Oh dear. England. What are you doing?
The ECB have allowed the fans to choose their all-time best XI and, to put it bluntly, it’s way off the mark.
Before we go any further, here is the team.
1. Alastair Cook
2. Leonard Hutton
3. David Gower
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Joe Root
6. Ian Botham
7. Alan Knott (wk)
8. Graeme Swann
9. Fred Trueman
10. James Anderson
11. Bob Willis
That team is quite unbelievable, leaving out some of the greatest players to ever step foot on a cricket field.
How five players from the modern era, three of whom haven’t even finished their career yet, made the cut is beyond belief. Alastair Cook, Joe Root and James Anderson are still going about their business for the English national team. As we speak, the trio are getting ready for the first Test against India.
Let’s just repeat that.
Out of 999 Test matches (their 1,000th starts tonight against India), spanning 686 players, three out of the 11 ready to take on India are in their top XI and two have only retired in the last couple of years.
This isn’t a golden stretch for English cricket by any stretch of the imagination either.
That tells you all you need to know about this team.
Credit where it’s due, all three have been incredible servants of English cricket and have good numbers to go with it, but for all three to be named doesn’t make sense.
In saying that, Cook is the highest run-scorer in English cricket history at Test level with 12,145 runs to his name and an average of 45.65 as it stands. But is he really better than Jack Hobbs, he of the 199 first-class centuries, 61,760 first-class runs, and a Test batting average of 56.94?
You can’t argue too much with Hutton, given his career average of 56.67, although Hobbs’ opening partner Herbert Sutcliffe (4555 runs at 60.73 in 54 Tests, over 50,000 first-class runs) deserves a mention.
Root is still in the prime of his career, so it’s a staggering statement to say he already makes a best XI, while James Anderson has more wickets than any other bowler, but has struggled with various conditions around the world.
Bowling aggregate can be a misleading statistic, and his average 27.23 is a more accurate reflection of the career the quick bowler has had.
It’s hard to argue with the selections of his fast-bowling partners though, with Fred Trueman (301 wickets at 21.57) and Bob Willis (325 wickets at 25.20) selected.
Still, you could easily argue the selection of Anderson with names like Sydney Barnes, who is arguably one of the best bowlers in history (although Barnes was adamant he spun the ball in addition to bowling at decent pace). By the time he retired, Barnes had claimed 189 wickets in 27 Test matches, holding one of the lowest averages in history at just 16.43.
Maybe the most staggering selection though is that of Graeme Swann as the greatest English spinner to ever walk on a cricket ground. It’s laughable that he was selected over Derek Underwood and Jim Laker, who once ripped Australia to shreds with the best match figures in history – 19 for 90.
Laker, who played Test cricket between 1948 and 1959, took 193 wickets at 21.24, while Underwood had a 16-year Test career and ended up with 297 wickets at 25.83. How Swann makes the grade with 255 wickets at 29.96 is a question only English cricket fans can answer.
Kevin Pietersen has also been included in the side ahead of players like Ken Barrington (6806 runs at 58.67) and Wally Hammond (7249 runs at 58.45).
The only decisions we really can’t dispute are those of all-rounder Ian Botham and wicketkeeper Alan Knott.
So, there you have it. The weirdest all-time best XI.
Never change, England.
Nudge
Guest
And you can see why they are invested. A bowling average of 34.5 against Australia and nearly 33 against RSA. That kind of average would see some bowlers dropped. Of course though that isn’t his career average. He has absolutely dominated Zimbabwe, West Indies Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
Jimbo
Guest
You know, 2005 - 2018 has been a pretty successful period for the poms. They've remained unbeaten in 4 home Ashes series and won one away. I don't think you'll find another era when they've achieved that. So maybe maybe their fans aren't as mixed up as you think?
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
You are of course right AJ. But good luck in getting the Jimmy bigots on here to grow out of their narrative. They are too invested.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Hate it when blokes think they can definitively compare chalk and cheese eras and simply transpose players and playing records effortlessly across them. Comparing records of contemporary bowlers in different sides, with different supporting bowling lineups and batsmen giving them licence through scoreboard relief is fraught enough (if you give it a second sober consideration) but thinking you can compare Trueman with Anderson is just wishfully naive and laughable. Yet so many on here think themselves sage in doing so.
Just Nuisance
Guest
Point taken. Sorry for late response
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
That's what I was getting at mate, de Villiers starting his career as a naive 20yo against Flintoff in his peak years, makes him think Flintoff is brilliant. Guarantee you a 30yo AB woulda had a more balanced view.
Just Nuisance
Guest
@ Insult 2 Injury ....The 2004/5 England team to SA had Flintoff in the side . South Africa had none other than a certain Mr AB De Villiers as the wicketkeeper .By the way England won the series 2-1.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Couldn't agree more. Class and technique alweays win out. Look at Cowdrey in 74/75. Sadly for the other batsmen, he was one of the best until both Lillee and Thomson were injuured for the last test.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
"If you assess this objectively and you realise that in every Olympic discipline athletes are well ahead of where they were 100 years ago there is no evidence that cricket would be any different." I think you are confusing athleticism with skill and technique. The only certain improvements in cricket is in the outfield. Today's outfielders are certainly superior to the past (but not the close in catchers). All the evidence suggests that the technique of batsmen today are inferior to those of yesterday, probably the result of one-day cricket and T20. I'd like to see the modern day batsmen survive on a sticky wicket for example. I've read that Hobbs was a master of the sticky wicket. Today's batsmen wouldn't have the technique to survive.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
A lot of tours of NZ were (and some still are) add ons to tours of Australia due to the travel times. Cheaper to fly to NZ from Sydney than a whole new tour directly from the Carribean, etc. So, no offence to the NZ'ers, but quite often they were getting a tired touring party after 2-4 months in Australia.
Stuart
Guest
In Suttcliffe Hobbs Underwood Stewart Snow Out Cook Root Knott Anderson Swann
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Or you can look at McGraths strikerate and wickets per Test and compare to Anderson. Anderson has also already played 15 more Tests with 20 odd less wickets at this stage. Regardless of all that, they aren't competing for a spot in Englands best XI. A case has to be made for Anderson being better than other Pommy bowlers in ALL conditions and that's a massive stretch when compared to Larwood, Statham and even Voce, not to mention Trueman.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Oh well, if you're going to have WG Grace, you don't need anyone else! The ultimate sledging showman whom all others have descended from! Any total is possible when you tell the umpire you aren't out and just replace the bails unchallenged!
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
With you there. His average is about 10 worse in Australia and more importantly his strikerate is too. He's had a couple of handy Tests in Australia when the atmospherics have aligned, but he is a bog ordinary trundler in any other conditions.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
You're missing the obvious when you denigrate the standards of Hobbs era. They played on uncovered wickets and took 6 months to travel. They still played against 20 something tearaways and all time great spinners like O'Reilly & Grimmett. For a 48yo to have an average like that means he faced a fair bit of that on iffy wickets rather than todays roads.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
You got me just nuisance. de Villiers was about 12 when he played Flintoff, so is seeing him through awed goggles. Put Flintoff - 226 wkts - Avge 32 strikerate 66 against Botham - 383 wkts - Avge 28 - strikerate 57 and the answer is obvious even without Botham's ability to take a game away from opponents with the bat. Plus Flintoff was poor in foreign conditions just like Anderson.
Brian
Guest
Well you could throw the gloves to De Villiers and fit an extra batsman, I'd have Barlow, Rice and Amla all ahead of KP even if he had played for RSA.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
That's hilarious! Maybe I misread the criteria; I thought it was supposed to be the best England team, not an England team to play well in England! They may make a respectable total at home, but they won't be able to defend it. Certainly won't defend it outside England. Plus with Cook, Root, Gower & Pietersen only having had a good series or two against quality oppostion in other countries, they'd be lucky to make a decent total too. You have to ask would this team beat the best West Indies, Australian, Pakistan teams of all time and that has to be a big NO. With Hutton, Hobbs, Laker or Underwood & Larwood they'd have a far better chance.
Brian
Guest
Greatest does not equal best. As I said Hobbs was better in relative terms. Just as Jesse Owens was a greater sprinter then Matt Shirvington or Patrick Johnson. However both the latter have run the 100m in a quicker time then Owens ever did. If you assess this objectively and you realise that in every Olympic discipline athletes are well ahead of where they were 100 years ago there is no evidence that cricket would be any different. Indeed just the height of the bowlers Cook faces would be taller then those faced by Hobbs.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Clive Rice's record is similarly insane. 26000 runs @ 41 & 930 wickets @ 22.5