Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 231.8K All Categories
- 22 >> Start Here <<
- 12 New Members
- 8 FAQs
- 83.3K Gear
- 37.9K Guitar
- 3.2K Acoustics
- 1.3K Bass
- 14.1K Amps
- 16.7K FX
- 157 Digital & Modelling
- 730 Other Instruments
- 7.9K Making & Modding
- 406 Gear Reviews
- 100 Guitar Reviews
- 72 Amp Reviews
- 119 FX Reviews
- 84 Other Reviews
- 734 Made in the UK
- 932 Theory
- 1.8K Technique
- 2K Live
- 3K Studio & Recording
- 2.1K Making Music
- 202 Events
- 15 Guitar Show 2018
- 762 Plug My Stuff
- 100.6K Classifieds
- 39.2K Guitars £
- 2.6K Acoustics £
- 132 LH Guitars £
- 836 Basses £
- 10K Parts £
- 17.6K Amps £
- 32.8K FX £
- 2.6K Studio & Rec £
- 5.8K Misc £
- 443 Personnel
- 52.7K Chat
- 35.3K Off Topic
- 987 Tributes
- 6.3K Music
In this Discussion
Become a Subscriber!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Lack of decent spinners is still an issue. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be picking a guy with a test bowling average of 42.8, who hasn't bowled a spell of more than 10 overs for a very long time.
What happens when Anderson eventually loses his zip I dread to think.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Di8moF_W4AAyIz9.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Di32ViSXoAA5LGb.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Di3L1qAXcAAm8Ni.jpg:large
Jimmy can reverse it, Stokes as well. Use them in short bursts, should be OK.
I'd probably have done the same. Moeen actually has a better test batting average than Malan. Overall, I think Malan is a slightly better batsman, but the extra bowling options Moeen gives would more than make up for it. I suppose the argument against it is that Root can bowl quite competent offspin. He's got 19 test wickets, and he's in good form at the moment. He took 4 for 5 for Yorkshire against Lancashire last week.
If you did play Moeen, you then have a 6 man attack. In that circumstance I'd have been tempted to take a punt on Jamie Overton over Porter to get a bit more pace. Overton took 8 wickets for Somerset in the match against Worcestershire last week, and bowled a decent number of overs. He's also quite a handy lower order batsman.
Ultimately, whatever team you pick, they have to bat better. Cook got a good ball early on, but most of the others got out to pretty innocuous balls.
Changing the subject slightly, has anyone seen this shambles:
https://www.ecb.co.uk/england/men/news/789984/ecb-reveals-the-nation-s-best-ever-england-men-s-test-xi
I know it's voted for by a fan poll, but how can any sensible person think that 5 of the best 11 players ever to play for England have played in the last 15 years? 2 of those players wouldn't even make the best England team of my lifetime.
If anyone is interested, the best England team of my lifetime would be:
Gooch, Boycott, Stewart, Gower, Pietersen, Botham, Flintoff, Knott, Swann, Anderson, Willis
My reasoning:
Boycott over Cook/Atherton: Cook has padded his stats with big scores on flat wickets. For me Boycott is more likely to get runs on a difficult pitch against good bowling. Atherton's stats aren't great because of his back problems later in his career, but in mid-90s form he's close as well.
Stewart at 3: England haven't had great number 3s in my lifetime but we have had a lot of good openers. A number 3 needs an opener's technique in case a wicket falls early, but needs to be able to open up and attack as well. Stewart fits the bill best. His headline average isn't great, but that was dragged down by playing as a keeper. He averaged 46 when playing as a batsman. That match in Barbados in 1994 when he made centuries in both innings against Ambrose and Walsh showed how good he was.
Gower over Thorpe I did think about Thorpe as a left hander. His average is similar to Gower, but I think Gower shades it. If nothing else, Gower was a better fielder before his shoulder went.
Pietersen over Root. Very close, and in a year or two's time I might go the other way.
Knott as keeper. I'm a bit young to properly remember Knott at his peak, but I do have memories of him making a century. When playing as a keeper, Stewarts batting isn't significantly better so even if I didn't pick Stewart at 3, Knott is a no brainer. Stewart averaged 34 when playing as keeper and Knott averaged 32 in an era when averages were generally lower. Knott could bat when it mattered. In the 74/75 Ashes down under when we were obliterated by Lillee and Thomson, Knott top scored in 5 of England's innings in the series.
Swann over Underwood. I can remember Underwood, but not at his best. If you look at his home record from 1976 onwards his figures were awful.
Willis over various others. Was tempted by Simon Jones, or Gough. In the end, I figured that Jones didn't do it for long enough, and you already have two swing bowlers in Anderson and Botham.
For me, Cook and Root don't even make the best England team of my lifetime. Both of them could still change that, but in an all time team you have to consider the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Grace, Barrington, Barnes, Laker and Verity. That ECB team is a joke. You could pick a team of players that they left out that would beat it more times than not.
Alex Stewart's was a superb player and seems to be good guy. He does a lot of great work behind the scenes for club cricket/youth development.
Number 3 is a position where you have to be able to handle the new ball. If I'm looking for a 5, I would pick Root ahead of Stewart, but not at 3. You need someone who is capable of handling the new ball. Number 3 has been a problem for England. We have had several middle order players who have played there and not done all that well compared to their stats lower down the order. Root averages 44.6 at 3, much lower than his career average, and also than Stewart's average of 46 when he played as a batsman.
Most people underrate Stewart as a batsman because his stats were dragged down by his keeping. You also have to think of the pitches and bowlers. The "chief executive's pitches" that are around these days are a lot flatter, and you don't have many quality fast bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock and McGrath around at the moment either. Stewart's average (when playing as a batsman) of 46 would be worth well over 50 in today's game. Ultimately, what it comes down to is that Root has not (yet) shown himself to be capable of playing innings like Stewart played in Barbados in 1994 against Ambrose and company. If he plays innings like that at the top of the order against Rabada and company next time England go to South Africa, then I might pick him over Stewart, but not on what he has done so far.
As for Hobbs, he would have made runs in any era. How you can leave out a cricketer than Wisden named as one of the 5 greatest of the 20th century boggles the mind.
I'm talking in my lifetime. In terms of watching cricket that I can remember that's 1976 onwards. If you look at his home matches from 1976 onwards, which is what I would have watched on TV, his stats aren't great. Only 31 wickets at 35.5. Maybe I cheated a bit by including Knott, but I can remember watching him make a century as a kid. Underwood did nothing memorable in my cricket watching lifetime. Swann also has the advantage of being a better batsman and a superb slip fielder as well.
Trott was good but got found out against the short ball later in his career. How much of that was down to his mental health issues I don't know, but I wouldn't rate him ahead of Stewart. He was also a bit one paced. If I've got Boycott opening, someone with a more expansive game like Stewart would be better.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/9014.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting
AS with Graham Thorpe were my two favourite English batsmen of that era. The latter seemed to be great at grinding things out when things weren't going well.
Something I believe the modern game is missing are tough draws being ground in test cricket. I can't remember exactly but I am fairly sure more test matches than before end in results than a few years back.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/629608.html
Agree, Hobbs and Barnes are automatic no brainer choices. Probably the first two names on the team sheet. Barrington has a very strong case. Definitely better than Gower or Root.
Hammond has to be in as well. He played most of his tests in an era of inflated batting averages before the lbw law was changed around 1936/37, but even allowing for that he was a great player. By all accounts he was a good fielder, and he was a decent bowler as well. He was good enough to open the bowling on the tour of South Africa in 1927/28. Got Bradman out 2 or 3 times. He would be good enough to be the fourth seamer on the right kind of pitch, and allow 2 spinners to be played.
For me the automatic choices are Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Botham and Barnes
After that, Knott as keeper, probably Trueman as the other fast bowler, although you would consider Larwood and Anderson. Laker as the off spinner. Toss up between Underwood and Verity as the left armer. The last two batting places between Grace, Barrington, Compton and maybe Pietersen. You could make arguments for any of those four.
Interesting that there isn't a left handed batsman anywhere near.
Very good player, but probably a bit below Trueman. 202 wickets at 26.7 is good in anyone's book, but for Trueman to take 307 at 21.6 puts him up with the best ever.
Bedser and Statham deserve a mention as well. Another more recent bowler who is very underrated is pre-injury Gus Fraser.
If you are picking an all time England team, then SF Barnes is one of the first names on the team sheet. Botham is the all rounder. Depending on team balance there is room for one more fast bowler, or two if you play one spinner. Trueman is the obvious one. If you want another after that, I'd probably go for Larwood or Tyson as the extreme pace would give you some variation. Anderson is a good bowler, and backs it up with great fielding, but in a lot of ways he's a similar bowler to Botham.
And yes left handed batsmen are very thin on the ground. It's why Gower tends to end up on lists. His southpaw nature means he stands out in a sea of righthanders. It's the same with left arm seamers
Freddie was one hell of a bowler. His record is superb. When you consider that some of those Tests were played on matting in the West Indies and that he missed a number of Tests thanks to intransigent snobbery on the part of MCC, he stands up with any quick bowler who has played the game. Bedser, Snow, and Statham were all excellent bowlers but Fred was that real top drawer quality for me.
I wouldn't have Larwood or Tyson. The latter didn't play enough Tests to be classed as a great and the former suffered through the same snobbery as Trueman to my mind. When you read as to how shittily Larwood was treated by hierarchy after Bodyline, you understand why he left this country.
Anderson on the other hand.. I would include him. There have been eras when batsmen reigned supreme (Australia went through a spell of having docile pitches fit for run scoring) but this is the only period where good batting pitches have come along with far superior bats. For Jimmy to get the wickets he has done says a lot about his ability.
Swann versus Laker: very very hard to separate them.
I suppose I should do an all-time team then!
Hobbs
Sutcliffe or Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Knott or Ames (this is so bloody hard to sort out. The leg spinner in me plumps for Ames
Swann or Laker
Trueman
Anderson
Barnes (swing and spin supreme)
I think Sutcliffe suffers in these comparisons because of the era he played in. He played between 1924 and 1935 in an era where quite a few batsman racked up imposing stats. They changed the LBW law in favour of the bowler a year or so after his last test.
Hobbs played a lot of his cricket before WWI when the pitches were a lot spicier. He missed several prime years to WWI as well. From what I've read, most judges at the time would have rated Hobbs the better of the two.
Good as Sutcliffe was, it's hard to argue with Hobbs and Hutton as our two best openers though.
After all my pontification, I'd better put a team up. A lot of the same players, but there would be a few differences from yours:
Hobbs
Hutton
Grace
Hammond
Pietersen (even though I don't like him I think he deserves to be here)
Botham
Knott
Rhodes
Swann
Trueman
Barnes
Grace is another one who gets overlooked in this kind of exercise. He was absolutely dominant in his prime. When you look at his test record it doesn't look great, but by 19th century standards it's very good. You also have to remember that he never really played tests in his prime. He only played 2 tests before he turned 36. He was a very good athlete - national champion at 440 yards hurdles in 1866, and played football for Wanderers FC, who were one of the top teams in the country. With that kind of sporting pedigree, he would have adapted to any era. He also took 2600 or so first class wickets. If you credit dodgy 19th century pitches with those wickets, then it makes his batting on those same pitches even more impressive.
I'd use Hammond as the fourth seamer so I can play 2 spinners. Like I said above, he was good enough to open the bowling on a tour of South Africa, and to get the likes of Bradman and Ponsford out against Australia. 83 test wickets is a bit more than a part timer.
The left arm spinner was a difficult one. Rhodes was a great bowler, but as pure bowlers you might be able to argue that Verity or Underwood were better. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Rhodes was a genuine allrounder. He was good enough as a batsman to play test cricket as an opener so having him at 7 or 8 would give a nice deep batting line up, and he wouldn't be a passenger on a greentop. Frank Woolley would have been another option, but probably not in Rhodes' class as a bowler.
Swan versus Laker is very difficult. Swann has benefited massively from DRS but Laker had uncovered pitches. Laker's stats benefited a lot from 19 for 90 on a sticky dog at Old Trafford in 1956 but Swann never had that kind of pitch to bowl on. It is difficult to choose between them. I've gone for Swann on the basis that he is a superb slip fielder, and probably a slightly better batsman, but if I'm doing this again tomorrow I might change my mind.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/14225.html?class=1;spanmax1=02+Jul+1935;spanmin1=14+Jun+1924;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/20413.html
Some mighty figures when batting together as well...
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/CI/content/records/283514.html
So it's a very hard case between Hutton and Sutcliffe for me.
Grace: I wouldn't pick him. I'd have him as Chairman of Selectors
Botham: he has to be at six. Any other position is sacrilege.
Swann versus Laker: very hard. Coin toss again like Sutcliffe-Hutton.
But hey! Cricketers from the past versus today... Kohli laid down a superb marker. That's why he's up there with Williamson and Smith. Root is a fine batsman but he isn't at their level yet. Some horrible shots played by the rest of the Indian batsmen.
Kudos to Ashwin. That really is an absolutely ripper to get Cook tonight.