Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Immortals of English Cricket
Comments
-
Thompson was a brute but Boycs faced much faster bowlers than Lillee, albeit nowhere near as clever!thickandthin63 said:
I agree,even further back when Wesley Hall and Charlie Griffith were chucking them down,against un protected batsman,dont forget when Lillee and Thompson where at their peak Boycott somehow decided he needed a break from test cricket.killerandflash said:Just like all time Charlton teams, it's really hard to judge modern day players versus ones from your younger years who give you rose-tinted memories, and those who played before you were born.
Off the top of my head, just choosing players I've seen (on TV or live)
Boycott
Gooch
Gower
Root
Thorpe
Botham
Knott
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Willis
Which is slightly coloured by trying to imagine how some of the more recent players would have coped with the Windies pace quartet of the 80s0 -
Unfortunately not. My face looks like I am still waiting for puberty!Chizz said:
I hope you inherited his magnificent moustachecantersaddick said:As if my great great uncle (i think thats the right number of greats) didn't make the cut
he did the "double" 8 times (1000runs and 100 wickets in a season) wisden cricketer of the year in 1914
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Relf
3 -
Can't stand KP the man but the player was exceptional. I'd pick Root over him for any role in the middle order though.0
-
cantersaddick said:As if my great great uncle (i think thats the right number of greats) didn't make the cut he did the "double" 8 times (1000runs and 100 wickets in a season) wisden cricketer of the year in 1914
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Relf
A sad ending to Albert Relf's life but a star player in his day and i love the name of the skipper going to Australia: Plum Warner !
So we have another contender for quality DNA; difficult to beat James Seed but @cantersaddick is Cricket Gold !2 -
I'd take out Stokes and put in Root otherwise spot on0
-
The book was published in 2021 and, as mentioned the author tried to not consider current players.
However …. He included Ben Stokes. By age 28 he had played 57 Tests averaging 35 with the bat and 32 with the ball.
”Stokes compares favourably with the other great post-war English all-rounders:
Flintoff 31 and 33, Botham 33 and 28, Greig 40 and 32, Trevor Bailey 29 and 29. All these players were outstanding in their different ways. But none of the, not even Botham, achieved highs - and lows - in the sensational way that Stokes has managed”0 -
Or, rather than pick another all-rounder, how about a really, really good batsman? Eh who cares tbhBlackheathen said:The book was published in 2021 and, as mentioned the author tried to not consider current players.
However …. He included Ben Stokes. By age 28 he had played 57 Tests averaging 35 with the bat and 32 with the ball.
”Stokes compares favourably with the other great post-war English all-rounders:
Flintoff 31 and 33, Botham 33 and 28, Greig 40 and 32, Trevor Bailey 29 and 29. All these players were outstanding in their different ways. But none of the, not even Botham, achieved highs - and lows - in the sensational way that Stokes has managed”0 -
cantersaddick said:Can't stand KP the man but the player was exceptional. I'd pick Root over him for any role in the middle order though.
I was wondering about KP and where he'd rank in all this. Fantastic cricketer but as a man I absolutely can't stand him, a whole summer of him waffling on during the Ashes is something I'm not looking forward to.2 -
I prefer to be called cricketing royaltysoapboxsam said:cantersaddick said:As if my great great uncle (i think thats the right number of greats) didn't make the cut he did the "double" 8 times (1000runs and 100 wickets in a season) wisden cricketer of the year in 1914
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Relf
A sad ending to Albert Relf's life but a star player in his day and i love the name of the skipper going to Australia: Plum Warner !
So we have another contender for quality DNA; difficult to beat James Seed but @cantersaddick is Cricket Gold !
I played a few times against the grandson (or great nephew) of the great Terry Alderman. He was a bit of a twat, playing below his level trying to dominate against kids. Didn't like it when he chipped my medium pace to cover first ball.4 -
So glad to see Knott getting a mention.killerandflash said:Just like all time Charlton teams, it's really hard to judge modern day players versus ones from your younger years who give you rose-tinted memories, and those who played before you were born.
Off the top of my head, just choosing players I've seen (on TV or live)
Boycott
Gooch
Gower
Root
Thorpe
Botham
Knott
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Willis
Which is slightly coloured by trying to imagine how some of the more recent players would have coped with the Windies pace quartet of the 80s0 - Sponsored links:
-
Stokes is obviously a very good cricketer but I always think he is a good player capable of doing great things, rather than being a great player.killerandflash said:I'd question the place of Stokes in that team, who to me would be backup to Botham, as we don't need 2 all rounders.
At 5 I'd want a "proper" batsman, someone like Root averaging around 50, plus he can bowl some offspin too.
3 -
That's a really good description.Cafc43v3r said:
Stokes is obviously a very good cricketer but I always think he is a good player capable of doing great things, rather than being a great player.killerandflash said:I'd question the place of Stokes in that team, who to me would be backup to Botham, as we don't need 2 all rounders.
At 5 I'd want a "proper" batsman, someone like Root averaging around 50, plus he can bowl some offspin too.0 -
eh, but then if you're going to let thorpe in you may as well think about bell, collingwood etc who i'd rank at a similar level to thorpe.killerandflash said:
He averaged 44.66 is a very poor side. Imagine how many runs he would have scored striding to the crease with more runs on the board AND a better England set up.kentaddick said:killerandflash said:Just like all time Charlton teams, it's really hard to judge modern day players versus ones from your younger years who give you rose-tinted memories, and those who played before you were born.
Off the top of my head, just choosing players I've seen (on TV or live)
Boycott
Gooch
Gower
Root
Thorpe
Botham
Knott
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Willis
Which is slightly coloured by trying to imagine how some of the more recent players would have coped with the Windies pace quartet of the 80s
no disrespect to thorpe as he was our only test level batsman in an extremely poor side at the time but he doesn't get in a look in on that side, especially not in front of pietersen.
KP is of course hard to leave out.0 -
I think stokes is the greatest all round cricketer this country has produced. But then i wasn't around to see botham play and obviously not WG Grace. He's england's best fielder, possibly one of our best batsmen until recently and always chips in with a couple of key wickets and is mr reliable with the ball. His performance against oz at headingly might just eclipse botham's test (which was willis' test really).Cafc43v3r said:
Stokes is obviously a very good cricketer but I always think he is a good player capable of doing great things, rather than being a great player.killerandflash said:I'd question the place of Stokes in that team, who to me would be backup to Botham, as we don't need 2 all rounders.
At 5 I'd want a "proper" batsman, someone like Root averaging around 50, plus he can bowl some offspin too.0 -
Stokes is a slightly better batsman than Botham, but Beefy has twice the number of wickets. Which isn't knocking Stokes who's a talisman for the current team AND a much better captain than Botham, but highlighting just how good Botham was. If he was a rabbit with the bat, you'd still pick him as a bowler.
Stokes
91 tests
5712 @ 35.92
194 wickets @ 32.10
95 catches
Botham
102 tests
5200 @ 33.54
383 wickets @ 28.40
120 catches0 -
i guess "a very good cricketer capable of doing great things" is kind of true, I see him in a similar vein to cristiano ronaldo, a great player who worked his arse off to become the best in the world, rather than a naturally talented freak like messi.0
-
Collingwood is actually the sort of player who doesn't stand out as one of the greats, BUT makes sides better. Tough runs, useful fill in bowling and brilliant fielding.kentaddick said:
eh, but then if you're going to let thorpe in you may as well think about bell, collingwood etc who i'd rank at a similar level to thorpe.killerandflash said:
He averaged 44.66 is a very poor side. Imagine how many runs he would have scored striding to the crease with more runs on the board AND a better England set up.kentaddick said:killerandflash said:Just like all time Charlton teams, it's really hard to judge modern day players versus ones from your younger years who give you rose-tinted memories, and those who played before you were born.
Off the top of my head, just choosing players I've seen (on TV or live)
Boycott
Gooch
Gower
Root
Thorpe
Botham
Knott
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Willis
Which is slightly coloured by trying to imagine how some of the more recent players would have coped with the Windies pace quartet of the 80s
no disrespect to thorpe as he was our only test level batsman in an extremely poor side at the time but he doesn't get in a look in on that side, especially not in front of pietersen.
KP is of course hard to leave out.0 -
Greigkillerandflash said:Stokes is a slightly better batsman than Botham, but Beefy has twice the number of wickets. Which isn't knocking Stokes who's a talisman for the current team AND a much better captain than Botham, but highlighting just how good Botham was. If he was a rabbit with the bat, you'd still pick him as a bowler.
Stokes
91 tests
5712 @ 35.92
194 wickets @ 32.10
95 catches
Botham
102 tests
5200 @ 33.54
383 wickets @ 28.40
120 catches
55 Tests
3599 @ 40.43
141 wickets @ 32.20
87 catches0 -
But what about Derek Pringle?Addick Addict said:
Greigkillerandflash said:Stokes is a slightly better batsman than Botham, but Beefy has twice the number of wickets. Which isn't knocking Stokes who's a talisman for the current team AND a much better captain than Botham, but highlighting just how good Botham was. If he was a rabbit with the bat, you'd still pick him as a bowler.
Stokes
91 tests
5712 @ 35.92
194 wickets @ 32.10
95 catches
Botham
102 tests
5200 @ 33.54
383 wickets @ 28.40
120 catches
55 Tests
3599 @ 40.43
141 wickets @ 32.20
87 catches 1 -
Greig is often overlooked when people discuss great all rounders.Addick Addict said:
Greigkillerandflash said:Stokes is a slightly better batsman than Botham, but Beefy has twice the number of wickets. Which isn't knocking Stokes who's a talisman for the current team AND a much better captain than Botham, but highlighting just how good Botham was. If he was a rabbit with the bat, you'd still pick him as a bowler.
Stokes
91 tests
5712 @ 35.92
194 wickets @ 32.10
95 catches
Botham
102 tests
5200 @ 33.54
383 wickets @ 28.40
120 catches
55 Tests
3599 @ 40.43
141 wickets @ 32.20
87 catches
Very underrated imo.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I'm sorry Pringle shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as those three unless it's in relation to the consumption of, perhaps, alcohol and er pringleskillerandflash said:
But what about Derek Pringle?Addick Addict said:
Greigkillerandflash said:Stokes is a slightly better batsman than Botham, but Beefy has twice the number of wickets. Which isn't knocking Stokes who's a talisman for the current team AND a much better captain than Botham, but highlighting just how good Botham was. If he was a rabbit with the bat, you'd still pick him as a bowler.
Stokes
91 tests
5712 @ 35.92
194 wickets @ 32.10
95 catches
Botham
102 tests
5200 @ 33.54
383 wickets @ 28.40
120 catches
55 Tests
3599 @ 40.43
141 wickets @ 32.20
87 catches1 -
The smiley should have made my comment's tone obvious!Addick Addict said:
I'm sorry Pringle shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as those three unless it's in relation to the consumption of, perhaps, alcohol and er pringleskillerandflash said:
But what about Derek Pringle?Addick Addict said:
Greigkillerandflash said:Stokes is a slightly better batsman than Botham, but Beefy has twice the number of wickets. Which isn't knocking Stokes who's a talisman for the current team AND a much better captain than Botham, but highlighting just how good Botham was. If he was a rabbit with the bat, you'd still pick him as a bowler.
Stokes
91 tests
5712 @ 35.92
194 wickets @ 32.10
95 catches
Botham
102 tests
5200 @ 33.54
383 wickets @ 28.40
120 catches
55 Tests
3599 @ 40.43
141 wickets @ 32.20
87 catches
The first of the new Bothams1 -
Not even close - Bell and Colly were good in an excellent side. No chance could they do what Thorpey did in a terrible side. Thorpey was a proper player.kentaddick said:
eh, but then if you're going to let thorpe in you may as well think about bell, collingwood etc who i'd rank at a similar level to thorpe.killerandflash said:
He averaged 44.66 is a very poor side. Imagine how many runs he would have scored striding to the crease with more runs on the board AND a better England set up.kentaddick said:killerandflash said:Just like all time Charlton teams, it's really hard to judge modern day players versus ones from your younger years who give you rose-tinted memories, and those who played before you were born.
Off the top of my head, just choosing players I've seen (on TV or live)
Boycott
Gooch
Gower
Root
Thorpe
Botham
Knott
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Willis
Which is slightly coloured by trying to imagine how some of the more recent players would have coped with the Windies pace quartet of the 80s
no disrespect to thorpe as he was our only test level batsman in an extremely poor side at the time but he doesn't get in a look in on that side, especially not in front of pietersen.
KP is of course hard to leave out.
Bell struggles scoring the tough runs and Colly made everything of the talent he had but there is no arguing he had even half the talent of Thorpey.1 -
The smiley did. To be fair to Pringle he was a decent cricketer and trying to follow in Botham's footsteps was always going to be hard simply because Botham was a one off at that time.killerandflash said:
The smiley should have made my comment's tone obvious!Addick Addict said:
I'm sorry Pringle shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as those three unless it's in relation to the consumption of, perhaps, alcohol and er pringleskillerandflash said:
But what about Derek Pringle?Addick Addict said:
Greigkillerandflash said:Stokes is a slightly better batsman than Botham, but Beefy has twice the number of wickets. Which isn't knocking Stokes who's a talisman for the current team AND a much better captain than Botham, but highlighting just how good Botham was. If he was a rabbit with the bat, you'd still pick him as a bowler.
Stokes
91 tests
5712 @ 35.92
194 wickets @ 32.10
95 catches
Botham
102 tests
5200 @ 33.54
383 wickets @ 28.40
120 catches
55 Tests
3599 @ 40.43
141 wickets @ 32.20
87 catches
The first of the new Bothams0 -
Hedley Verity sounds like an amazing Spin bowler between the Wars. Similar to Deadly Derek Underwood was unplayable on wet pitches.
1956 wickets at average 14.90 in county matches and took 10 wickets for 10 runs against Notts; a record for the lowest runs conceded in domestic first class when taking all 10.
In test cricket 144 wickets at 24.37:
This included test matches against the great Bradman.
Another sad ending to a Cricketer's life when he died from injuries sustained in the war in 1942 at 38 years old.
0 -
-
Underwood should always be included!0
-
I was going to use Bell and Colly to illustrate a different point. They are obviously both very good players, you could well include Trott, Strauss, Trescothick as well, who are clearly no where near the conversation as being in the best England team ever. Maybe even Nasser, Athers and Stewart as well.cantersaddick said:
Not even close - Bell and Colly were good in an excellent side. No chance could they do what Thorpey did in a terrible side. Thorpey was a proper player.kentaddick said:
eh, but then if you're going to let thorpe in you may as well think about bell, collingwood etc who i'd rank at a similar level to thorpe.killerandflash said:
He averaged 44.66 is a very poor side. Imagine how many runs he would have scored striding to the crease with more runs on the board AND a better England set up.kentaddick said:killerandflash said:Just like all time Charlton teams, it's really hard to judge modern day players versus ones from your younger years who give you rose-tinted memories, and those who played before you were born.
Off the top of my head, just choosing players I've seen (on TV or live)
Boycott
Gooch
Gower
Root
Thorpe
Botham
Knott
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Willis
Which is slightly coloured by trying to imagine how some of the more recent players would have coped with the Windies pace quartet of the 80s
no disrespect to thorpe as he was our only test level batsman in an extremely poor side at the time but he doesn't get in a look in on that side, especially not in front of pietersen.
KP is of course hard to leave out.
Bell struggles scoring the tough runs and Colly made everything of the talent he had but there is no arguing he had even half the talent of Thorpey.
But would you say Stokes is a better, test, batsman, than any of them?0 -
i personally just don't think thorpe would stand out in a team of bell, collingwood, trott, tresco and strauss. That's no disrespect to any of them, but it's just if you're saying thorpe should be in the team, those guys are of a similar level.
Is stokes a better test batsman than nasser? Yes - nasser was a collingwood type of batsman, played to his strengths and percentage shots. Atherton was cut from the same cloth as boycott, stewart you could also make the argument he was never used correctly or well until maybe later in his career by the time his batting strengths had begun to fade. But i probably would put stokes above those 3, honestly. As much as i loved watching the donald vs athers battles when i was growing up.0
