All Time England Test XI

First topic message reminder :

With all the talk going on about if this current Test side is Englands best ever, I want to know what would be your All Time England Test XI. Heres mine, thoughts appreciated.

1) Herbert Sutcliffe
2) Jack Hobbs
3) Len Hutton (C)
4) Wally Hammond
5) Kevin Pietersen
6) Ian Botham
7) Alan Knott (WK)
8) Fred Trueman
9) Sydney Barnes
10) Jim Laker
11) Bob Willis

Other Greats who deserve a mention: Harold Larwood, Jack Russell, Ken Barrington, David Gower, Derek Underwood

Matt Prior could come into the reckoning for the keeper batsman slot in the next few years if he maintains his current average. Averaging 45 and turning himself into a very good keeper aswell.

You'd have to find a spot for WG, his Test batting average may only be 32 with a bowling average of 26, but they are more than comparable to his contemporaries and did only make his debut at 32 and played his last Test at over 50.

The guy was and always will be in a league of his own, a legend in every way.

ReallyReal wrote:You'd have to find a spot for WG, his Test batting average may only be 32 with a bowling average of 26, but they are more than comparable to his contemporaries and did only make his debut at 32 and played his last Test at over 50.

The guy was and always will be in a league of his own, a legend in every way.

Probably it would be better to have him as captain of a celebs all star XI...

lol Grace wasnt a great but could be in an entertainment eleven lol

cricketfan90 wrote:lol Grace wasnt a great but could be in an entertainment eleven lol

He was the best Cricketer of his era.

yes but with his record you couldnt fit him into this side

He played on some rotten pitches to sustain an average like the players have today.

Some Cricket historians would select Grace.

i no he did im just saying that cos he only averaged 32 sadly he isnt going to be in many people's teams including my own.

Did anyone consider Harold Larwood?

Not just a great bowler (fast as anything, accurate, and bowled better on a bottle of pale ale) but a man of principles and character that cricket can be proud of, "When you hear 50,000 Aussies shouting at you, you know you've got 'em worried".

... also, I am of the opinion that batting or bowling talent has to make way for great captaincy, so I would also be thinking Brearley and Jardine should be considered ...

Anyone thinking that Cook will ever reach the level of the Great Sir Jack Hobbs or Sir Herbert Herbert Sutcliffe are deluded. These played on uncovered pitches, no bouncer limits and averaged 50. Modern pitches are flat roads. it could be said Hobbs and Sutcliffe would average 70-80 on these pitches.

Sir Jack scored 100 100s after his 40th birthday for Heavens Sake!

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:1)Alistair Cook
2)Jack Hobbs
3)Len Hutton (C)
4)Kevin Piertsen
5)Wally Hammond
6)Ian Bell
7)Alan Knott (WK)
8)Fred Trueman
9)Graeme Swann
10)James Anderson
11)Stephen Harmison

to be fair steve harmison at his best was awesome.

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:Anyone thinking that Cook will ever reach the level of the Great Sir Jack Hobbs or Sir Herbert Herbert Sutcliffe are deluded. These played on uncovered pitches, no bouncer limits and averaged 50. Modern pitches are flat roads. it could be said Hobbs and Sutcliffe would average 70-80 on these pitches.

Sir Jack scored 100 100s after his 40th birthday for Heavens Sake!

They also played against bowlers who were slower, less fit, worse fielders, faced less planning, etc. The game was entirely different back then. People tend to always rate past players more for some reason.

Mike Selig wrote:

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:Anyone thinking that Cook will ever reach the level of the Great Sir Jack Hobbs or Sir Herbert Herbert Sutcliffe are deluded. These played on uncovered pitches, no bouncer limits and averaged 50. Modern pitches are flat roads. it could be said Hobbs and Sutcliffe would average 70-80 on these pitches.

Sir Jack scored 100 100s after his 40th birthday for Heavens Sake!

They also played against bowlers who were slower, less fit, worse fielders, faced less planning, etc. The game was entirely different back then. People tend to always rate past players more for some reason.

Don't neccesarily think that the bowlers were slower than those around today. Don't see why the likes of Gregory and MacDonald, Martindale and Constantine, Lindwall and Miller etc. wouldn't have been capable of bowling at at least 85-90 MPH, which is what most bowlers today bowl at.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:Anyone thinking that Cook will ever reach the level of the Great Sir Jack Hobbs or Sir Herbert Herbert Sutcliffe are deluded. These played on uncovered pitches, no bouncer limits and averaged 50. Modern pitches are flat roads. it could be said Hobbs and Sutcliffe would average 70-80 on these pitches.

Sir Jack scored 100 100s after his 40th birthday for Heavens Sake!

They also played against bowlers who were slower, less fit, worse fielders, faced less planning, etc. The game was entirely different back then. People tend to always rate past players more for some reason.

Don't neccesarily think that the bowlers were slower than those around today. Don't see why the likes of Gregory and MacDonald, Martindale and Constantine, Lindwall and Miller etc. wouldn't have been capable of bowling at at least 85-90 MPH, which is what most bowlers today bowl at.

Disagree. It's my opinion (based on footage and in particular where the keeper is standing etc) that Lindwall barely touched 80. Griffiths and Hall were probably the first to hit 85+, Lillee 85, Thompson and Holding 90+. Just my opinion and I'm not sure there's any way of finding out whether it's right.

I am sure Sir Geoff B will have something to say about this.
Of course Sutcliffe had a fine record, but I think I'd go for Boycott, his average may not be the greatest, but he really could do a fine job against the best of the speedsters.
Hobbs
Boycott
Hammond
Hutton
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Underwood
Barnes
Trueman
Statham

Mike Selig wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:Anyone thinking that Cook will ever reach the level of the Great Sir Jack Hobbs or Sir Herbert Herbert Sutcliffe are deluded. These played on uncovered pitches, no bouncer limits and averaged 50. Modern pitches are flat roads. it could be said Hobbs and Sutcliffe would average 70-80 on these pitches.

Sir Jack scored 100 100s after his 40th birthday for Heavens Sake!

They also played against bowlers who were slower, less fit, worse fielders, faced less planning, etc. The game was entirely different back then. People tend to always rate past players more for some reason.

Don't neccesarily think that the bowlers were slower than those around today. Don't see why the likes of Gregory and MacDonald, Martindale and Constantine, Lindwall and Miller etc. wouldn't have been capable of bowling at at least 85-90 MPH, which is what most bowlers today bowl at.

Disagree. It's my opinion (based on footage and in particular where the keeper is standing etc) that Lindwall barely touched 80. Griffiths and Hall were probably the first to hit 85+, Lillee 85, Thompson and Holding 90+. Just my opinion and I'm not sure there's any way of finding out whether it's right.

Sorry, but I think you're talking rubbish here.
So Larwood didn't reach 85 MPH+, at least, nor did the likes of Gregory, MacDonald, Ernie Jones, Tibby Cotter, Fred Spofforth?????????????
Lindwall bowled about the same pace as Collingwood and slower than Shane Watson???????????????????????
And Miller didn't either????????????
Lillee was measured in the 70's at 95 MPH +, as were Holding and Andy Roberts. Thompson was measured at 100MPH.
Richie Benaud said Frank Tyson was faster than Thompson. Frank Chester, a reknowned umpire who stood for both, said Larwood was as fast as Tyson.
I don't see any reason to think that fast bowlers from the past were'nt at least as fast as anyone around today.

Afraid I stand by that. I'm not sure if you've ever faced 80mpH but it is rapid. Really rapid particularly if you're not used to facing such pace. Everything is relative.

Measuring equipments in the 70s were even more unreliable than they are now, I don't take much notice of what they say.

Perception is everything, Geraint Jones said Parnell is the quickest bowler he has ever kept to, despite having kept to Harmison. Tyson and Larwood were undoubtedly close in speed (you can see this by watching footage), I am however quite unconvinced this speed was anything near that of Thompson. I would put it much closer to 80, if that.

Fast bowlers nowadays are much fitter, have much more upper-body strength (which along with a fast arm is what gives you speed) and coaching which allows them to get more out of their actions. Why wouldn't they be faster? In the same way rugby players are bigger and stronger and faster, etc. Professionalism...

Hoggy
He is probably Rex in disguise.He had a similar debate with us on JA606.

Erm no I'm not Rex, really I'm not. I'm down as Mike Selig (which is short for Michael, my actual name, you can find me on cricinfo or probably ICC Europe/cricketeurope if you so choose but my scores there are a bit embarassing). I'm known as Mike Selig on all online forums I'm part of, JA606 not being one of them, but the old 606 was. MadforChelsea can vouch for me if need be...

"Why wouldn't they be faster?"

They may be faster by a small percentage at the top speeds ie. the likes of Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar may be a little quicker than the quicks of the past, but I don't see why the likes of Shane Watson and Sreesanth would be faster than the fastest bowlers of the past, which is what you're suggesting.
They are fitter and stronger (though the likes of Lindwall and Larwood were reknowned for their fitness and strength), but human beings are limited to how strong and fit they can get, and there is a limit to how much improved fitness and strength can improve bowling speed.
The fastest of today's bowlers MAY be a little faster than the fastest bowlers of the past, and today's bowlers may well be able to maintain their highest pace generally for longer than bowlers from the past, but I can't see how the fastest bowlers today are somehow 15-20% faster than the fastest bowlers of the past. They're not supermen, you know.

OK mate.I just had a humorous vibe at you.Of course you arent Rex.Rex feels that Sehwag is the greatest opener of all time.You dont.I know that.

What scores are you talking about mate btw?


And on which other forums do you post?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:"Why wouldn't they be faster?"
They are fitter and stronger (though the likes of Lindwall and Larwood were reknowned for their fitness and strength), but human beings are limited to how strong and fit they can get, and there is a limit to how much improved fitness and strength can improve bowling speed.
The fastest of today's bowlers MAY be a little faster than the fastest bowlers of the past, and today's bowlers may well be able to maintain their highest pace generally for longer than bowlers from the past, but I can't see how the fastest bowlers today are somehow 15-20% faster than the fastest bowlers of the past. They're not supermen, you know.

There is a limit, however no matter how fit Lindwall and Larwood were (again their fitness was IMO relative) they were a long way behind even someone like Sreesanth. If you look at how the 100m times have progressed over the years say, you'll find an improvement of more or less 5% since the 50s. However 100m running is far less technical than fast bowling. It is not therefore beyond the realms of possibility that changes not only in nutrition etc but also technique have improved fast bowling times by at least 10%. As I say, based on what I've seen I suspect Lindwall bowled 80, tops.

Mike
How old are you?

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:OK mate.I just had a humorous vibe at you.Of course you arent Rex.Rex feels that Sehwag is the greatest opener of all time.You dont.I know that.

What scores are you talking about mate btw?


And on which other forums do you post?

Oh yeah I remember Rex from 606, this was the one arguing that Tendulkar was better than Bradman right and generally speaking all things indian were wonderful? didn't realise he'd been arguing along my lines for fast bowling, I may have to reconsider my position.

I am listed for my sins as a french U19 (and U17 player) on cricinfo. The only scores that cricinfo have gotten hold of seem to be during a European championship in Jersey, where I scored 3,0,2 and 4. And bowled 3 overs for 25. Not my finest hour. There are of course many other matches with far better scores, but these don't unfortunately appear on cricinfo. This is a great source of embarrassment for me.

I don't post on that many forums, but am part of one devoted to rugby referees, and occasionally comment on the independent or the telegraph (where I think I am down as Mike Selig, but it may be Mike 511) when I get myself sufficiently worked up.

I'm 23, I base my experience on Lindwall based on very limited (and grainy) TV footage, but am not convinced this experience is less reliable than the views of a (generic) 70 year old who is recalling his memory of Lindwall live.

"There is a limit, however no matter how fit Lindwall and Larwood were (again their fitness was IMO relative) they were a long way behind even someone like Sreesanth."

How do you know?

"It is not therefore beyond the realms of possibility that changes not only in nutrition etc but also technique have improved fast bowling times by at least 10%."

It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that it hasn't.

But even if fast bowling speeds HAD improved by 10%, that means that the fastest bowlers of the past would be bowling at, at least, 85-90 MPH

"As I say, based on what I've seen I suspect Lindwall bowled 80, tops.."

And based on what I've seen and read about Lindwall, I think you're wrong.

I am arguing my case based on:

1) what I have seen
2) the various advances we know have been made in other sports (athletics and swimming for example)
3) the fact that due to the preponderance of technique involved in fast bowling I believe there is greater scope for improvement than in the above mentioned sports.

I am happy to admit I could be wrong, but I don't think there are ways of demonstrating this.

Agree to disagree on this one lads, you're both coming up with good arguments for and against and neither of you seem like being persuaded the other way.

True but the debates are fun...

It's impossible to say whether bowlers are faster now than decades ago, though I'd expect that they probably are due to many things like diet, training, medical avancements etc., I'd also expect that if you could take a 2 year old Larwood, Constantine etc. and give him a similar life to the modern cricketers, he'd be just as fast as anyone around today.

some of the bowlers in the past were genuienly rapid in fact i think there is a lack of rapid fast bowlers now, in the past i think they were quicker.

What about this being an All Time England Test XI:-

1) Curtis
2) Stephenson
3) Moxon
4) Tavare
5) Barnett
6) Pringle
7) Capel
8) Newport
9) Russell
10) Hemmings
11) N.Cook

This England XI is very strong in the batting with the top 5 being able to bat as opening batsmen in the 4 day County Championship format version of the game for their respective counties. Also the XI includes 3 seam bowling all-rounders and offers the captain with a deep well balanced 5 man bowling attack of 3 seamers and 2 spinners in Hemmings and Cook.

gboycottnut wrote:What about this being an All Time England Test XI:-

1) Curtis
2) Stephenson
3) Moxon
4) Tavare
5) Barnett
6) Pringle
7) Capel
8) Newport
9) Russell
10) Hemmings
11) N.Cook


This England XI is very strong in the batting with the top 5 being able to bat as opening batsmen in the 4 day County Championship format version of the game for their respective counties. Also the XI includes 3 seam bowling all-rounders and offers the captain with a deep well balanced 5 man bowling attack of 3 seamers and 2 spinners in Hemmings and Cook.

Has all the hallmarks of a team selected at 2am in the morning after a heavy evening

Russell? Are you mad?

Paul Downton every time...

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Barnes
Underwood
Willis

dummy_half wrote:Russell? Are you mad?

Paul Downton every time...

But at least Jack Russell is a better keeper as well as being part of an England team which knows what winning a test match V the West Indies is like, unlike is the case with Downton who played in 2 test series V the West Indies and was part of an England team which lost every single test match.