What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Red]

Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Warne and the allrounder(s) is my attack. Batting to eleven and all four have a case for top five bowler of all time.

I do like this. I do rate lower order batting more than most, and this attack is just great.

It would be my attack most of the time if I didn't love Lillee so much.

 

[watson]

Arthur Mailey might not be the best leg-break googly bowler of all time, but he is close to being the greatest. Prior to Mailey his skill was somewhat of a novelty, but Mailey perfected it and turned it into a destructive art form that could consistently win matches and series. His 36 wickets in the 1920/21 series remains iconic because of its unexpected impact.

Incidently, it is not difficult to see why Hobbs though that Mailey was better than Grimmett. If you watch the old black and white footage it is clear that Grimmett was a round-arm bowler, and because of that the ball rarely got higher than the batsmans eyeline in its trajectory. The length of such deliveries is relatively easy to pick, and that's why Grimmett relied so heavily on his accuracy and spin to take wickets - he was never going 'to do a batsman in the flight'.

Mailey on-the-other-hand bowled side-on with a high action, and therefore could regularly attack the batsman with top-spin and 'dip' - rather like Bishan Bedi used to do. Picking the length of Mailey's deliveries was always a nightmare, not so Grimmett.

 

[watson]

IMO - Lillee, Marshall, Barnes, Warne or Lillee, Marshall, Akram, Warne remain the most 'iconic' combinations possible. Legend and elan rolled into one.

 

[the big bambino]

Hammond describes Grimmett's bowling and his ability to get both flight and sudden dip into the leg stump. I believe mailey's greater success against Eng on our pitches was down to the fact he could get greater rip.

 

[watson]

Will have to drag out Mailey's book sometime to see what he actually wrote, but Mailey apparently got his wickets not only by 'ripping' the ball but by using top-spin, or a blend of the two. Grimmett perfected the 'flipper', so he may have had an upper- hand there. I don't think that Mailey knew how to bowl the 'flipper';

.....This wonderful wrist spinner takes us right there beside him, as if we were the batsmen not on strike and with the perfect view, alert to every sense including the ‘sweet song of a humming toy’ as the ball leaves the bowler’s hand.

The actual description of the encounter on the field is filled with technical detail that demonstrates Mailey’s ballistic knowledge of how spinning objects behave. His accounts of both the leg break fading under the influence rotations and then the draw from the googly’s off-spinning rotations implies that he knew how to manipulate the Magnus Effect even if he probably didn’t know the work of the German physicist directly.

There is also the detailed explanation of how, when bowling the leg-break or the googly, he can alter the degree of accompanying top-spin that produces dip. He illustrates himself deliberately trading some turn for extra dip, just like Graham Swann’s flight variations, to deceive the batsman’s judgement of length. The ‘wrong ‘un’ he bowls that has Trumper stumped has the same toxic mixture of drift and dip that Warne’s wonderball leg-break to Gatting possessed.

Then, the glimpse of the humility of the Great Batsman, who has failed to pick the bosie from the hand and is too late when he sees the tell-tale draw to properly adjust his shot. The pat of the back of his bat in applause when he generously admits to this very young man that the ball was too good for him.


The Imagination of Arthur Mailey | Down At Third Man

 

[the big bambino]

Generally see Grimmett credited with the flipper's invention.

 

[Gowza]

Always find it difficult to pick between Marshall, Barnes, Wasim, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Procter and Miller for those bowling all rounder/bowler slots.

 

[kyear2]

IMO - Lillee, Marshall, Barnes, Warne or Lillee, Marshall, Akram, Warne remain the most 'iconic' combinations possible. Legend and elan rolled into one.

The experts, journalists and former players agree with you. Marshall and Warne are unanimous selections followed by Lillee some distance behind and it's close between Akram and Barnes depending on perspective.

 

[watson]

I often think that England look out-gunned in either batting depth or fast bowling when compared to the other major teams. So;

01. Len Hutton
02. Jack Hobbs
03. Ted Dexter
04. Peter May
05. David Gower
06. Walter Hammond
07. Alan Knott
08. Harold Larwood
09. John Snow
10. Fred Trueman
11. Sydney Barnes

 

[harsh.ag]

I have always loved that bowling line-up for the England XI! Mine:

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe

Len Hutton (c)
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Kevin Pietersen

Alan Knott (w)

Sydney Barnes
Harold Larwood
John Snow
Fred Trueman

 

[harsh.ag]

Sydney Barnes was a better batsman than most realize.

 

[Coronis]

I have always loved that bowling line-up for the England XI! Mine:

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe

Len Hutton (c)
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Kevin Pietersen

Alan Knott (w)

Sydney Barnes
Harold Larwood
John Snow
Fred Trueman

I like the inclusion of Hutton alongside Hobbs and Sutcliffe. Would have Botham in there, probably over Pieterson. Probably Laker over Snow too.

 

[kyear2]

Sutcliffe, Hutton, Hammond and Barring batting together and back to back would be painful to watch though and wouldn't win you many test matches. Need some aggression in between there.

 

[watson]

Sydney Barnes was a better batsman than most realize.

The same applies to Larwoon, Snow, and Trueman. Especially Larwood.

Barnes may have looked good in league cricket, but at Test match level he remains a staunch 9 or 10.

 

[NUFAN]

Sydney Barnes was a better batsman than most realize.

The same applies to Larwoon, Snow, and Trueman. Especially Larwood.

How do you guys come up with this stuff?

 

[watson]

How do you guys come up with this stuff?

Barnes has a FC top score of 93. I think that Harsh has exaggerated it's importance when estimating the ability of Barnes with the bat etc etc

Just because you don't see someones reasoning nufan doesn't mean that there isn't any, or that it's necessarily poor. It may be poor of course, but it rarely pays to jump to conclusions. I'm sure that Bradman had good reasons when he claimed that Lindwall was a "better batsman than many people realise" (or words to that effect).

 

[NUFAN]

Barnes has a FC top score of 93. I think that Harsh has exaggerated it's importance when estimating the ability of Barnes with the bat etc etc

Just because you don't see someones reasoning nufan doesn't mean that there isn't any, or that it's necessarily poor. It may be poor of course, but it rarely pays to jump to conclusions. I'm sure that Bradman had good reasons when he claimed that Lindwall was a "better batsman than many people realise" (or words to that effect).

Watson, perhaps you're jumping to conclusions. I have just asked the question "how have you guys arrived at the conclusion that Barnes is actually better than what most people realize".

What I would like to know about Barnes from harsh and watson:
a) How highly do most people rate Barnes batting? (and do most people rate Barnes identically)
b) What is it about Barnes batting that you guys have seen/heard/discovered/dreamed that makes his batting better?

 

[watson]

Watson, perhaps you're jumping to conclusions. I have just asked the question "how have you guys arrived at the conclusion that Barnes is actually better than what most people realize".

What I would like to know about Barnes from harsh and watson:
a) How highly do most people rate Barnes batting? (and do most people rate Barnes identically)
b) What is it about Barnes batting that you guys have seen/heard/discovered/dreamed that makes his batting better?

I have always thought that Barnes was a typical No.10 batsman - that is, quite poor. His overall batting average is 8.07, and his average in the No.10 position where he batted the most often is only 6.29.

I think that most people would agree with my opinion that No.8 is too high for Barnes.

 

[fredfertang]

Barnes was paid to bowl - he wasn't in the habit of giving "owt for nowt" - is what I think he'd have said on the subject

 

[harsh.ag]

Honestly, I was exaggerating a bit about Barnes. Larwood and Trueman and Snow were as good as him. In fact, all four are decent tail-enders. Larwood being the first among equals. But Barnes is always placed at last by default in all English sides. Just wanted to put Barnes batting in the discussion. Decent bat at the FC level.