players. I am sorry, but some 20 year old, who has played for Crapsville 4ths since he took up the game a couple of years ago, who relies on cricinfo/Wisden almanac for his opinions, and whose first recollection of the game was Harmisons 7 for 11, doesnt quite cut the mustard. And really, this is what this forum is about.

That isnt having a go at those people by the way, its just we have to put those opinions into some sort of perspective and not think that because someone can write 200 words for a match report on the front page that they are the reincanation of Swanton

 

[pasag]

I think that is BS . Sure, there are people on here that know their stuff, but you cannot substitute a bit of theory for experience. Your men like Greig obviously understand about the subtle things of the game....he was a progressive, intelligent captain of the type that England have rarely had. That knowledge didnt just stop after he went behind the microphone.

Its one thing posting your opinions on a forum, fairly anonymously, with no real pressure, its another doing so on TV, or for a paper, or for a well read web site such as Cricinfo.

No, we shouldnt worship ex players because they are ex-players, but lets get a bit of perpective on this...probably 0.5% of the people on here have any experience of playing at anything near the standard required to have an understanding of the game in a real competitive level, against other really good players. I am sorry, but some 20 year old, who has played for Crapsville 4ths since he took up the game a couple of years ago, who relies on cricinfo/Wisden almanac for his opinions, and whose first recollection of the game was Harmisons 7 for 11, doesnt quite cut the mustard. And really, this is what this forum is about.

That isnt having a go at those people by the way, its just we have to put those opinions into some sort of perspective and not think that because someone can write 200 words for a match report on the front page that they are the reincanation of Swanton

Disagree entirely on principle. I agree that Grieg is smarter and more knowledgeable than some give him credit for and I actually respect his opinion somewhat and place this down to just a silly mistake. However, when talking about being a student of the history of the game I don't see why them having played at the highest level should have a huge amount to do with anything.

I'll agree with you 100% that when discussing technical aspects their opinions are tantamount and I'd listen to them before anyone else here, but when discussing early 1900s cricket? Hell no. Just because you've picked up the bat to represent you country doesn't mean you've put in the hours researching the game and studying its history, like say an Archie Mac. (Plus some of these bogan sportsmen are as thick as doorknobs )

Also not sure what your swipe at staff members is all about. As far as I know no-one has acted the way you're implying.

 

[Swervy]

Disagree entirely on principle. I agree that Grieg is smarter and more knowledgeable than some give him credit for and I actually respect his opinion somewhat and place this down to just a silly mistake. However, when talking about being a student of the history of the game I don't see why them having played at the highest level should have a huge amount to do with anything.

I'll agree with you 100% that when discussing technical aspects their opinions are tantamount and I'd listen to them before anyone else here, but when discussing early 1900s cricket? Hell no. Just because you've picked up the bat to represent you country doesn't mean you've put in the hours researching the game and studying its history, like say an Archie Mac. (Plus some of these bogan sportsmen are as thick as doorknobs )

Also not sure what your swipe at staff members is all about. As far as I know no-one has acted the way you're implying.

I think Archie is one of the exceptions, he obviously has a very wide knowledge of the history of the game.

Look, to be honest I was looking at what Dasa called the 'intricacies' of the game, thats what I want from my journalists, how the game is played. The history side of things adds the frills.
I get your point re: the history of the game, but I am pretty sure Tony Greig has an idea of who Jack Hobbs was, and I just find it odd that people should have a thromby over his ommision.

There was no swipe at any of the writing staff, a good job done all round, still doesnt get around the fact that I would suspect that most of you guys are not the new Cardus, which i am sure you would agree with. And again that isnt a swipe at you guys, its merely a reality. You guys do it for fun and for that you should be applauded

 

[The Sean]

I've honestly never heard any testimony from foreigners on the two of them. I have heard plenty, from Surrey fans of the time, which almost all says that May was the superior. May being much the superior performer to Barrington for his county, that makes sense. As I say, if I was picking a Surrey All-Time XI May would be ahead of Barrington every time.

But for England - for whatever reasons, and it makes precisely no sense at all, but is fact nonetheless - Barrington was much the superior performer.

And what's more, but for him there'd probably have been no Ian Botham, so take out Barrington and you take out Botham. (Just kidding)

Richie Benaud was one notable foreigner who considered Peter May to be the greatest England batsman produced since the second world war. Interesting what you say about their comparative performances for Surrey - I've always thought that one of the marks of a truly great batsman down the years is that their Test record is better than their FC record. Barrington's Test record obviously puts May's in the shade and in that sense it seems crazy to think May his superior. Yet at the same time there must be a reason that so many of their peers from what I read rate May so highly.

As I've said before, you can't argue with Ken's record and I've got no problem with anyone choosing him over May or anyone else for an all time XI, his achievements certainly warrant the most serious consideration.

 

[Richard]

There was no swipe at any of the writing staff, a good job done all round, still doesnt get around the fact that I would suspect that most of you guys are not the new Cardus, which i am sure you would agree with. And again that isnt a swipe at you guys, its merely a reality. You guys do it for fun and for that you should be applauded

None of us are claiming to be the new Cardus, or the new Swanton. But I don't think it's unreasonable or boastful to say that some of us - and some who aren't even on the Staff - know more about cricket than many of the more bogstandard CricInfo writers or C9\DD\C4\Sky\SS\etc. commentators.

 

[Richard]

Richie Benaud was one notable foreigner who considered Peter May to be the greatest England batsman produced since the second world war. Interesting what you say about their comparative performances for Surrey - I've always thought that one of the marks of a truly great batsman down the years is that their Test record is better than their FC record. Barrington's Test record obviously puts May's in the shade and in that sense it seems crazy to think May his superior. Yet at the same time there must be a reason that so many of their peers from what I read rate May so highly.

As I've said before, you can't argue with Ken's record and I've got no problem with anyone choosing him over May or anyone else for an all time XI, his achievements certainly warrant the most serious consideration.

As I say - the interesting thing about it is that I've never read anything from, say, Ray Lindwall or Wesley Winfield Hall (wouldn't even know for certain whether both even played against the two). I've only heard about testimonies from those involved with Surrey, nearly all of which ranks May the better. And as I also say - given that May was much the superior performer for Surrey, that's not surprising. I'd be very interested to see what people who played against the two for England said about them.

And also, whether they thought May was a better run-scorer, or just a better batsman.

 

[Sanz]

I think that is BS . Sure, there are people on here that know their stuff, but you cannot substitute a bit of theory for experience. Your men like Greig obviously understand about the subtle things of the game....he was a progressive, intelligent captain of the type that England have rarely had. That knowledge didnt just stop after he went behind the microphone.

Its one thing posting your opinions on a forum, fairly anonymously, with no real pressure, its another doing so on TV, or for a paper, or for a well read web site such as Cricinfo.

No, we shouldnt worship ex players because they are ex-players, but lets get a bit of perpective on this...probably 0.5% of the people on here have any experience of playing at anything near the standard required to have an understanding of the game in a real competitive level, against other really good players. I am sorry, but some 20 year old, who has played for Crapsville 4ths since he took up the game a couple of years ago, who relies on cricinfo/Wisden almanac for his opinions, and whose first recollection of the game was Harmisons 7 for 11, doesnt quite cut the mustard. And really, this is what this forum is about.

That isnt having a go at those people by the way, its just we have to put those opinions into some sort of perspective and not think that because someone can write 200 words for a match report on the front page that they are the reincanation of Swanton

Very Good Post Swervy, You are on a roll here.

 

[Engle]

If one reads cricket history, invariably one would come across greater accolades for May over Barrington.
But this is the great conundrum.
On the stats side Barrington creams May. Choosing top teams, tough conditions, I see:
In total away matches ( KB averages 69 vs PM's 36).
In Aus (70 vs 40)
In WIndies (44 vs 35).

Large diffs. Who to believe, the reports or the stats ?

It IS a credit to the posters here who jumped on the Jack Hobbs omission. He would easily walk into an All-time XI

 

[Richard]

It's also important to note, of course, that, even as late as the 1950s and certainly back in the 1900s and 1910s, more importance was sometimes placed on what a batsman looked like than what he actually produced. Which means you always have to be a bit careful with certain testimonies.

 

[The Sean]

It's also important to note, of course, that, even as late as the 1950s and certainly back in the 1900s and 1910s, more importance was sometimes placed on what a batsman looked like than what he actually produced. Which means you always have to be a bit careful with certain testimonies.

Again true - it is probably fair to say that so many of the high opinions of May are based on that very English concept of batsmanship as opposed to praising the bloke who just scored runs! May was indeed by all accounts an absolutely beautiful batsman to watch, and had that ability to tear an attack apart when he cut loose. He was also, it seemed, THE prize wicket for any opposing team for most of his career, which is always a good indication of how highly he is rated.

And yet it is a great conundrum as Engle as rightly said - Barrington made more runs at a much higher average over a longer period of time, and yet many good judges insist May was the finer player. It can possibly be linked to the reverance in which the likes of Trumper and Woolley are still held, where the quality of their play, particularly under difficult conditions or when it really mattered, is what set them apart rather than their pure numbers.

As I've said, absolutely no issue with someone picking Barrington over May (or just about any other English batsmen since Hammond) - a Test record like Ken's really is something quite special.

 

[Flem274*]

1. Alec Stewart (As specialist batsman like 1999 vs NZ)
2.Mal Loye
3. Mark Butcher
4. Mark Ramprakash
5.Ed Joyce
6. Ronnie Irani
7. Geraint Jones
8. Liam Plunkett
9. Sajid Mahmood
10. Dominic Cork
11. Simon Jones

 

[Richard]

Is that a mix-and-match of the semi-decent (Cork, S Jones, Butcher, Ramprakash) and the joke? Like Loye opening in the longer game?

As for Alec Stewart facing the first ball... he WOULD kill you, you know that?