Sky's All-Time England XI

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Mark Lyt » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00


Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles "What in
gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray "Angus
who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin Marlar.
The team was as follows:

1.Hobbs
2.Hutton
3.Hammond
4.Compton
5.May
6.Botham
7.Knott
8.Trueman
9.Larwood
10.Laker
11.Barnes

They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical exclusions
(Deadly, for one).  I will now put out 2nd XI:

1.Boycott
2.Gooch
3.Barrington
4.Edrich
5.Fletcher
6.Greig
7.Taylor
8.Willis
9.Snow
10.Underwood
11.Locke

--

Regards
-
Mark Lyth
-
"You just stood there screaming
 Fearing no one was listening to you
 They say the empty can rattles the most
 The sound of your own voice must soothe you
 Hearing only what you want to hear
 And knowing only what you've heard"
                      -Metallica
                                     "My Friend Of Misery"

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by John Hal » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
>Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles "What in
>gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray "Angus
>who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin Marlar.
>The team was as follows:

>1.Hobbs
>2.Hutton
>3.Hammond
>4.Compton
>5.May
>6.Botham
>7.Knott
>8.Trueman
>9.Larwood
>10.Laker
>11.Barnes

>They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical exclusions
>(Deadly, for one).

You would you leave out for him? He certainly wouldn't be in my all-time
England XI. Their XI is actually very close to mine, except that I would
include Ranji in place of May and Richardson in place of Larwood.

Quote:
>  I will now put out 2nd XI:

>1.Boycott
>2.Gooch
>3.Barrington
>4.Edrich
>5.Fletcher
>6.Greig
>7.Taylor
>8.Willis
>9.Snow
>10.Underwood
>11.Locke

Is it a coincidence that there is no player from earlier than the 1950s?
--
John Hall  Weep not for little Leonie
           Abducted by a French Marquis!
           Though loss of honour was a wrench
           Just think how it's improved her French.   Harry Graham (1874-1936)

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by cfonsek » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:



> >Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles "What in
> >gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray "Angus
> >who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin Marlar.
> >The team was as follows:

> >1.Hobbs
> >2.Hutton
> >3.Hammond
> >4.Compton
> >5.May
> >6.Botham
> >7.Knott
> >8.Trueman
> >9.Larwood
> >10.Laker
> >11.Barnes

> >They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical exclusions
> >(Deadly, for one).

> You would you leave out for him? He certainly wouldn't be in my all-time
> England XI.

Who is Deadly?

Chan

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Prashant Murt » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:




> > >Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles "What in
> > >gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray "Angus
> > >who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin Marlar.
> > >The team was as follows:

> > >1.Hobbs
> > >2.Hutton
> > >3.Hammond
> > >4.Compton
> > >5.May
> > >6.Botham
> > >7.Knott
> > >8.Trueman
> > >9.Larwood
> > >10.Laker
> > >11.Barnes

> > >They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical exclusions
> > >(Deadly, for one).

> > You would you leave out for him? He certainly wouldn't be in my all-time
> > England XI.

> Who is Deadly?

Think they mean Headly Verity (sp?) but I could be wrong.

Prashant

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Tony Whelpto » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:





>> > >Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles
"What in
>> > >gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray
"Angus
>> > >who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin
Marlar.
>> > >The team was as follows:

>> > >1.Hobbs
>> > >2.Hutton
>> > >3.Hammond
>> > >4.Compton
>> > >5.May
>> > >6.Botham
>> > >7.Knott
>> > >8.Trueman
>> > >9.Larwood
>> > >10.Laker
>> > >11.Barnes

>> > >They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical
exclusions
>> > >(Deadly, for one).

>> > You would you leave out for him? He certainly wouldn't be in my
all-time
>> > England XI.

>> Who is Deadly?

>Think they mean Headly Verity (sp?) but I could be wrong.

>Prashant

No Prashant - they mean Derek Underwood
 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Sridha » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:




> > >Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles "What in
> > >gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray "Angus
> > >who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin Marlar.
> > >The team was as follows:

> > >1.Hobbs
> > >2.Hutton
> > >3.Hammond
> > >4.Compton
> > >5.May
> > >6.Botham
> > >7.Knott
> > >8.Trueman
> > >9.Larwood
> > >10.Laker
> > >11.Barnes

> > >They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical exclusions
> > >(Deadly, for one).

> > You would you leave out for him? He certainly wouldn't be in my all-time
> > England XI.

> Who is Deadly?

derek leslie underwood.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Chan

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Dipak Bas » Fri, 02 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> >> > >The team was as follows:

> >> > >1.Hobbs
> >> > >2.Hutton
> >> > >3.Hammond
> >> > >4.Compton
> >> > >5.May
> >> > >6.Botham
> >> > >7.Knott
> >> > >8.Trueman
> >> > >9.Larwood
> >> > >10.Laker
> >> > >11.Barnes
> >> Who is Deadly?

> >Think they mean Headly Verity (sp?) but I could be wrong.

> >Prashant

> No Prashant - they mean Derek Underwood

However, I would pick Headly ahead of Deadly, but only as second spinner
to Laker, imho, England's alltime best spinner.  Hmmmm...if you consider
Barnes as a very fast offspinner, the team has two offies, which makes a
case for Verity, a left-armer.  Peter May (good captain and all that he
was) stands out like a sore thumb in this otherwise admirable list.
Ranji (as John Hall posted), Hendren, Barrington, Sutcliffe, Cowdrey,
Gower, Paynter, Leyland and Gooch would all be ahead in my list.  I wish
I could get Rhodes and Richardson in, but I prefer Botham (for half his
career) for the allrounder spot and Larwood (the most complete fast
bowler ever imho) over Richardson (sorry, John!).  If you consider all
Botham's career, subsititude Wilf Rhodes.

Dipak.

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Tim Cotsfor » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:





> > > >Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles "What in
> > > >gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray "Angus
> > > >who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin Marlar.
> > > >The team was as follows:

> > > >1.Hobbs
> > > >2.Hutton
> > > >3.Hammond
> > > >4.Compton
> > > >5.May
> > > >6.Botham
> > > >7.Knott
> > > >8.Trueman
> > > >9.Larwood
> > > >10.Laker
> > > >11.Barnes

> > > >They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical exclusions
> > > >(Deadly, for one).

> > > You would you leave out for him? He certainly wouldn't be in my all-time
> > > England XI.

> > Who is Deadly?

> Think they mean Headly Verity (sp?) but I could be wrong.

> Prashant

Don't know what Verity's nick was, but Derek Underwood was always known as Deadly. on
a turning pitch he was just that, deadly. and could keep an end tied up when needed.
don't know if he'd make my XI, but he'd sure come close.

Cheers

Tim

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Max Ratclif » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:53:30 +0100, John Hall

Quote:

>England XI. Their XI is actually very close to mine, except that I would
>include Ranji in place of May and Richardson in place of Larwood.

Selecting one of the very early players is a tricky business, since it
is much harder to relate their accomplishments to the quality of the
opposition.

If you're going to include Tom Richardson, what about George Lohmann?

Quote:

>>  I will now put out 2nd XI:

>>1.Boycott
>>2.Gooch
>>3.Barrington
>>4.Edrich
>>5.Fletcher
>>6.Greig
>>7.Taylor
>>8.Willis
>>9.Snow
>>10.Underwood
>>11.Locke

Herbert Sutcliffe would be difficult to leave out in favour of either
Gooch or Boycs. Gooch probably would have to go, although his bowling
and fielding were better than Boycs, his stats were very ordinary
until he became captain.

You could probably replace Fletcher with Gower, Cowdrey or one of the
oldtimers and have a stronger side. Certainly this side's batting
would tend to the dour at the moment - although this argument is
self-defeating given my inclusion of Sutcliffe in place of Gooch.

Oh, and you really wouldn't want Willis ahead of Snow in the batting
order.

Cheers,
Max

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Steve Shadbo » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:53:30 +0100, John Hall

Quote:



>>Just seen said program on Sky Sports 3.  Team was picked by Charles "What in
>>gods name is cricket anyway?" Coalville, "Bustling" Bob Willis, Ray "Angus
>>who? Oh him, he's too old" Illingworth and some old git called Robin Marlar.
>>The team was as follows:

>>1.Hobbs
>>2.Hutton
>>3.Hammond
>>4.Compton
>>5.May
>>6.Botham
>>7.Knott
>>8.Trueman
>>9.Larwood
>>10.Laker
>>11.Barnes

>>They were drinking while selecting this, explains certain comical exclusions
>>(Deadly, for one).

>You would you leave out for him? He certainly wouldn't be in my all-time
>England XI. Their XI is actually very close to mine, except that I would
>include Ranji in place of May and Richardson in place of Larwood.

Possibly agree with Ranji but I think I would stick to Larwood, I
would also consider Verity in for Laker.  And I agree about Underwood
- he might just make my 2nd Eleven

And of course we would have to have Mynn in there somewhere :)

Quote:

>>  I will now put out 2nd XI:

>>1.Boycott
>>2.Gooch
>>3.Barrington
>>4.Edrich
>>5.Fletcher
>>6.Greig
>>7.Taylor
>>8.Willis
>>9.Snow
>>10.Underwood
>>11.Locke

Well Gooch would be out for Sutcliffe, Taylor for Ames or Evans.

I'll also chuck out Fletcher for May.

I'll chuck out Greig cos I don't like him and bring in Grace

Willis goes for Richardson and Locke for Laker.  There must be someone
better than Snow but I can't think of anyone at the moment
Steve Shadbolt


All views are mine not Logica's

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Dr A. N. Walke » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> [...]                      Peter May (good captain and all that he
> was) stands out like a sore thumb in this otherwise admirable list.

        "De mortuis nil nisi bonum" and all that, and I was a great
admirer of Peter May, but he could not in all honesty be described
as a good captain.  In fact, that team is very short on the captaincy
front -- Hutton too enigmatic, May and Hammond too remote, Botham
too Bothamish.  You might want to risk Compton or Hobbs.

Quote:
> Ranji (as John Hall posted), Hendren, Barrington, Sutcliffe, Cowdrey,
> Gower, Paynter, Leyland and Gooch would all be ahead in my list.

        Well, there's no accounting for taste, but in my list May
would be streets ahead of Hendren, Cowdrey, Gower, Paynter, Leyland
and possibly Gooch.  For the others, Ranji, Barrington and Sutcliffe,
it really is a matter of taste.  If we had to *watch* this team,
then May and Ranji just ooze class.  On the other hand, if this is
the team to save England against Mars, you'd want Barrington or
Sutcliffe.

        However, we can easily resolve this.  You have all forgotten
WG.  How unforgivable!  He comes in to open, captains the side, and
Hutton drops to 4 with Compton at 5.  Grace also adds another option
to the bowling, and strengthens the fielding.

        The cynics will, absurdly, point to WG's Test record.  Forget
it.  Bradman didn't have much of a Test record in his 40s and 50s
either, and would have struggled against the 1950s England teams.
The miracle is that WG in his 50s was *still* one of the top seven
or eight batsmen in the world.  His record in f-c and representative
[though not of course Test] cricket up to 1876 almost beggars belief.
His batting record was absolutely Bradmanesque;  and at the same
time he was taking 5 wickets per match at less than a third of his
batting average, and taking enormous numbers of catches.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by <kst.. » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I also like WG (see below).  He was shrewd, respected by his peers, and
DOMINATED the game for longer than anyone else.  Another formidible
English captain was Jardine (not my cup of tea though).

Ivan Skivar


Quote:

> > [...]                 Peter May (good captain and all that he
> > was) stands out like a sore thumb in this otherwise admirable list.

>    "De mortuis nil nisi bonum" and all that, and I was a great
> admirer of Peter May, but he could not in all honesty be described
> as a good captain.  In fact, that team is very short on the captaincy
> front -- Hutton too enigmatic, May and Hammond too remote, Botham
> too Bothamish.  You might want to risk Compton or Hobbs.

> > Ranji (as John Hall posted), Hendren, Barrington, Sutcliffe, Cowdrey,
> > Gower, Paynter, Leyland and Gooch would all be ahead in my list.

>    Well, there's no accounting for taste, but in my list May
> would be streets ahead of Hendren, Cowdrey, Gower, Paynter, Leyland
> and possibly Gooch.  For the others, Ranji, Barrington and Sutcliffe,
> it really is a matter of taste.  If we had to *watch* this team,
> then May and Ranji just ooze class.  On the other hand, if this is
> the team to save England against Mars, you'd want Barrington or
> Sutcliffe.

>    However, we can easily resolve this.  You have all forgotten
> WG.  How unforgivable!  He comes in to open, captains the side, and
> Hutton drops to 4 with Compton at 5.  Grace also adds another option
> to the bowling, and strengthens the fielding.

>    The cynics will, absurdly, point to WG's Test record.  Forget
> it.  Bradman didn't have much of a Test record in his 40s and 50s
> either, and would have struggled against the 1950s England teams.
> The miracle is that WG in his 50s was *still* one of the top seven
> or eight batsmen in the world.  His record in f-c and representative
> [though not of course Test] cricket up to 1876 almost beggars belief.
> His batting record was absolutely Bradmanesque;  and at the same
> time he was taking 5 wickets per match at less than a third of his
> batting average, and taking enormous numbers of catches.

> --
> Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.


 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by Dipak Bas » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Willis goes for Richardson and Locke for Laker.  There must be someone
> better than Snow but I can't think of anyone at the moment

Maurice Tate, Alec Bedser, Frank Tyson, possibly Brian Statham?

Dipak.

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by John Hal » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

>> >> > >The team was as follows:

>> >> > >1.Hobbs
>> >> > >2.Hutton
>> >> > >3.Hammond
>> >> > >4.Compton
>> >> > >5.May
>> >> > >6.Botham
>> >> > >7.Knott
>> >> > >8.Trueman
>> >> > >9.Larwood
>> >> > >10.Laker
>> >> > >11.Barnes

>> >> Who is Deadly?

>> >Think they mean Headly Verity (sp?) but I could be wrong.

>> >Prashant

>> No Prashant - they mean Derek Underwood

>However, I would pick Headly ahead of Deadly, but only as second spinner
>to Laker, imho, England's alltime best spinner.  Hmmmm...if you consider
>Barnes as a very fast offspinner, the team has two offies, which makes a
>case for Verity, a left-armer.

Except that Barnes could also bowl legspin, AIUI. And all at close to
fast-medium pace.

Quote:
>  Peter May (good captain and all that he
>was) stands out like a sore thumb in this otherwise admirable list.
>Ranji (as John Hall posted), Hendren, Barrington, Sutcliffe, Cowdrey,
>Gower, Paynter, Leyland and Gooch would all be ahead in my list.

I think May's performances are ahead of most of this list, though
Sutcliffe would definitely be ahead of him. Sutcliffe was a specialist
opener, though. Barrington had a better average, but wasn't so
commanding a player, similarly for Paynter. Most of the others had a
worse Test average than May's.

Quote:
>  I wish
>I could get Rhodes and Richardson in, but I prefer Botham (for half his
>career) for the allrounder spot and Larwood (the most complete fast
>bowler ever imho) over Richardson (sorry, John!).  If you consider all
>Botham's career, subsititude Wilf Rhodes.

OTOH, if you consider all Rhodes' career, at Test level his period of
opening the innings was one when he hardly bowled. So instead of an all-
rounder, he was a bowler, then a batsman, and finally a bowler again.
--
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

 
 
 

Sky's All-Time England XI

Post by John Hal » Sat, 03 Oct 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
>       However, we can easily resolve this.  You have all forgotten
>WG.  How unforgivable!  He comes in to open, captains the side, and
>Hutton drops to 4 with Compton at 5.  Grace also adds another option
>to the bowling, and strengthens the fielding.

Erk! How ever did I miss spotting that omission?
--
John Hall

     "I am not young enough to know everything."
                                                 Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)