England V Australia

[Beny]

I thought this might be a bit of fun.

I'm not all that sure about English Cricket over time but I was wondering... If you made a dream team for both nations.

1. What would they be?
2. Who would win in a 5 test series?

My Aussie Team.

Hayden
Taylor
Bradmen
Greg Chappell
Steve Waugh
Ponting
Gilly
Lille
Warne (c)
Thommo
McGrath
12the Man. K. Miller

Perhaps a bit contriversial but I ain't no Historian.

I won't even try and do An English team (I'll leave that to the Poms).

[Rachael]

England dream teams are commonly enough cited... but get very tricky if you start including pre-war folk. Names like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Ranjitsingh, Leyland, Ames, Rhodes, Barnes, Freeman and Larwood are all (with the exception of the exceptional Hobbs and Hammond) a tad remote for easy evaluation!

A post-war XI is easier, though, and might read:

Hutton (Capt)
Boycott
May
Compton
Cowdrey
Graveney
Evans (WK)
Laker
Trueman
Bedser/Underwood (Depending on the conditions)
Statham

That's an XI (well, XII) put together by Peter Foy (who actually saw all of them in their prime).. but I've never QUITE understood why Barrington isn't in the list: possibly for aesthetic reasons as he was another "wall" like player. I'd have him in at 3.. shunt a couple of guys down a spot... and drop either Cowdrey (Colin) or Graveney.

There's a case for saying Gooch instead of Boycott as an opener.. but I'm not convinced (and if you DID include pre-war guys then neither would even come close to keeping out Hobbs). There's also the old chestnut of Botham and Knott instead of Graveney and Evans at 6 and 7: it doesn't hold a lot of water as Graveney was a better batsman than Botham and Knott put together.. and Evans is generally regarded as having been the greatest gloveman of all time (and he'd have to go as, batting wise, Boycott then Evans is too weak)... and with that superb bowling attack a 5th bowler would not be THAT appealing (and certainly not away from English conditions).. but there's a brigade of English cricket lovers that can't bear the thought of an England XI without their dearest "Beefy".

It's all kinda conditions dependent really.. even down to the spinner as I'd take Underwood over Laker for Aussie pitches but not for anywhere else... and Bedser ahead of the pair of them.. but not for a subcontinetal track... but the core of the team would be the same whatever:

1. Hutton (capt)
2. Hobbs
3. May
4. Compton
5. Hammond
6. [ Barrington / Graveney / Cowdrey / Botham]
7. [ Evans / Knott ]
8. [ Laker / Underwood ]
9. Trueman
10. [ Bedser / Underwood ]
11. Statham

Sadly.. aside from Gooch... and unlike the situation with your Aussie line-up.... there's no player of recent vintage (and I'm talking a generation here) who'd even be close to inclusion - sad that.

ps... I don't see that there would be much likelihood of an Aussie WIN against this side (it's just hard to see them being bowled out twice in anything shorter than a 10 day Test match). Could the English lot stuff the Aussies? Only with the help OF those Aussies.. but there I think they would have some grounds for hope: your team includes too many guys who will score quickly and get out. On a rag tag of wickets around the world, therefore, I think a 1-0 series win to England would be credible.

[Beny]

I have to say that I've never heard of most of these guys.

That's not saying their not any good. Simply that I'm not all that good of a cricket historian.
But you're last comment surprises me.

McGrath and Warne are in the top 5 greates wicket takers of all time. Lille and Thommo... well need I say more. I dont care how good a defensive batsmen you are, If Thommo was on song you hardly had time to move you're bat never mind play a shot. I would back the bowling attack for sure.

As for the Batting. There are 3 players in My team that have scored 300+. True that Hayden scored his against Zimbabwe but 1. That doesnt change the other two 2. He's made 200+ against India.

If a team makes 550+ at the start of the test match no matter how fast they do it, you can be sure they will be hard to beat.

Sadly.. aside from Gooch... and unlike the situation with your Aussie line-up.... there's no player of recent vintage (and I'm talking a generation here) who'd even be close to inclusion - sad that

I was a bit unsure about leaving out Border, however to me he is a slightly overatted player and a tad bit unhealthy too.
Ponting may be a bit of a tight one. I'm sure however that 20 years down the track he will be remembered for the great batsmen he is. I'm still in awe of his consecutive 200's last year against the Indians.
Cheer up though Rachel. . I'm a fan of Freddie and I think he's going to get better.


BTW do you sleep? What time is it over there?

[Rachael]

My thought, Beny, is that when you get down to these all-time XIs you are talking a batsman's game: you are talking about batsmen with such class, such temperament and such TIME to play there shots that it's difficult (assuming a "normal" pitch) to see anything other than contrived results inside 5 days against ANY attack.

Comes back to the same old thing: wickets are far, far more commonly gifted than taken.. and these guys are in these lists 'cos they weren't known for their generosity :-)

The only way to get a result, to my mind, would be to give the bowlers plenty to work with.... but given uncovered wickets in England I'd have England as slight favourites (think Laker and Bedser backing up the openers)... given a really uneven turner on the subcontinent I'd mark the card in England's favour (Laker PLUS Underwood BOTH happier than the solitary WArne)... and only given a pitch with ferocious pace and bounce (in conditions conducive to swing bowling) in Aus would I really favour your guys (basically because you'd field a quartet who ALL like the conditions and we'd field a quartet in which only 2 would like the conditions).

ps. bed-time now :-)

pps. go look up some of those English names on cricinfo or in the PWC ratings: interesting reading :-)

[Milo]

Well, if that is the Aussie dream team...it would get beat over 5 tests. How you can think of leaving out the likes of Morris, Lindwall, Harvey and Davidson astounds me. Seems to me you picked the team of your lifetime and simply added Bradman.

[Milo]

Rachael, Peter seems to be a classic example of someone wearing rose tinted spectacles. David Gower is every bit as good (and even better in my opinion) as Graveney and Cowdrey. He's picked the players that he liked watching from his teens/early years and simply dismissed those that played since.

Gooch was rubbish. Three years of exceptional performances at test level - the rest mediocre. He shouldn't be anywhere near the list. But the likes of Snow (rated the second best bowler he ever played with or against by Lillee) and Botham should.

I only think the certs are (talking post war here) Hutton, Boycott, Compton, Trueman, Bedsar and Underwood. The rest are personal preference. Maybe a pool of 20 is required.

[Rachael]

Um - Peter May is surely not a questionable entry: see here. Note the bit near the end: "Richie Benaud, perhaps his most formidable opponent, called him not merely the greatest English batsman to emerge since the war – which is the conventional judgment – but the only great one."

Peter's team is actually a "team of the 60s and 70s"... and I'd agree in identifying the weak points in the batting as Graveney and Cowdrey: neither, surely, deserve mention in the same breath as Hutton, May, Compton and co.. which is why I'd have Barrington in ahead of that pair. Not weak players though.. and still, surely, better than all the modern era players from Gower to Thorpe / Vaughan.

Gower? I loved the guy... almost as much as I detested Gooch.. but it's a bit like comparing Mark and Steve Waugh.. the one had the talent.. the other became a Test match great. Pains me to admit it.. but Gower's surely got to be a non-runner here.

Laker vs. Underwood should not simply be declared in Underwood's favour, either: Underwood might have the edge for Aussie wickets.. but Laker's virtues would have surely got him the nod in English / sub-continental conditions.

[Milo]

The words written in Wisden are once again only someone's opinion, worth no more or less than mine, yours or anyone else's on this board. May probably would make most people's XI (maybe mine also), but I would not get too upset if he was left out. He was not as good as Compton and could easily (as you say) be behind Barrington in the assessment. As for Benaud, he just bought out a video that omits Marshall from his World XI - his opinion means very little to me.

There is also (in my opinion) no contest between Laker and Underwood. On uncovered wickets Underwood was often unplayable. You can't compare their records as Deadly played on bone dry covered wickets in England in the 70s. In the 60s when the pitches were uncovered, he was the best spinner this country had ever seen, without a doubt. Laker's historical appreciation has been heavily indebted to Manchester 1956. Over his 10 year career he often got dropped and was pretty useless away from the English pitches on many occasions, when he was actually picked. A player who lost his place so often cannot be considered for the all-time team surely??

Your comparison between Gower and Gooch baffles me. One became a great? Surely you are calling Gooch a great or is this about the Waughs? The only time Gooch succeeded at Test level was when Gower was dropped. When they both played in the same team, Gower outperformed him in almost every series. His Ashes record is superb and he compares quite favourably with May, Graveney and Cowdrey on records. Take out the numerous West Indian series (clearly the best bowling line up ever) and he has a better record.

I stand by the 6 players I believe are certs.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Peter's team is actually a "team of the 60s and 70s"...

One other thing Rachael. This is actually wrong. Hutton is mainly 40s (bit of 30s and early 50s), May 50s, Compton 40s and 50s, Trueman mainly 50s, Bedsar 40s and 50s, Statham mainly 50s, Evans 40 and 50s, Laker 40s and 50s. Only Boycott and Underwood (and Cowdrey if you want) had much to do with the 70s.

I'd say he watched cricket mainly from 1950 to 1965. This is why he's picked Graveney who played over half of his test cricket in the 50s before his famous recall of the late 60s.

[Rachael]

Sorry.. I meant 50s and 60s... with Boycott being the one that stands out as coming from a later era.

Laker being best on uncovered wickets goes without saying.. but han't that been true of virtually ALL orthodox spinners throughout the history of cricket? I'd say Bedser was best on uncovered wickets as well... and probably Statham for that matter as he relied more on seam movement than swing.

Come to think of it... Hutton, Boycott and Barrington were probably most impressive on uncovered wickets as well: it was the ability to triumph with the ball darting around and when middling the thing was all but impossible that made them stand out from the crowd.. the temperament to play big innings without being able to time anything.

I don't think any of that takes away from those players... it just emphasises the difference between our greatest traditions (attrition and control) and the Aussie's major tradition (aggression through strokeplay, fast bowling and wrist spin).