Ultimate Allrounder XI

[ataraxia]

Faulkner didn't make my best of decade/era teams anyway. I had:

20s
Hobbs (Eng)
Sutcliffe (Eng)
Jack Russell (Eng)
CP Mead (Eng)
Hendren (Eng)
Tyldesley (Eng)
Oldfield wk (Aus)
M Tait (Eng)
Freeman (Eng) (LASpin)
Hall (S.A.)
Kennedy (Eng)

1880s-10s
Victor Trumper (Aus)
Clem Hill (Aus)
Ranjitsinhji (Eng)
Hon FS Jackson (Eng)
Tip Foster (Eng)
Albert Trott (Eng) (RASlow)
Dick Lilley (Eng) WK
JJ Ferris (Aus) (LAswing)
George Lohmann (Eng) (RAFM)
SF Barnes (Eng) (RAFM)
C Blythe (Eng) (Laslow)

I take it Saud Shakeel is included in your 2015–present XI?

 

[Pothas]

Second XI

Goddard
Engineer+
Macartney
Faulkner
Flower
Dexter
Botham
Dev
Benaud
Lindwall
Davidson

Dexter borderline call. Jadeja gets in if Dexter doesn't count I think.

Can get away with Hammond if you are having Dexter I reckon.

 

[Brook's side]

I take it Saud Shakeel is included in your 2015–present XI?

I suspect you may have somehow outsmarted me here.

For the record though, my 2010s team was the rather predictable:

10s
Cook (Eng)
Root (Eng)
Williamson (NZ)
Smith (Aus)
Kohli (Ind)
De Villiers (wk) (SA)
Stokes (Eng)
Cummins (Aus)
Ashwin (Ind)
Steyn (SA)
R Harris (Aus)

I don't have a 2020s team.

 

[ataraxia]

I suspect you may have somehow outsmarted me here.

Yes I have. Thank you.

 

[peterhrt]

England All-Rounder XI. Test and first-class cricket. Have tried to restrict it to genuine all-rounders.

Grace, Rhodes, Woolley, AG Steel, Greig, Stokes*, Ames+, Botham, Flintoff, Hirst, Mynn.

Reserves: Bailey, Moeen Ali and George Brown - who batted, bowled and kept wicket well, and fielded brilliantly, but overall numbers not quite there.

Excluded for not bowling enough: FS Jackson, Hammond. Tate falls short on the batting.

When Alfred Mynn retired in 1859 he had scored the third most runs to date and was one of only five men with a thousand wickets.

 

[Brook's side]

Woolley. He's the one I think (based on his figures) is over rated!!

 

[trundler]

England All-Rounder XI. Test and first-class cricket. Have tried to restrict it to genuine all-rounders.

Grace, Rhodes, Woolley, AG Steel, Greig, Stokes*, Ames+, Botham, Flintoff, Hirst, Mynn.

Reserves: Bailey, Moeen Ali and George Brown - who batted, bowled and kept wicket well, and fielded brilliantly, but overall numbers not quite there.

Excluded for not bowling enough: FS Jackson, Hammond. Tate falls short on the batting.

When Alfred Mynn retired in 1859 he had scored the third most runs to date and was one of only five men with a thousand wickets.

Foster over Hirst perhaps. He does have a first class triple century

 

[peterhrt]

Foster over Hirst perhaps. He does have a first class triple century

Foster was the better bowler in Australia. Hirst's fondness for the pull shot also got him into trouble on quicker Australian pitches, as it did Jessop.

Hirst's record in county cricket was phenomenal. Lord Hawke described him as the greatest county cricketer. He also kept Barnes out of the England side for some time.

 

[Brook's side]

Foster was the better bowler in Australia. Hirst's fondness for the pull shot also got him into trouble on quicker Australian pitches, as it did Jessop.

Hirst's record in county cricket was phenomenal. Lord Hawke described him as the greatest county cricketer. He also kept Barnes out of the England side for some time.

What was so good about Woolley?

You ought to be promoted directly to International Captain ranking or whatever on here incidentally. Very impressive knowledge.

 

[peterhrt]

Woolley. He's the one I think (based on his figures) is over rated!!

Woolley always scored fast, never slowing down with age or when in the nineties (he was out for 99 five times and for other scores in the nineties on 27 occasions). He tended to be at his best against decent bowling, especially the quick stuff, and didn't care about averages. Larwood and McDonald used to post a long-off as soon as he came in. Like another English left-hander Gower, Woolley made batting look easy, far more so than run-compilers Mead and Leyland.

He also did a lot of bowling and held more catches than anyone. His slow left arm was relatively more effective on a helpful wicket.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Batsmen with WPM ~>1 and bowlers with batting avg 20+. Selection on Test+FC, so a few genuine FC allrounders may be in despite lacking in the criteria:

World:

Rhodes
Grace
Sangakkara +
Hammond
Kallis
Sobers
Miller
Procter
Imran*
Hadlee
Ashwin

Subs: Simpson, MaCartney, Botham, Lindwall, Benaud


Australia:

Katich
Simpson
MaCartney
Armstrong
Noble
Miller
Gilchrist+
Davidson
Benaud*
Lindwall
Trumble

Subs: Watson, Tarrant, Kelleway, Archer, Giffen

England:

Grace
Rhodes
Hammond
Dexter
Woolley
Greig*
Ames+
Botham
Foster
Illingworth
Tate

Subs: Jackson, Steel, Stokes, Flintoff, Hirst


South Africa:

Goddard
Barlow*
Faulkner
Kallis
A B de Villiers+
Rice
McMillan
Procter
S Pollock
Le Roux
Vogler

Subs: Klusner, Lance, Sinclair, Abed, Kourie


India:

Mankad
S M Ali
Shastri
Hazare
L Amarnath*
Pant+
Jadeja
Dev
Ashwin
A Singh
Pathan

Subs: Phadkar, Pandya, Durani, Patel, Prabhakar

 

[Brook's side]

I don't personally count Hammond as an allrounder, but I guess it's up to you.
Procter's a good shout.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't personally count Hammond as an allrounder, but I guess it's up to you.
Procter's a good shout.

Just using a bit more relaxed metric than most. It's bloody hard to define an allrounder.....

 

[ataraxia]

I suspect you may have somehow outsmarted me here.

For the record though, my 2010s team was the rather predictable:

10s
Cook (Eng)
Root (Eng)
Williamson (NZ)
Smith (Aus)
Kohli (Ind)
De Villiers (wk) (SA)
Stokes (Eng)
Cummins (Aus)
Ashwin (Ind)
Steyn (SA)
R Harris (Aus)

I don't have a 2020s team.

The point was that you seemed to pick a host of players in your earlier sides on average despite tiny sample sizes with no regard for the opposition they played. There's a man whose FC batting average was 19 batting 6 in your pre-WWI team on the basis of 5 tests ahead of AG Steel and Faulkner, for goodness' sake. Some random Scot named Kennedy is at #11 in the 1920s side thanks to one tour of a weak RSA. In fairness to him, his long and productive all-round FC record matches up to Trott's, but it takes a blatant disregard of anything but average to place him below Gregory and McDonald.

It's like bigging up Saud Shakeel on 10 tests averaging 60.

 

[Brook's side]

The point was that you seemed to pick a host of players in your earlier sides on average despite tiny sample sizes with no regard for the opposition they played. There's a man whose FC batting average was 19 batting 6 in your pre-WWI team on the basis of 5 tests ahead of AG Steel and Faulkner, for goodness' sake. Some random Scot named Kennedy is at #11 in the 1920s side thanks to one tour of a weak RSA. In fairness to him, his long and productive all-round FC record matches up to Trott's, but it takes a blatant disregard of anything but average to place him below Gregory and McDonald.

It's like bigging up Saud Shakeel on 10 tests averaging 60.

Fair enough. I did it a while ago so would need to have another look into it.
I do seem to recall spending some time looking at international and (for those earlier periods in particular) first class performances, but perhaps I got some of them wrong.
I'll have a look tomorrow at whether there's any figures or anything I made note of backing up the selections (can't remember).

 

[Red]

Woolley. He's the one I think (based on his figures) is over rated!!

If your entire basis for judging cricketers is statsguru

 

[Red]

All time

Rhodes
Mankad
Kallis
Sobers
Miller
Stokes
Botham
Gilchrist
Imran
Procter
Benaud