The England ODI team that never played white-ball cricket

By Paul / Roar Guru

I recently submitted an article about my best Australian XII who never played an ODI.

At the time I wrote that, I realised it had to be followed up with some opposition, so this piece is the first of three instalments, which will focus on the outstanding cricketers from other nations who never played a 50-over international.

England are the old foes and the creators of short-form cricket. As the owners of this form of the game, I assumed it would be relatively easy to come up with a strong XII to compete against my Australian XII.

I found it was far harder than I first thought, mostly because of the way England first-class cricket was played.

I was researching one of the batting candidates and came across this comment:

“(Tom) Graveney’s attacking style as a batsman did not find favour with (Len) Hutton, the captain, who (in the words of one commentator) ‘did not want flowery batsmen but fighters’.”

It seems a recurring theme, where solid, dependable and consistent cricketers were generally preferred to the more flamboyant players who are more representative of modern white-ball cricketers.

Nevertheless, I’ve come up with a team plus a 12th man and six additional players for an 18-man squad.

WG Grace
None of us can really appreciate what a great cricketer WG Grace really was. The majority of the photos we have show a man with a lot of grey in the beard and carrying more than a few extra kilos.

The reality was that for much of his career, Grace was a much slimmer version, which allowed him to be the best cricketer in the world for a very long time.

He scored more than 54,000 first-class runs and took over 2800 wickets, so his all-round skills would be perfect for this format.

(Public domain)

CB Fry
Only one other batsman in the Edwardian era topped Fry’s terrific first-class average of 50.22. He was an outstanding all-round athlete but obviously very good at cricket.

His batting was technically very correct and he was described as an enthusiastic medium-pace bowler, a skill that would be useful in white-ball cricket.

I don’t know if this pair would get England off to flying starts but they’d certainly create the platform for others to build a big total.

KS Ranjitsinhji
KS Ranjitsinhji – or more fully Colonel His Highness Shri Sir Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji, Maharajah Jam Saheb of Nawanag – was to English cricket what Victor Trumper was to Australian cricket.

A brilliant, unorthodox, attacking batsman, Ranji averaged over 56 in first-class cricket and nearly 45 in Tests, at a time when any average over 35 was seen as exceptional.

He would be the key to this team making a big total.

Ted Dexter
Lord Ted would be my choice as captain of this team. He was a great attacking batsman who was more than happy to take the attack up to any side.

He came to the wicket in one match when England were one for none and proceeded to belt Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith to all parts, making 70 off 75 deliveries – in a Test match.

Number four would be perfect for him because he could control the tempo of the innings. His handy medium pacers would be an added bonus in this format.

Eddie Paynter
Paynter was a terrific attacking batsman who came into Test cricket late, at the age of 30. He last played Tests just before World War Two and in his 20 Tests, averaged close to 60, so was right up there as a quality batsman with Wally Hammond and Patsy Hendren.

He’s perhaps best remembered for coming out of hospital in the Brisbane Bodyline Test and making 83 crucial runs. Paynter was also an outstanding fieldsman which would help this team immensely.

(Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

Denis Compton
On the surface of it, Compton should be an automatic selection. He was arguably the best English batsman of his era and is described as an audacious stroke maker.

Compton had a problem with calling and running between wickets, which a teammate described thus: “a call for a run from Compton should be treated as no more than a basis for negotiation.”

In this format, that’s almost a recipe for disaster, but a Test average over 50 suggests he was perfectly capable of making lots of runs, poor calling or not.

Frank Woolley
A player who managed to make over 58,000 runs, take over 2000 wickets and snare more than 1000 catches suggests Frank Woolley was an exceptional all-round talent.

A left-handed bat who was more grace and style than power hitting, Woolley could easily bat higher in this line-up, while his left-arm slow mediums or spin would be crucial in the middle overs.

Les Ames
Les Ames would be the keeper in this team. He’s still arguably the best keeper-batsman England has produced.

As with the Australian side, this English attack would create plenty of chances and Ames would be almost a certainty to take what came his way. A Test average of 40 and 102 first-class hundreds suggests he’d be a potent force at number eight.

Maurice Tate
No doubt many will be wondering why I chose Maurice Tate, but here’s a player who managed to do the double – 1000 runs and 100 wickets – in seven consecutive county seasons.

Tate was a quality bowler and a hard hitting batsman who’d be perfect in the death overs with the bat and a serious problem to face with a new ball, as well as being very economical.

(Credit: Wolliwoo/CC BY-NC 2.0)

George Lohmann
the ODI format lends itself to bowlers who can employ lots of variation and that was the strength of Lohmann’s bowling.

He was viewed as the best English bowler of his era and one of the best of all time, as 112 wickets at an average just over ten would attest.

He was also no slouch with the bat, scoring three first-class hundreds, was an outstanding slip fielder and another bowler who made run scoring extremely difficult.

SF Barnes
Barnes is one of those players who would be considered an automatic selection, certainly in this English team, but in teams of the very best cricketers in the world.

He was a bowler who could do everything: use the seam effectively, swing the ball, bowl spin if need be and always with subtle changes of flight pace and direction.

I suspect opposing batsmen would be thrilled Barnes could only bowl a maximum of ten overs.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Hedley Verity
I wanted to have a genuine spin bowler and was down to two choices, Verity or Jim Laker.

There’s probably a fair chunk of personal bias in selecting Verity as the 12th player. I used to bowl the same sort of stuff, though I wasn’t close to his class. I also wanted some variety in the attack and a left-arm spinner, taking the ball away from the batsman seemed the way to go.

Verity is slightly more economical, Laker slightly more penetrating, but in this format, I’d take economy over strike rate. Both are genuine number 11s but as with the Australian team’s bunny, I’d hardly expect them to need to contribute with the bat very often.

If a squad of 18 were chosen, I’d include Gilbert Jessop, Tom Hayward, Walter Hammond, Tom Graveney, Fred Trueman and Jim Laker.

I don’t believe this team would be as dynamic as some of the others but it’s still a very strong squad. Perhaps they’d win games more through solid batting and bowling rather than the explosive batting we’ve come to expect from the current English ODI squad.

The Crowd Says:

2022-02-18T08:10:49+00:00

Ball Burster

Roar Rookie


George Ulyett as an allrounder?

2022-02-08T03:41:37+00:00

Johnb

Guest


Given your willingness to pick old-timers, Gilbert Jessop would have to be worth considering. Apologies if this duplicates other comments.

2022-02-07T23:09:29+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


You’re doing well there. I just tried to engage in a pleasant discussion about Hammond, who I like you thought would be a reasonably brisk scorer. You take it as a put down and frame everything in terms of your theories about Bradman.

2022-02-07T23:07:45+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


I'll be interested Dave ... do it for me. :happy:

2022-02-07T23:02:53+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


It’s just a frigging database. As I said, where else was I going to find quick numbers of scoring rates from the early years? And I don’t know why you’re going on about my love for Davis. I’ll write a critique of his book if you like, but I don’t think too many here will be that interested.

2022-02-07T09:56:44+00:00

All day Roseville all day

Roar Guru


Maybe I'm old school, but I always find Roarers' arguments more persuasive when they- * avoid crude and derogatory remarks * tolerate differing opinions, if they're impossible to prove wrong * share relevant information that I didn't already know * cite only statistics that are accurate.

2022-02-07T08:04:30+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


C'mon Rosie, the Australian players will be just fine on the tour of Pakistan and come through it unscathed. If not, perhaps an article on the "wheelchair XI". (too far?)

2022-02-07T07:59:04+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


In light of what Roseville said (“to strike at 68 he would have had to face 80 balls less”), I think yonks ago when I did the calculations, I must have carelessly missed the balls from one of his innings – perhaps one of his 32s when he faced 75 maybe.

2022-02-07T07:52:49+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


Zinger zing zing!

2022-02-07T07:52:18+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


I'm not here to make friends Dave.

2022-02-07T07:51:47+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


Yes I thought maybe you had looked at the First Test, 'cos he did score very quickly in that first innings.

2022-02-07T07:49:19+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Also interesting to note is that McCabe's 187 is one of the highest scores in test history that I don't cap at all.

2022-02-07T07:47:51+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


It turns out I was mistaken on this occasion, McCabe’s strike rate in the bodyline series was 59 – I was certain I had previously calculated it as 68. It doesn’t really matter, because in the two innings he actually got going, it was 80 and 56, and a superficial average of the two is 72. And McCabe, as Renato Carini showed, was easily the best performed batsman against bodyline itself, with Jack Fingleton second, and Bradman barely a distant third. And it doesn’t change my opinion that this Davis character is massively overrated – Dave J loves him but.

2022-02-07T01:28:06+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


Thanks AD. Had no idea that Cricinfo had balls faced in those early scorecards. Still seem to be missing on most others. So that does seem to give confidence that Davis’s database is reliable. Yes you‘ll see in the comment above and below another gentleman thought the correct number was 68 and suggested that I was only using figures from the Davis site out of an almost pornographic level of hero worship for this elderly statistician.

2022-02-06T23:12:05+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


You’ve become beyond offensive telling me I bar up over this guy when the reply you refused to read explained clearly how I had questioned his stuff previously and used his database for scoring rates as I knew no other, inviting you to enlighten me.

2022-02-06T20:47:36+00:00

All day Roseville all day

Roar Guru


Hi DaveJ, I note that- * Cricinfo's scorecards give McCabe a scoring rate of 59.51, from 647 balls faced. * Davis's scorecards give McCabe a rate of 59.97, from 642 balls faced. For McCabe to have had a rate of 68 as claimed above, he must have faced approximately 80 fewer balls during the course of the series. Is someone else claiming that level of difference between Davis's scorecards, and Davis's own ball-by-ball scoresheets ? Or is there another creditable source ?

2022-02-06T20:37:26+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


The ones I google get 68. I'll write the scores and bf later when I get time. It starts with 187/233.

2022-02-06T14:45:41+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


I had a look at the scorecards on Cricinfo for McCabe in 32/33 and got 59.51 (rounded to 60)

2022-02-06T13:37:27+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


BTW Dave, this Davis joker who you bar up over, quite recently he tried to claim that he had found a missing 4 in a scoresheet in a desperate attempt to get Bradman’s precious average to that precious hundred. Naturally, he was discredited. Again, I’m not hostile, but I am feeling a lot of pity for you.

2022-02-06T10:31:46+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


I’m not hostile Dave, merely contemptuous and above all amused at how you hero worship this Davis character. Haven’t even read past your first sentence, nor shall I.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar