England's greatest test XI

we have done the aussies, now what do you think is england's greatest test xi...this is mine:

1.Len Hutton (cook, and trescohthick very close)
2.Graham Gooch
3.Wally Hammond
4.Ken Barrington
5.Kevin Piersten (gregers dont moan look at his test record, and his overall stats)
6.Ian Botham
7.Alan Knott
8.Fred Trueman
9.Graeme Swann
10.Derek Underwood
11.Bob Willis

Cricinfo Jury XI from 2009 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422353.html)
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Harold Larwood
Derek Underwood
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes

Their readers' XI was
Jack Hobbs,
Len Hutton,
Wally Hammond,
David Gower,
Kevin Pietersen,
Alan Knott,
Ian Botham,
Harold Larwood,
Jim Laker,
Fred Trueman,
Sydney Barnes

Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Laker
Larwood
Barnes

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Hutton(c)
Barrington
Compton
Botham
Knott(wk)
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

Hobbs
Suttcliffe
Hammond
Barrington
Paynter
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Barnes
Underwood
Willis

with a second XI of:
Hutton
Boycott
Grace
Gower
Compton
Pietersen
Evans
Larwood
Laker
Bedser
Statham

Well if you're doing 2nd XI's

Boycott
Grace(c)
Ranjitsinjhi
May
Dexter
Paynter
Greig T.
Ames(wk)
Verity
Bedser
Statham

what do people think about the claims of someone like George Lohmann? 112 test wickets at a shade over 10, pretty impressive...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:what do people think about the claims of someone like George Lohmann? 112 test wickets at a shade over 10, pretty impressive...

Did think about including him in the 2nd team, but preffered a bit more pace (think Lohmann was more a medium pacer, though I don't know for sure). Definite for a 3rd team though.

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Graveney
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Underwood
Barnes
Statham (Larwood if playing in Australia)

what they say of Lohmann in his cricinfo profile.

"Rated by contemporaries as the most difficult opponent, he bowled at little more than medium pace but was able to make the ball seam both ways, and his constant experimentation led to variations in angle, flight and pace. Add into the equation his metronomic accuracy, and he was often unplayable."

so you're right hoggy, more of a medium-pacer.

This isn't a dig at anyone, but I do notice that the older chaps on here tend to completely overlook Pietersen, whereas those that are younger put him in.

Various reasons for that of course, one being that the older guys will have their own favourites from past eras that some of us won't have seen.

However, my point is, when you get down to the bare bones of it all, KP has already done enough to be included in my opinion, and certainly gives the side something different. Certainly a better bat than some that have been mentioned i.e. Graveney, Paynter, Compton.

Fists of Fury wrote: Certainly a better bat than some that have been mentioned i.e. Graveney, Paynter, Compton.

On what basis?

Kiwireddevil wrote:Cricinfo Jury XI from 2009 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422353.html)
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Harold Larwood
Derek Underwood
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes

Their readers' XI was
Jack Hobbs,
Len Hutton,
Wally Hammond,
David Gower,
Kevin Pietersen,
Alan Knott,
Ian Botham,
Harold Larwood,
Jim Laker,
Fred Trueman,
Sydney Barnes

Larwood in both lists

not sure I agree with you Fists there: Compton averaged 50 in tests (same as KP) while Paynter averaged just short of 60.

skyeman wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:Cricinfo Jury XI from 2009 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422353.html)
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Harold Larwood
Derek Underwood
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes

Their readers' XI was
Jack Hobbs,
Len Hutton,
Wally Hammond,
David Gower,
Kevin Pietersen,
Alan Knott,
Ian Botham,
Harold Larwood,
Jim Laker,
Fred Trueman,
Sydney Barnes

Larwood in both lists

let it go skye!!

skyeman wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:Cricinfo Jury XI from 2009 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422353.html)
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Harold Larwood
Derek Underwood
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes

Their readers' XI was
Jack Hobbs,
Len Hutton,
Wally Hammond,
David Gower,
Kevin Pietersen,
Alan Knott,
Ian Botham,
Harold Larwood,
Jim Laker,
Fred Trueman,
Sydney Barnes

Larwood in both lists

As is Pietersen.
And Barrington isn't.

This "older chap" has a great deal of trouble with Pietersen (especially never having seen him and deriving my extensive knowledge and expertise from BBC / cricinfo Live Texts).

But agree that most All Time England XI's are lacking in flair until at least Number Six. Perhaps there's room for Colin Milburn after all?

PS: It will always be difficult to make judgement on players who lost at least six years because of Wartime; arguably cost Denis Compton the best years of his career, probably Hutton too. Toss up for me picking 2 out of 3 from Barrington, Compton and Graveney. Next time I'd probably select Compton.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote: Certainly a better bat than some that have been mentioned i.e. Graveney, Paynter, Compton.

On what basis?

The stats are fairly similar, but I'm looking beyond that in this instance and by better bat I mean in terms of the make up of this team. We have some really solid players in the top 4, but I think KP is the best of the entertainers/stroke makers that we have had by some distance, so should be given a place at number 5.

Comton was a fantastic strokeplayer (by all accounts) and averaged roughly the same as KP. Anyway I've nothing against KP's inclusion in an England all-time XI, but not sure he's a dead cert.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Hutton
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Laker
Underwood
Barnes

Kiwireddevil wrote:Cricinfo Jury XI from 2009 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422353.html)
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Harold Larwood
Derek Underwood
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes

This looks to be the most formidable England side for me - time will tell if Alastair Cook gets a look in.

What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

gboycottnut wrote:What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

What about them?

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

What about them?

Well they were at that time supposed to be England's best possible available team in regaining the ashes, well at least on paper any way.

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

What about them?

Well they were at that time supposed to be England's best possible available team in regaining the ashes, well at least on paper any way.

They were, I do remember, but they got a right thumping and England did what they always did in those days - brought in new players when things were not going well. Not many in that list played all six Tests.

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

What about them?

Well they were at that time supposed to be England's best possible available team in regaining the ashes, well at least on paper any way.

They were, I do remember, but they got a right thumping and England did what they always did in those days - brought in new players when things were not going well. Not many in that list played all five Tests.

Ahh those were the heady days of English cricket!

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

What about them?

Well they were at that time supposed to be England's best possible available team in regaining the ashes, well at least on paper any way.

They were, I do remember, but they got a right thumping and England did what they always did in those days - brought in new players when things were not going well. Not many in that list played all five Tests.

Ahh those were the heady days of English cricket!

Imagine them playing our Australian 1985 XI... we'd all be on the edge of our seats!

Linebreaker wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

What about them?

Well they were at that time supposed to be England's best possible available team in regaining the ashes, well at least on paper any way.

They were, I do remember, but they got a right thumping and England did what they always did in those days - brought in new players when things were not going well. Not many in that list played all five Tests.

Ahh those were the heady days of English cricket!

Imagine them playing our Australian 1985 XI... we'd all be on the edge of our seats!

No we won't be on the edge of our seats. We'd actually be on the floor having hysterics and laughing ourselves from watching these two great test teams trying to outdo and outthink each other.

I was talking about before a ball had been bowled.

As soon as play started, then yes... we'd have been on the floor in frustrated hysterics.

kwinigolfer wrote:Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Graveney
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Underwood
Barnes
Statham (Larwood if playing in Australia)

That one would basically be mine, maybe Cook over Hutton

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
May
Compton
Botham
Knott
Bedser
Trueman
Barnes
Underwood

So no Hutton as I think Sutcliffe was so wonderfully solid and would form THE opening partnership with Hobbs.
Peter May is in as he scored very heavily in the 50s when uncovered wickets played poorly - and he was a wonderful bat.
Surprised Compton has not featured much in others' sides - a complete genius. I'm a big fan of Pietersen - a match winner -and I would also have loved to have had Barrington in the side. But as Don Bradman once said when someone named about 20 players who should be in the Australian team: "You can only pick 11".
Underwood gets it over Laker, but not if the opposition was packed with hard-hitting left handers. Think just how poorly Underwood performed against the West Indies (Fredericks, Kally, Lloyd, Sobers - they all hammered him).
The absolute MUST HAVES in my opinion are Hobbs, Hammond, Knott and Trueman. You can make a case both for and against all the rest.

You mean Alec Bedser I presume, Sir Fred?

L'breaker - Yes, Alec Bedser. Sloppy sub editing by me and now changed.

Damn good side - good to see all those champion players in your team.

L'breaker. Ta for that. So difficult to make judgements on these things, although a lot of fun. Sometimes mere figures don't come into it and you also have to have a balanced side.
It's lovely to see England doing well now, but - really - Cook and Trescothick, both with excellent records, cannot be considered England greats.
But we could be doing this in 10 years time and both Cook and KP would be included having scored mountains of Test runs and broken all the, comparatively-modest, England batting records.
Interesting to see that 93 side. Actually, Atherton, Gatting, Gooch, Stewart and Hussain represent a fairly useful batting line-up. The less said about some of the others, the better.

That's right - Cook has made a good start but has a long career ahead hopefully. KP... also has potential to do even more special things but needs to consolidate his career even more now.

I liked Trescothick, but I agree in no way can he be considered an all-time great.

Linebreaker wrote:That's right - Cook has made a good start but has a long career ahead hopefully. KP... also has potential to do even more special things but needs to consolidate his career even more now.

I liked Trescothick, but I agree in no way can he be considered an all-time great.

had he played all through his career for england ,i think he would have been considered one.

SirFred
Surely Botham should also be in your list of must haves? We've never had another all rounder of quite his class.

As for my choices, it's not easy because the majority of the greats are before my time (and I'm 40 and started following cricket when I was about 10, so it shows how rubbish we've been for most of the last 30 years). By reputation as much as by first-hand knowledge, I'd go for something like:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
1 of (A) below
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Barnes
Underwood
1 of (B) below

A - Middle order batsmen: May, Compton, Barrington, KP, Gower, Thorpe (the last two because a lefty would be useful). I think stats-wise, Barrington just takes it.

B - Laker if its a spinning / uncovered wicket. Lohman, Larwood, Bedser, Tyson (for his peak), Statham, Willis (who seems to be a bit the forgotten man in these discussions). A quick bit of research suggests that of those that played in the 'modern' game, Tyson's best was probably unmatchable but was sadly brief

One point about Derek Underwood, of whom I am a great fan, is that he was seldom an automatic choice for England, at least at home. He played in all five matches of very few home series, when the suitability of the pitch to his bowling was often questioned. It says a lot about Underwood that he always seemed to bounce back from any setbacks, perceived or real.

Met him once towards the end of his career, really nice gentleman.

kwinigolfer wrote:One point about Derek Underwood, of whom I am a great fan, is that he was seldom an automatic choice for England, at least at home. He played in all five matches of very few home series, when the suitability of the pitch to his bowling was often questioned. It says a lot about Underwood that he always seemed to bounce back from any setbacks, perceived or real.

Met him once towards the end of his career, really nice gentleman.

must have been fantastic.

I saw that footage of Derek Randall again the other day from the Centenary Test where he doffs his hat to Dennis Lillee after being dismissed in the 1st innings. The 2nd innings from him was epic.

Although he wouldn't be in my all time England side, he is one of my favourite players and was a superb fielder. I was lucky enough to see him play in a few ODIs and the SCG crowd had a love-hate relationship with him. He was a real character!

Has anyone got the BBC Video of the great Richie Benaud's finest selection of England's best players to have played since the second world war ? It has the following list of players selected by the great man himself :-

(OPENERS)
Graham Gooch
Geoff Boycott

(MIDDLE ORDER BATTERS)
David Gower
Allan Lamb
Mike Gatting

(ALL-ROUNDER)
Ian Botham

(KEEPER)
Alan Knott

(SPINNERS)
Jim Laker
Derek Underwood

(FAST BOWLERS)
Fred Trueman
John Snow
Bob Willis

(12th MAN)
Derek Randall

Dummy half. You're probably right about Botham. Praps I should have had him in the must-have section. As for Underwood, he rarely let England down apart from being smashed around by the Windies. On the days before covered wickets he was remarkable,. If there was ANYTHING in the wicket, he always performed.
This was incredible, as many players, expected to bowl a side out, can be relied upon to fail occasionally. "Deadly" rarely failed and who can forget his famous duck-hook shot while batting?

gboycottnut wrote:Has anyone got the BBC Video of the great Richie Benaud's finest selection of England's best players to have played since the second world war ? It has the following list of players selected by the great man himself :-

(OPENERS)
Graham Gooch
Geoff Boycott

(MIDDLE ORDER BATTERS)
David Gower
Allan Lamb
Mike Gatting

(ALL-ROUNDER)
Ian Botham

(KEEPER)
Alan Knott

(SPINNERS)
Jim Laker
Derek Underwood

(FAST BOWLERS)
Fred Trueman
John Snow
Bob Willis

(12th MAN)
Derek Randall

Was he drunk when he picked that middle order?

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Has anyone got the BBC Video of the great Richie Benaud's finest selection of England's best players to have played since the second world war ? It has the following list of players selected by the great man himself :-

(OPENERS)
Graham Gooch
Geoff Boycott

(MIDDLE ORDER BATTERS)
David Gower
Allan Lamb
Mike Gatting

(ALL-ROUNDER)
Ian Botham

(KEEPER)
Alan Knott

(SPINNERS)
Jim Laker
Derek Underwood

(FAST BOWLERS)
Fred Trueman
John Snow
Bob Willis

(12th MAN)
Derek Randall

Was he drunk when he picked that middle order?

Must have been.
No May, no Barrington, no Dexter, no Compton???

There were a few recent ones missing as well but he may have picked this team a few years ago.

gboycottnut wrote:What about England's great 1993 Team which was supposed to be able to win back the Ashes from Australia during that famous summer:-

1 Mark Lathwell
2 Mike Atherton
3 Mike Gatting
4 Graham Gooch
5 Matthew Maynard
6 Alec Stewart
7 Nasser Hussain
8 Martin Bicknell
9 Martin McCague
10 Peter Such
11 Mark Illott
12th Man Steve Watkin

A lot of people have taken the mick, but to be fair I think Lathwell and Maynard were quality players who would have thrived in today's (or indeed Hussain's) England side.

Now the bowling... 3 guys there not test class, and another only at Headingley.

Mike
I'm not necessarily convinced about Lathwell and Maynard - both very good County players and deserved a chance for England, but perhaps as with Ramprakash and to a lesser extent Hick, the sort of guys who struggled to make the step up to international level. Maybe they'd have benefitted from more development opportunities in the A side.

As for the bowling, well...
Bicknell was maybe the bowling equivalent of Ramps, although wasn't given much opportunity at test level. McCague and Illot weren't even that good.

Wasn't this the tour when England ended up selecting 29 different players over the 6 Tests? By comparison, I think we haven't used that many players in the last 5 years.

But you see I genuinely believe Hick and Ramprakash would have done well in the current England set-up. Lathwell and Maynard had talent in spades and played 6 tests between them. Maynard also played a few ODIs but was never settled and given the trust of the management.

It is very difficult for a player to succeed in that kind of environment, and should they not succeed immediately (i.e. first game) the pressure increases ten-fold, as they know they are then effectively on last-chance saloon. Not only that, but as I hinted at in the HoF thread, they both suffered from not fitting in, in the sense that Lathwell in particular was fairly laid-back and not from the Gooch school of training (start early, hard, long, repetitive). This in turn saw him sidelined. It's a shame, he could have been a terrific player.

Agreed about McCague and Illot. I'm not convinced Such was ever an international spinner either. Bicknell lacked pace and bowled too full to be successful anywhere but Headingley IMO. I don't think he was like Ramps, Ramps clearly had the quality but was lacking upstairs (and no one understood this until it was too late). Nothing wrong with Bicknell upstairs, it's just his game wasn't all that suited to international cricket. whether he could have adapted if given the chance is an interesting question.

Thorpe made his debut in 1993 and made a ton, so it wan't all bad.