England/South Africa All Time XI

Sorry, bored!

To follow on from the current XI, what would your all time XI be.

Mine:

Hobbs
Richards
Hutton
Hammond
G Pollock
Kallis
Knott
Barnes
Trueman
Donald
Laker

My all-time England/South Africa XI:-

1) Andrew Strauss (batsman)
2) Jonathan Trott (batsman)
3) Chris Smith (batsman)
4) Allan Lamb (batsman)
5) Robin Smith (batsman)
6) Basil D'Oliveria (all-rounder)
7) Matt Prior (wicketkeeper)
8) Tony Greig (all-rounder)
9) Kevin Pietersen (off-spinner)
10)Jade Dernbach (opening bowler)
11)Neal Radford (opening bowler)

Smart, gboycotnut

Based on what I've uncovered over on the Hall of Fame thread, England players should dominate the XI as they do here - I think we have two South Africans and 20+ Englishmen inducted.

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Graeme Pollock
4. Len Hutton (c)
5. Jacques Kallis
6. Wally Hammond
7. Ian Botham
8. Les Ames (wk)
9. SF Barnes
10. Fred Trueman
11. Jim Laker

Reserves: Herbert Sutcliffe, WG Grace, Brian Statham, Dale Steyn, Derek Underwood

I bet WG wouldn't have been happy to be left on the bench...

Strauss
Smith
KP
Kallis
AB de Villiers (WK)
Botham
Flintoff
s Pollock
swann
styan
Anderson

gboycottnut wrote:My all-time England/South Africa XI:-

1) Andrew Strauss (batsman)
2) Jonathan Trott (batsman)
3) Chris Smith (batsman)
4) Allan Lamb (batsman)
5) Robin Smith (batsman)
6) Basil D'Oliveria (all-rounder)
7) Matt Prior (wicketkeeper)
8) Tony Greig (all-rounder)
9) Kevin Pietersen (off-spinner)
10)Jade Dernbach (opening bowler)
11)Neal Radford (opening bowler)

lol i only just clocked , must be slow this morning and was confused- good one

1.Barry Richards
2.Jack Hobbs
3.Wally Hammond (c)
4.Len Hutton
5.Graeme Pollock (guy's just class!)
6.Jacques Kallis
7.Alan Knott (purely for glovework)
8.Dale Steyn
9.Allan Donald
10.Jim Laker
11.James Anderson

CF wrote:1.Barry Richards
2.Jack Hobbs
3.Wally Hammond (c)
4.Len Hutton
5.Graeme Pollock (guy's just class!)
6.Jacques Kallis
7.Alan Knott (purely for glovework)
8.Dale Steyn
9.Allan Donald
10.Jim Laker
11.James Anderson

Graeme Pollock always had and should be batting at number 4 when he plays. Also Mike Proctor should be included as he can bat well within the top 6, bowl very fast and is also a good fielder. I would have Proctor instead of either Anderson,Steyn or Donald as these 3 are very similar players.

Steyn and donald has averages below 24, Anderson has achieved that only in the last 2 years, but his career average is nearer to 30.

Proctor was a devastating bowler and should replace Anderson.

Hobbs
Richards - the two openers pretty much pick themselves (and this is the opening combination I usually choose for my all-time test XI). Honourable mention to the too-often forgotten Sutcliffe.
Hammond - great player, full stop.
Kallis - not far off being the best all-rounder of all time, can't be left out.
G. Polllock - greatest left-hander of all time? Quite possibly.
Dennis Compton - OK personal bias here, but was a fantastic player.
Knott - greatest keeper I've ever seen footage of, and a handy bat.
Procter - another great player whose career was unfortunate to coincide with apartheid.
Barnes - phenomenal record.
Laker - Laker provides the spin option, narrowly squeaking in ahead of Underwood.
Trueman - first man to 300 wickets, a legend of the game.

Comments: I really reckon 5 of the top 6 pick themselves, which is quite remarkable. Compton is a left-field choice, but I reckon with this top order he'd have been the perfect man to have there. Barrington and many others unlucky (I felt Kallis's solidity meant Barrington's wasn't needed). The bowlers, again, Procter and Barnes are too good to leave out. Spinner's spot contested as mentioned, whereas the final seamer's spot was very very difficult to decide: Willis, Donald, Steyn all very unlucky to miss out.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Hobbs
Richards - the two openers pretty much pick themselves (and this is the opening combination I usually choose for my all-time test XI). Honourable mention to the too-often forgotten Sutcliffe.
Hammond - great player, full stop.
Kallis - not far off being the best all-rounder of all time, can't be left out.
G. Polllock - greatest left-hander of all time? Quite possibly.
Dennis Compton - OK personal bias here, but was a fantastic player.
Knott - greatest keeper I've ever seen footage of, and a handy bat.
Procter - another great player whose career was unfortunate to coincide with apartheid.
Barnes - phenomenal record.
Laker - Laker provides the spin option, narrowly squeaking in ahead of Underwood.
Trueman - first man to 300 wickets, a legend of the game.

Comments: I really reckon 5 of the top 6 pick themselves, which is quite remarkable. Compton is a left-field choice, but I reckon with this top order he'd have been the perfect man to have there. Barrington and many others unlucky (I felt Kallis's solidity meant Barrington's wasn't needed). The bowlers, again, Procter and Barnes are too good to leave out. Spinner's spot contested as mentioned, whereas the final seamer's spot was very very difficult to decide: Willis, Donald, Steyn all very unlucky to miss out.

With guys like Hobbs, Richards, Hammond and Graeme Pollock in the batting lineup, there is no need to play 6 specialist batsmen. Alan Knott like his current day England wicketkeeping counterpart Matt Prior was good enough to bat at number 6. If not Knott, then Mike Proctor certainly is good enough to bat at 6.

biltongbek wrote:Steyn and donald has averages below 24, Anderson has achieved that only in the last 2 years, but his career average is nearer to 30.

Proctor was a devastating bowler and should replace Anderson.

is that mike Proctor your talking about granted he had a 15 bowling avg but only played 7 tests

fair point gb, but you could equally argue that with Kallis and Hammond in the top 6, you didn't need five bowlers as well. I don't think Knott was good enough for n°6 anyway. Similarly not sure about Procter (who averaged 36 with the bat at FC level - is that really enough to bat at 6 in a test team?).

Mad for Chelsea wrote:fair point gb, but you could equally argue that with Kallis and Hammond in the top 6, you didn't need five bowlers as well. I don't think Knott was good enough for n°6 anyway. Similarly not sure about Procter (who averaged 36 with the bat at FC level - is that really enough to bat at 6 in a test team?).

For an all-rounder an average of 36 is good enough to bat at 6 in a test team, especially like I said there are players of the calibre of Hobbs, Barry Richards, Hammond Graeme Pollock and Kallis making up the top 5 batting lineup.

Hmmm possibly. That's his FC average by the way, his test average was lower (mid-twenties IIRC) but of course a small sample. I don't disagree with you, but as I said above I don't feel 5 bowlers plus the likes of Hammond and Kallis is necessary, as five bowlers inevitably means one of them won't bowl that much. All about personal preference in the end.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Hmmm possibly. That's his FC average by the way, his test average was lower (mid-twenties IIRC) but of course a small sample. I don't disagree with you, but as I said above I don't feel 5 bowlers plus the likes of Hammond and Kallis is necessary, as five bowlers inevitably means one of them won't bowl that much. All about personal preference in the end.

Well with the likes of Hobbs, Richards, Hammond, Pollock and Kallis making up the top 5 batting lineup, there isn't much chance either of whoever is down to bat at number 6 getting a chance to have a bat as the top 5 batsmen will just bat the opposition out of the game, particularly the likes of Hobbs and Kallis who are reknown for batting for hours on end.

I'd have S Pollock ahead of Anderson by some distance.

Really? Not for me. Bit unfair as Jimmy's career hasn't finished yet, but I'd say he was the more skilled of the two, and magical to watch. Pollock a great cricketer, never the less.

Pollock was a very food number 8 though. 'some distance' is a bit unfair but Pollock does seem to have been overlooked.

Jimmy is in his prime now, so you're right lets see what his figures will be when he's finished.

Yeah he was a tremendous bowler, a handy batsman and a great competitor, for sure.

Fists, neither has Dale Steyn, and he doesn't seem to get much support here.

You'll pick anderson ahead of steyn?

Depends on the conditions, give me Jimmy on a Trent Bridge swinger (not that garbage we played on in the last few days!).

I'd have both of them though, for sure. Sheer brilliance.

I prefer Donald to both.

Sheer aggression and obviously a great bowler.

Well how about this lineup then for an England/South All Time XI to play against say the mighty West Indies XI of 1983 (Roberts, Holding, Garner etc) in their own backyard on the very fast and bouncy wickets back then:-

1) Hobbs
2) B.Richards
3) Hammond
4) G.Pollock
5) Kallis
6) Proctor
7) Knott
8) S.Pollock
9) Anderson
10)Steyn
11)Donald
12th Man Hugh Tayfield

Are we saying that Anderson is the best English quickie since Trueman?

Stella wrote:Are we saying that Anderson is the best English quickie since Trueman?

Well in terms of skill, he must be the best English pace bowler since Trueman, although between him, Bob Willis and John Snow.

Stella wrote:Are we saying that Anderson is the best English quickie since Trueman?

Are we saying that he isnt?

Over his career no. But in the last few years, since he finally got everything in place hes been as good as anyone, second only to Steyn in the world.

I'd say he is, yes.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Stella wrote:Are we saying that Anderson is the best English quickie since Trueman?

Are we saying that he isnt?

Over his career no. But in the last few years, since he finally got everything in place hes been as good as anyone, second only to Steyn in the world.

Well, I can only seen Anderson in our teams apart from Trueman and Barnes, so we are saying he is.

Stella wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Stella wrote:Are we saying that Anderson is the best English quickie since Trueman?

Are we saying that he isnt?

Over his career no. But in the last few years, since he finally got everything in place hes been as good as anyone, second only to Steyn in the world.

Well, I can only seen Anderson in our teams apart from Trueman and Barnes, so we are saying he is.

Well what is definitely sure is that Anderson is the best English pace bowler since Steve Harmison.

Well, we seem to have pretty much a consensus on 5 batsmen (Hobbs, Richards, Kallis, Pollock and Hammond) and a wicket keeper (Knott).

Not convinced I'd want Proctor batting at 6 - seems more like a 7/8 at Test level. Definitely a good enough bowler to justify his selection purely in that regard. Anyway, having Kallis and Hammond in the top 5 allows a 6th specialist batsman - as a personal choice I'd go for David Gower (before his shoulder fell apart). May not have the greatest stats, but a second lefty would be good and he was so good to watch at his best, plus being a top class fielder.

So we then have Proctor and Knott at 7 and 8, allowing two more seamers and a spinner.
Laker or Underwood are the main contenders for the spinner, I'd probably just go with Deadly.

Seamers?
Trueman and Donald for me .

Oh, and 12th man has to be Jonty Rhodes.

GBoyc
Good batting and all-rounder selection, but a bit weak in the front line bowling - shows how poor the Saffers are at producing spin bowlers that the best one we've managed to nick from them is now a batting specialist . Oh, and Radford wasn't South African born

Could even have KP at 6 in that side, dummy. Does his talents a disservice, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind in such company. An explosive number 6, that's for sure, but with sufficient class to play any situation.

dummy_half wrote:Well, we seem to have pretty much a consensus on 5 batsmen (Hobbs, Richards, Kallis, Pollock and Hammond) and a wicket keeper (Knott).

Not convinced I'd want Proctor batting at 6 - seems more like a 7/8 at Test level. Definitely a good enough bowler to justify his selection purely in that regard. Anyway, having Kallis and Hammond in the top 5 allows a 6th specialist batsman - as a personal choice I'd go for David Gower (before his shoulder fell apart). May not have the greatest stats, but a second lefty would be good and he was so good to watch at his best, plus being a top class fielder.

So we then have Proctor and Knott at 7 and 8, allowing two more seamers and a spinner.
Laker or Underwood are the main contenders for the spinner, I'd probably just go with Deadly.

Seamers?
Trueman and Donald for me .

Oh, and 12th man has to be Jonty Rhodes.

GBoyc
Good batting and all-rounder selection, but a bit weak in the front line bowling - shows how poor the Saffers are at producing spin bowlers that the best one we've managed to nick from them is now a batting specialist . Oh, and Radford wasn't South African born

Not sure that Gower is that good enough to get into any England/South Africa All-Time XI just because he happens to bat left-handed, particularly if this team are going to be playing against a mighty 1983 West Indies XI.

I doubt Gower would want to play if it was against Marshall and co

I'm surprised by the number of people omitting Ian Botham. Can bat at 7 and be part of a 4 man attack.

I wouldn't say Knott is nailed on. Les Ames has a superb batting line-up, and his 'keeping was reportedly good too. Prior must also be pretty close, though I wouldn't want to judge him at this stage of his career.

I wanted a batting allrounder at six, so had Kallis. Figured I should pick my best bowlers from then on. Botham at his peak may have been as good as most but he did tail off in the early-mid 80's.

If I had wanted a bowling allrounder who can bat at six then Beefy is your man.

1) Hobbs
2) Richards
3) Hammond
4) G. Pollock
5) Kallis
6) Botham
7) Knott (wk)
8) S. Pollock
9) Laker
10) Donald
11) Barnes

Twelfth man: Rhodes

Stella wrote:I wanted a batting allrounder at six, so had Kallis. Figured I should pick my best bowlers from then on. Botham at his peak may have been as good as most but he did tail off in the early-mid 80's.

If I had wanted a bowling allrounder who can bat at six then Beefy is your man.

Well I think that Mike Proctor is actually a better batsman than what Ian Botham was in terms of ability although Ian has scored more runs than what Mike has done at a test level. Kallis is more of a number 4 or 5 than a number 6 batsman.

yeah johnty 12th man all day long- a cert

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I wanted a batting allrounder at six, so had Kallis. Figured I should pick my best bowlers from then on. Botham at his peak may have been as good as most but he did tail off in the early-mid 80's.

If I had wanted a bowling allrounder who can bat at six then Beefy is your man.

Well I think that Mike Proctor is actually a better batsman than what Ian Botham was in terms of ability although Ian has scored more runs than what Mike has done at a test level. Kallis is more of a number 4 or 5 than a number 6 batsman.

Not when you have that top 5.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I wanted a batting allrounder at six, so had Kallis. Figured I should pick my best bowlers from then on. Botham at his peak may have been as good as most but he did tail off in the early-mid 80's.

If I had wanted a bowling allrounder who can bat at six then Beefy is your man.

Well I think that Mike Proctor is actually a better batsman than what Ian Botham was in terms of ability although Ian has scored more runs than what Mike has done at a test level. Kallis is more of a number 4 or 5 than a number 6 batsman.

Not when you have that top 5.

Kallis is already included in the above XI batting at 5. For me the number 6 position is a choice between Botham and Proctor and I would go for Proctor as he was a better batsman than Ian as well as a faster bowler than what Ian was, which is a vital factor if this combined England-SA XI plays against a mighty West Indies XI consisting of those West Indian players who played in 1983 such as Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I wanted a batting allrounder at six, so had Kallis. Figured I should pick my best bowlers from then on. Botham at his peak may have been as good as most but he did tail off in the early-mid 80's.

If I had wanted a bowling allrounder who can bat at six then Beefy is your man.

Well I think that Mike Proctor is actually a better batsman than what Ian Botham was in terms of ability although Ian has scored more runs than what Mike has done at a test level. Kallis is more of a number 4 or 5 than a number 6 batsman.

Not when you have that top 5.

Kallis is already included in the above XI batting at 5. For me the number 6 position is a choice between Botham and Proctor and I would go for Proctor as he was a better batsman than Ian as well as a faster bowler than what Ian was, which is a vital factor if this combined England-SA XI plays against a mighty West Indies XI consisting of those West Indian players who played in 1983 such as Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel.

5 seamers?

Too many, IMO.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I wanted a batting allrounder at six, so had Kallis. Figured I should pick my best bowlers from then on. Botham at his peak may have been as good as most but he did tail off in the early-mid 80's.

If I had wanted a bowling allrounder who can bat at six then Beefy is your man.

Well I think that Mike Proctor is actually a better batsman than what Ian Botham was in terms of ability although Ian has scored more runs than what Mike has done at a test level. Kallis is more of a number 4 or 5 than a number 6 batsman.

Not when you have that top 5.

Kallis is already included in the above XI batting at 5. For me the number 6 position is a choice between Botham and Proctor and I would go for Proctor as he was a better batsman than Ian as well as a faster bowler than what Ian was, which is a vital factor if this combined England-SA XI plays against a mighty West Indies XI consisting of those West Indian players who played in 1983 such as Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel.

5 seamers?

Too many, IMO.

Fine, swap Tayfield for either Anderson or Steyn and play a 4 man pace attack of Proctor, Donald, S.Pollock, Anderson/Steyn with Tayfield as the specialist spinner. This 5 man bowling attack arguably can match up well with what anything a West Indies 1983 XI can themselves put out onto the field :- Marshall or Moseley, Garner or Croft, Holding or Clarke, Roberts or Daniel.

mystiroakey wrote:yeah johnty 12th man all day long- a cert

If AB is not in the strting XI, then I would pick him over Jonty any day of the week.

Much better batsman and equally good fielder.

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:yeah johnty 12th man all day long- a cert

If AB is not in the strting XI, then I would pick him over Jonty any day of the week.

Much better batsman and equally good fielder.

I still reckon Rhodes is a better fielder than anyone we've seen since he came on the scene. AB and Punter are about on par, I would say.

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:yeah johnty 12th man all day long- a cert

If AB is not in the strting XI, then I would pick him over Jonty any day of the week.

Much better batsman and equally good fielder.

AB can also keep Wicket, so this makes him a better option than Jonty who is an excellent fielder and an average batsman at best.

With such a strong 5 man bowling attack of Proctor, Donald, S.Pollock, Steyn or Anderson and Tayfield as the spinner, there isn't a need to include an excellent fielder like Jonty.

Hobbs
Barry
Hutton(c)
Hammond
G Pollock
Kallis
Knott(wk)
Trueman
Laker
Donald
Barnes