beabenn said:
Well king2 is certainly the cricket pundit, excellent input
Here is my new english XI
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond (c)
Hutton
Compton
Botham
Evans (wk)
Trueman
Bedser
Barnes (both aus and eng have a sid barnes)
Laker
Nice squad very similar to mine which is below.
1. J.B. Hobbs
2. H. Sutcliffe
3. L. Hutton
4. W.G. Grace (c)
5. W.R. Hammond
6. I.T. Botham
7. W. Rhodes
8. T.G. Evans (wk)
9. H. Larwood
10. A.V Bedser
11. S. F. Barnes
The famous opening pair is retained with Hammond at three? I would not go with Hammond at number three on the basis of the first partnership faltering and i really do not want an aggressive batsman at number 3. Hutton on the other hand is a more conventional and is suited as a batsman to 'rebuild'. Hammonds record at number 3 on the other hand is phenominal and is been branded the greatest number 3 at all times but because of the above reason i would have to put him down the order. Also, Hutton is a suited to be higher than number 4 since he normally opens, considering he opened 131 times out of 138 innings and thats the other reason why Hammond was dropped to number 5. I could not open with Hutton on the basis of the famous opening pair of Sutcliffe and Hobbs, who are definitely one of the greatest opening pairs along side the likes of Greenidge and Haynes.
The keeping position was an interesting one to conquer for there were many contenders. Evans was defintely the greatest keeper in Englands history, but he was not much of a batsmen. I, then thought of replacing Evans with Ames and then bring in Laker since i chose Rhodes on his batting and bowling and discarded Laker for his poor batting. Knott, of course, was not even the best wicketkeeper in England of his day; Bob Taylor was generally acknowledged to be a better keeper. Bob Taylor's batting was, however, not the finest in the land, and England generally went with the good keeper and mercurial batsman rather than the great keeper/rubbish batsman.
I was amused by the fact that Hammond was chosen as your first captain and not Hutton. Hutton is by far a better captain but in order for him to captain the way he does, you may want to have a majority of fast bowlers since he was worth noted that he was one of the first captains to want his fast bowlers to bounce and terrorise opposition tail-enders, especially if his bowlers were faster than theirs.
With Hutton as captain, I would probably go for:
Hobbs
Suttcliffe
Hutton *
Barrington (but many others could be considered for this slot, de[ending on style required)
Ames +
Hammond
Flintoff (quicker and taller than Botham)
Larwood
Laker
Trueman
Tyson or SF Barnes (Tyson on quick pitches; Barnes where there's the prospect of spin)
Traditionally, England has chosen the best captain to lead the side, rather than the "Australian" approach of choosing the best 11, and then picking the best captain from among these. If one follows that traditional route, then one has really to consider the merits of Jardine and Brearley. Neither would get in to a Best XI through their playing ability, but would bring some rather good captaincy to the side.
SF Barnes is a great choice, as he bowled wrist spin, finger spin and swing bowling, all to considerable effect. He could take the new ball, and then later on bowl spin in partnership with Laker (if he was chosen) or with Rhodes.
If i was to take out Grace, I would not do it for the expense of Compton but for Barrington who is suited for that position than Compton.
Your original team is viable. I would choose differently, but that's what makes these debates endlessly fascinating.
