Wisden's Greatest Post War England XI

[Richard]

If one was to choose the best keeper on keeping merits alone then Taylor would be high on most lists. Some others would have Evans or even Keith Andrews who has the disadvatage of lack of international exposure.

But, Knott was such a great keeper himslef (even if Taylor and others were better), that this plus his far superior batting would have always ensured his selection even if any of these guys were his contemporaries.

I have always struggled in my all time best England teams for a choice between Taylor and Knott. I have seen both and Taylor WAS better and old fashioned cricketing logic makes me choose Talylor but I am sure if I was the captain, I would have prefered Knott.

Difficult choice this.

Leslie Ames must surely have been even better still. Though they said George Duckworth was a better 'keeper still.
Sadly he was pre-war.
Don't really know why Post-WWII is such a watershed. Personally I'd take 1930 (when pitch-preparation reached the standard it is at today, even though there were no covers) as a much more realistic shed.

 

[marc71178]

And that would compensate for dropping Robin Smith, Hussain, Gatting or any other batsman who had more than earned his place, then?

Looking at the games, I don't think Gatting was much involved anyway, it was more like Ramprakash and Hick - and I don't think dropping either of them would've upset too many people, especially when Stewart averaging 46.70 as a specialist bat (more than any of those mentioned)

 

[wpdavid]

Looking at the games, I don't think Gatting was much involved anyway, it was more like Ramprakash and Hick - and I don't think dropping either of them would've upset too many people, especially when Stewart averaging 46.70 as a specialist bat (more than any of those mentioned)

Would these have been the guys to have made way for Russell though? If Russell would have come in at 7 or 8, presumably someone like Cork, White or Lewis would have made way.

 

[Richard]

Well White in his 1994-1995 Test-career wasn't much of a loss, though.

 

[Richard]

Looking at the games, I don't think Gatting was much involved anyway, it was more like Ramprakash and Hick - and I don't think dropping either of them would've upset too many people, especially when Stewart averaging 46.70 as a specialist bat (more than any of those mentioned)

Who was more likely to score runs? Ramprakash, with the domestic average in the high 40s, or Russell, with it in the early 30s? Or Hick, whose Test average is higher than Russell's in any case?
Personally I'd say either Hick or Ramprakash would be better selections.

 

[wpdavid]

Well White in his 1994-1995 Test-career wasn't much of a loss, though.

Quite, which supports the view that we'd have been better allowing Stewart to concentrate on opening.

 

[Richard]

Personally I'd still have picked DeFreitas, at home.
Or another batsman.

 

[SJS]

The bottom line is that you're probably right, but there is a great deal of mythology about Botham and it's no bad thing to question it from time to time. The reality is that most of his good performances were against weak sides and that he was pretty ordinary from the age of 26 onwards - not just the fagend of his career. In terms of England's post WW2-XI, I would probably play him (or at least the 1978-1982 version) at 7 or 8 as a third quick/FM bowler who can also bat more than a bit. I know that leaves the side with only four bowlers, but that doesn't seem to have hampered the great Aus & WI sides of the last 30 years.

Is he our best ever allrounder? I can't really compare him to guys like Rhodes & Hirst, but I do query the unquestioning assumption that he is. Even postWW2, the fact is he was a lesser batsman than Greig (albeit a better bowler), so it isn't clearcut. And I do think Bailey is criminally under-rated.

You are right. One cant compare him with players from an earlier age. As far as the quality of his stats going by quality of opposition, well I based my assessment of him on the basis of his capability and he did show his terrific ability with the bat on many occasions and against good as well as mediocre sides.

I also rate him higher than other all rounders because of the large number of match turning performances that he had both with the bat and the ball, notwithstanding his tremendous fielding.

When he did not perform, Ithere was a feeling all over the cricketing world of a player failing to deliver to his capacity rather than that he was over rated. This has come more now with the blur caused by time.

He did bpowl much beyond the "use by" date and managed to bluff batsmen out later rather than earn wickets with real good deliveries as he did earlier.

This did lead to an feeling of him getting better than he deserved.

 

[SJS]

Leslie Ames must surely have been even better still. Though they said George Duckworth was a better 'keeper still.
Sadly he was pre-war.
Don't really know why Post-WWII is such a watershed. Personally I'd take 1930 (when pitch-preparation reached the standard it is at today, even though there were no covers) as a much more realistic shed.

Yes Leslie Ames WAS a better batsman but he never figures in any discussion or book on the greatest keepers of all time but Knott does.

You are absolutely right about 1930's being a watershed. I suppose the reason for making a post war team is that the current fans can better appreciate the realtive merits of players from this era.

 

[Richard]

I've heard an unbelievable amount of complaint about there being no recent players - ie no players that some people remember. Even I only vaguely remember Graham Gooch.
Too many people my age do not appreciate the merits of the 1940s, 50s and 60s players.

 

[wpdavid]

I've heard an unbelievable amount of complaint about there being no recent players - ie no players that some people remember. Even I only vaguely remember Graham Gooch.
Too many people my age do not appreciate the merits of the 1940s, 50s and 60s players.

True, but a word of warning. The only truly great post WW2 side we have had was in the 1950's - and even that was shown up badly in Aus in (I think) 1958/59. Contrary to what some folks will tell you, we really weren't very good in the 1960's, despite the presence of a number of famous players. The supply line dried up alarmingly during the early 1960's and by the time the 50's generation had all gone, we were struggling apart from when the opposition were weak. We were also pretty poor in the 1940's, apart from obvious exceptions such as Hutton, Compton & Bedser.

I'm all for the Wisden side being dominated by players from the 1950's but, beyond that, I think it's fair to favourably compare the current lot with most other post-WW2 sides.

 

[SJS]

I've heard an unbelievable amount of complaint about there being no recent players - ie no players that some people remember. Even I only vaguely remember Graham Gooch.
Too many people my age do not appreciate the merits of the 1940s, 50s and 60s players.

You are absolutely right. Well I am old enough to remember from Dexter's early sixties team onwards and I can very clearly recall the England players I have seen since then.

I dont think I have seen a better fast bowler than Trueman from England. Nor a right handed batsman more regal and devastating, while being picture perfect in technique, as Dexter. No better left arm spinner (or any other type except that he was pretty quickish) than Underwood. No better left hand batsman than Gower. No better keeper than Taylor with Knott a close second.

Today, the English side is doing well but the fact is that overall bowling standards, particularly with the new ball, worldwide have declined in the last ten to fifteen years. The batsmen, therefore, are not tested as severely and can get away inspite of obvious flaws in technique.

Only the presence of Warne and Murali (Indian fans will excuse) make it a relaytively good period in the spin stakes. Overall spinning standards are much poorer particularly in Pakistan, West Indies, England and India. (Indian fans will excuse again )

Trust me this is not nostalgia. I think we have some great cricketers playing today but the standards have declined overall with West Indies and England being the biggest sufferers.

 

[wpdavid]

You are absolutely right. Well I am old enough to remember from Dexter's early sixties team onwards and I can very clearly recall the England players I have seen since then.

I dont think I have seen a better fast bowler than Trueman from England. Nor a right handed batsman more regal and devastating, while being picture perfect in technique, as Dexter. No better left arm spinner (or any other type except that he was pretty quickish) than Underwood. No better left hand batsman than Gower. No better keeper than Taylor with Knott a close second.

Today, the English side is doing well but the fact is that overall bowling standards, particularly with the new ball, worldwide have declined in the last ten to fifteen years. The batsmen, therefore, are not tested as severely and can get away inspite of obvious flaws in technique.

Only the presence of Warne and Murali (Indian fans will excuse) make it a relaytively good period in the spin stakes. Overall spinning standards are much poorer particularly in Pakistan, West Indies, England and India. (Indian fans will excuse again )

Trust me this is not nostalgia. I think we have some great cricketers playing today but the standards have declined overall with West Indies and England being the biggest sufferers.

I don't think anyone would argue about the quality of the guys you mentioned. However, where England are concerned, I still think the drop in standards was generally underway by the mid-1960's. Looking at players who debuted as test players, we had an outstanding crop in the 10 years after WW2 and another pretty good bunch in the 10 years up to 1965 (which takes us up to guys like Boycott, Edrich & Snow). After that, there's a clear drop in the quality of players arriving on the test scene and, from an English viewpoint it would be interesting to work out why.

Beyond our shores, I completely agree about the drop in standards from 8 - 10 years ago, when WI, Pakistan and SA all had better attacks than they currently do. Given the additional factor of the nature of pitches nowadays, I think there's some pretty cheap runs to be had at test level nowadays.

 

[aussie_beater]

Overall spinning standards are much poorer particularly in Pakistan, West Indies, England and India. (Indian fans will excuse again )

I agree with that. New quality spinners have become rare in India these days compared to the late 70s and early 80s when India really was a good breeding ground for good spinners.The same is with Pakistan who never had the same spin success as India in the 70s but still had quite a few good spinners in their ranks, but after Saqi it doesn't seem to be much thriving either.

 

[marc71178]

Who was more likely to score runs? Ramprakash, with the domestic average in the high 40s, or Russell, with it in the early 30s? Or Hick, whose Test average is higher than Russell's in any case?
Personally I'd say either Hick or Ramprakash would be better selections.

The real question is Ramprakash/Hick or a specialist bat Alec Stewart though, and that only has one winner (hint: he played for Surrey throughout his career)

 

[Richard]

True, but a word of warning. The only truly great post WW2 side we have had was in the 1950's - and even that was shown up badly in Aus in (I think) 1958/59.

Yes, it was, but that's not because it was a poor side.
It had recently beaten a West Indian side 3-0 which was quite conceivably the best of all-time.
Including as it did, the great all-rounder John Goddard; the three Ws; Sobers and Gibbs at the start of their careers; Ramadhin and Valentine; and Wesley Winfield Hall, the great seamer.
The fact that Australia's modest 58\59 side crushed England 4-0 was as bizarre as that England won that series 3-0.

Contrary to what some folks will tell you, we really weren't very good in the 1960's, despite the presence of a number of famous players. The supply line dried up alarmingly during the early 1960's and by the time the 50's generation had all gone, we were struggling apart from when the opposition were weak. We were also pretty poor in the 1940's, apart from obvious exceptions such as Hutton, Compton & Bedser.

In the 40s we were still suffering from the War; with the like of Hedley Verity tragically killed in battle, and several players (Godfrey Evans, Les Ames, Gubby Allen) having to fit cricket around uniform duties, it wasn't much of a surpise. The only authentic cricket (against sides we wouldn't be expected to beat heavily) was against the '48 Invincibles, whose 4-0 triumph wasn't exactly a surprise - I don't think many would have competed with them.
WRT to '60s, once again, we were good, but so many of the players didn't produce Ashes and Wisden Trophy victories.
I hardly think a side including Dexter, Graveney, Boycott, Barrington, Edrich, Snow, Underwood and the like could be described as shabby. West Indies had some phenomenal players in the '60s and not once did Australia win The Ashes by a large margin (both away series were drawn, and in both home series a crucial Test was lost by a small margin, most famously the Benaud-around-the-wicket match). By 1968 the tide had turned and Underwood and D'Oliveira lit up a dismal summer at the last possible minute.

I'm all for the Wisden side being dominated by players from the 1950's but, beyond that, I think it's fair to favourably compare the current lot with most other post-WW2 sides.

Personally I don't think Harmison and the like are fit to lace Snow, Willis and co's boots. Yet, anyway.

 

[Richard]

You are absolutely right. Well I am old enough to remember from Dexter's early sixties team onwards and I can very clearly recall the England players I have seen since then.

I dont think I have seen a better fast bowler than Trueman from England. Nor a right handed batsman more regal and devastating, while being picture perfect in technique, as Dexter. No better left arm spinner (or any other type except that he was pretty quickish) than Underwood. No better left hand batsman than Gower. No better keeper than Taylor with Knott a close second.

Today, the English side is doing well but the fact is that overall bowling standards, particularly with the new ball, worldwide have declined in the last ten to fifteen years. The batsmen, therefore, are not tested as severely and can get away inspite of obvious flaws in technique.

I'd only say the last 3 or 4 years.
In 1998, 1999 sort of time you could go around The World and hope to face:
Donald and Pollock with South Africa
Ambrose and Walsh with West Indies
Waqar and Wasim with Pakistan
Gough and Fraser with England - it could quite easily have been Gough, Fraser and Caddick had he been consistent
McGrath and Fleming with Australia
Streak with Zimbabwe
Vaas and Zoysa with Sri Lanka
Srinath and Prasad with India
Allott, Nash, Doull and Cairns with New Zealand
Nowadays most of them are gone, plenty forced out a little prematurely by injury.
Most of these were not only devestating with the new-ball but could go anywhere and dominate. Now we see plethoras of flat wickets everywhere and no-one knows how to exploit them. Well, some (Chaminda) know how to but do it half the time and not the other half.

Only the presence of Warne and Murali (Indian fans will excuse) make it a relaytively good period in the spin stakes. Overall spinning standards are much poorer particularly in Pakistan, West Indies, England and India. (Indian fans will excuse again )

That's an interesting one. How many great spinners have Pakistan produced? I can only think of Abdul Qadir (and even his overseas record was abysmal). Maybe there have been one or two others - Mushtaq Ahmed certainly had his moments, up to 1997, and I've always thought Kaneria has a lot of potential.
Certainly India aren't, at present, as blessed as they were in the Bedi, Chandra, Venkat and Prasanna days. Kumble and Harbhajan are reasonable enough, but that's two compared to four.
West Indies should be producing more spinners now, given that pitches are helping spin far more than any time since the '60s. Are they? The best they can do seems to be Omari Banks. Though I do like Dave Mohammed, he's not yet performed at all.

Trust me this is not nostalgia. I think we have some great cricketers playing today but the standards have declined overall with West Indies and England being the biggest sufferers.

Certainly.
West Indies have got some reasonable batsman but their bowling, however many times people insist they're getting somewhere, developing some people, is execrable.
England have had a good 2004, before that they've been largely treading water for, well, 45 years or so.

 

[Richard]

The real question is Ramprakash/Hick or a specialist bat Alec Stewart though, and that only has one winner (hint: he played for Surrey throughout his career)

No, it's Ramprakash\Hick or Jack Russell.
And I know who I'd pick, and it's not the Gloucestershire man.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's Ramprakash\Hick or Jack Russell.
And I know who I'd pick, and it's not the Gloucestershire man.

No, because the Keeper's role goes from Stewart to Russell (improving the keeping considerably and losing on average about 5 or 6 runs) then one of Ramprakash or Hick makes way for Stewart the specialist bat (improving the average by about 15 runs)

It is not a direct swap between the 2 because the rest of the team make-up is not remaining constant.

 

[marc71178]

Including as it did, the great all-rounder John Goddard

I saw this name and thought who is he, and why didn't Liam take him for the original ALFTA if he's a great all-rounder?

So I looked him up - 27 games - 859 runs @ 30.67 and 33 wickets @ 31.81.

Now, I don't know your definition of great, but figures like that don't suggest greatness to me.