ESPNcricinfo picks the best Test teams of all time

The XI

What does this team tell us?

The jury's choice seems a comment on the reduced role of skill in the modern game

David Frith

August 28, 2009

Comments: 63 | Text size: A | A

Denis Compton batting in 1951
The cruellest cut: Denis Compton doesn't make it to the XI © Playfair Cricket Monthly
Related Links
All-time XI: England : Old gold
Teams: England
Other links: All-time XI: England

Cricinfo's all-time England XI: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Wally Hammond, Ken Barrington, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Botham, Alan Knott, Derek Underwood, Harold Larwood, Fred Trueman, Sydney Barnes.

My congratulations to the adjudicators. Such a huge selection challenge was fraught with difficulty, but to my surprise there is no serious cause for dissatisfaction in this all-time England XI. The judges have considered some key factors, such as the challenging unprotected pitches upon which the earlier players played, particularly when the surfaces were almost unusable after rain. More than once Jack Hobbs and his celebrated England opening partner Herbert Sutcliffe batted for hours on bowlers' pitches, using their sensitive wrists and high skills to survive with "touch" batting, playing the dead bat or punishing the poor delivery or withdrawing their lightweight bats from danger. For about 40 years pitches have been protected. Worse still, they are prepared today with the blatant intention of promoting the batsman's welfare in order to maximise gate takings. How we smiled when two Test matches in England this summer finished in three days.

Batsmen like Walter Hammond and Len Hutton made some mighty scores, but they were also famous for some of their shorter innings, played in extremely difficult circumstances after rain. It may be frustrating for the moderns to be denied the chance to display that vital extra skill when the ball is leaping and shooting off imperfect surfaces. Perhaps some of them might have developed that special technique to survive. We shall never know. It's their bad luck - and ours.

The one modern with a place in the top five, Kevin Pietersen, thoroughly deserves his place, though I suspect there are doubters out there. It seems to me that the feeling of anticipation as well as confidence felt by England fans when he strides out to bat compares with that felt in the 1930s when the great Hammond went to the middle. KP has been dominant in the same way, even if he hasn't (yet) put so many double- and triple-centuries in the book. Watching him in that first phenomenal Ashes series of 2005 caused me to wonder just how he did it. I think the key is that long torso. He can lean some way further forward than other men of his height: the hips are comparatively low. He commands a bowler's length for him. Hammond was the perfectly shaped cricketer. KP perhaps owes his success to being unusually built.

Ken Barrington is often forgotten when England's best are being discussed - a criminal oversight. Originally a dasher, he reclaimed his Test spot and became the concrete foundation. Tough, vigilant and good-humoured, he is the batsman most of us long for whenever today's England team flounder.

Such desperate thought also often embraces one who failed to make the all-time XI, Geoffrey Boycott, who simply had too much competition for a place here as an opener. Barrington too had many rivals for the No. 4 or 5 position, including the wonderful Maurice Leyland and Patsy Hendren and, saddest of omissions, Denis Compton. This is the sort of dilemma that has judges pleading for extension: might it perhaps have been the all-time best fifteen?

It may be frustrating for the moderns to be denied the chance to display that vital extra skill when the ball is leaping and shooting off imperfect surfaces. Perhaps some of them might have developed that special technique to survive. We shall never know. It's their bad luck - and ours

I can imagine the outcry had Ian Botham not made it. He can't have been chosen on the basis of that one amazing 1981 Ashes summer alone, for nobody else was selected on such a narrow basis. You need to be quite young not to have vivid personal memories of how English spirits were lifted when this chap charged at the "enemy" with bat or ball in the late 1970s and early 1980s. His was a robust and highly patriotic brand of cricket, and while somebody who is still regarded as The Greatest Cricketer - WG Grace (downgrade him at your peril) - did not play in quite such a nakedly physical way, he would have nodded in approval at the defiant, aggressive overtones.

Alan Knott is an informed inclusion. He was not only seemingly the perfect wicketkeeper but he made runs, which is now regarded as an essential requirement. His Kent and England colleague Derek Underwood was lethal on a rain-affected pitch and tight on a batsman's paradise, so irrespective of where and when this ethereal cricket team takes the field, it hardly matters.

A frontline attack of Larwood, Barnes and Trueman is the stuff of nightmares. Sydney Barnes had the advantage of uncovered pitches, but was not allowed lbws to balls pitching outside the line of the off stump. It's reasonable to assume that he would have been just as phenomenally successful today as 100 years ago. Certainly his force of character was overwhelming, on a par with Dennis Lillee's, if you can visualise it.

Harold Larwood, another who bowled when lbws were so limited, has often been voted as the greatest fast bowler of all time, so it would have been a major shock had he missed selection. Indeed, it would have discredited the exercise.

From the other end: FS Trueman. Not much in it between him and Larwood, though Fred had the gift of the gab. Since cricket these days is played as much with the mouth as the bat and ball, FST would flourish. And like the other bowlers, he would also have relished the drinks and towels provided at third man between his overs. Modern cricketers are pampered, though that is not precisely the language Fred would have employed.

With only two of these elite cricketers having played for England in the past 27 years, the adjudicators seem to have concluded that skills have diminished. Or might it be that the modern players have been denied the chance to demonstrate their fullest potential, now that, with lifeless pitches and slow over-rates, the game has undergone a form of anaesthesia?

More on the XI here

David Frith is an author, historian, and founding editor of Wisden Cricket Monthly

RSS Feeds: David Frith

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by shirazu on (August 30, 2009, 1:22 GMT)

Those old school players would get crushed by today's teams. I would take today's Bangaldesh side against this team and lay odds and feel very confident. The modern cricketer is far better coached, is paid enough to focus full time on his game, and is in general in much better shape with better training and eating habits. There are more people playing cricket these days and more wealth in general giving more people access to cricket, so naturally the overall level is going to be higher - there could easily be 100 times more people playing cricket now than there was 50 years ago. This is not to say that none of these players would not be modern stars if they had access to today's training.

The only reason why you see few modern players on this England XI is that England suck at cricket now when compared to the rest of the world. It is only natural as football is much bigger in that country than cricket nowadays whereas cricket is clearly still #1 in the subcontinent and Australia.

Posted by Engle on (August 29, 2009, 19:11 GMT)

Too bad the Aus AT XI did not select Jeff Thomson. That would've made some battle between Larwood and Thommo going great guns; if only in our imagination

Posted by rbharath2 on (August 29, 2009, 19:00 GMT)

Where is Denis Compton,where is Ted Dexter,where is David Gower,where is Geoffrey Boycott,where is Graham Gooch

You should have probably gone for a 14/15 instead of 11

Posted by SridharSampath on (August 29, 2009, 15:58 GMT)

I am surprised by those who feel that Underwood was lucky to get in. Really? Here's the facts: He got Sunny Gavaskar (arguably the greatest player of spin) and Greg Chappell out a dozen times each in Tests. And someone calls him a containment bowler, which is a joke. A 'containment' bowler doesn't take 297 wickets. He was effective not merely on wet wickets. I watched him run thru the famed Indian batting line up at Chepauk in the 70s and that wicket wasn't wet. Jim Laker took 130+ wickets out of 150+ in England. Never toured the sub-continent. Hedley Verity took Bradman's wicket 8 times. Fine! But Deadly took Sunny's & Greg Chappells's wicket a dozen times each. No mean achievement that. I am however disappointed at the jury's reasoning behind some of the selections. Larwood's is one such example. Waspsting put it quite accurately in this connection.

Posted by HOTCHA on (August 29, 2009, 15:22 GMT)

I would go with the final team selected, but for one exception. I would have the left-handed elegance of David Gower, in place of Kevin Pietersen.

My team would thus read - Len Hutton, Wally Hammond, Ken Barrington, David Gower, Ian Botham, Alan Knott, Derek Underwood, Harold Larwood, Fred Trueman, Sydney Barnes.

Posted by numptyville on (August 29, 2009, 15:13 GMT)

I love the team! Particularly with the omissions of the usual suspects such as Boycott and Flintoff. Can't help but think that Gower should be in there with a shout, the guy managed good figures despite being baraged by the Windy pacemen for his entire test career, well only a series every couple of years. I would also add Voce to the mix. Both he and Larwood are part of the greatest bowling partnership surpassing Warne and McGrath in my opinion. The guys were so good together that Test Cricket rules had to be changed to give Bradman a chance!

Posted by clivenoble on (August 29, 2009, 12:14 GMT)

Really enjoyed the team selection and subsequent comments and obviously we all have our own ideas and preferences but the major surprise to me are the negatives from people about Larwood-sure his test statistics do not stand on their own,but surely cricket fans must realise that his test career was effectively ended by the political fallout from Bodyline and some of his best bowling came after this.He is the only fast bowler in cricket history to top the First class bowling averages in 5 seasons,he was the only bowler during Bradmans career to make him look simply good and not a genius,bowling for Notts as well as England and he took nearly 1500 wickets at an average of less than 20.Combine all of this with watching the old footage of him and seeing the reaction times that the batsman seem to have against him-even with the old film slowing things down-and surely he must have been at the very least just about the fastest bowler of all time.He also made first class hundreds and a test 97

Posted by waspsting on (August 29, 2009, 8:59 GMT)

MAIN PROBLEM with this team is the lack of balance. With 5 batsmen- the tail MUST carry its weight. Hence, I'd prefer Ames to Knott and Rhodes to Underwood, as that would strengthen the batting (which looks fragile - if 3 quick early wickets go down, as they occasionally do, this team would be in serious trouble) Team balance could be different if there were 6 batsmen. Knott over Ames, and Underwood or Laker over Rhodes is fine then, because the batting is more stable (if you believe as i do that Laker and Underwood were better bowlers than Rhodes).

re: to several preceding comments. Barnes was a Bill O'Reily/Kumble type bowler, medium paced spin/cut. More a "spinner" than a "fast bowler" as we understand the terms. Agree that Pieterson hasn't proved himself over a long enough period to be included over Barrington or Compton. Agree that its an unnecessary restriction to limit selection by role - Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobbs all belong in this team.

Posted by sunglassesron on (August 29, 2009, 8:52 GMT)

For me the team is: Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Compton, Hammond, WG Grace, Stewart, Botham, Laker, Trueman, S Barnes

A bit heavy on battin compared to bowling, But Grace can bowl a bit. I suppose Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton,Botham and Barnes are shoo ins for me. I would always give Stewart he nod over Knott et all every time. I think he is second top English runscorer of all time, a very capable wicket keeper, Most test matches of any Englishman, and averaged about 40 - and he got those runs in an era awash with many of the greatest bowlers of all time (mcgrath, donald, warne, pollock, ambrose, walsh, wasim, waqar, murali etc etc). A most underrated player who arguably started much of what hussain, vaughan and finally strauss got the credit for - He captained us to a 2-1 win over south africa in 1998. I was 20 years old and it was the FIRST time I had ever known England win a proper 5 test series!!!! A real servant to his country imo

Posted by Quip on (August 29, 2009, 7:49 GMT)

Mike index I note agrees that the restrictions of the popular selection are frustrating and somewhat compromise the exercise. I entirely agree with him about those who would seem compulsory selections - though I would add Knott to that group. He is also correct to query the astonishing absence of Evans from the top five wicket keepers and Grace among the batsmen - again, to be replaced by Brearley. It seems to me imperative to ensure these teams as far as possible include the best players - and Brearley could barely justify inclusion in his contemporary team let alone in its greatest.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
David FrithClose

England jury

Scyld Berry
Scyld Berry
Wisden editor, Sunday Telegraph correspondent; author of Cricket Wallah among other books
XI: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Stewart, Hammond, Pietersen, Gower, Botham, Rhodes, Trueman, Snow, Barnes
Lawrence Booth
Lawrence Booth
Guardian cricket writer, author of the weekly email newsletter The Spin, and Cricinfo columnist
XI: Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Barrington, Hammond, Pietersen, Botham, Knott, Underwood, Barnes, Willis
Stephen Brenkley
Cricket correspondent of the Independent
XI: Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Gower, Barrington, Jackson, Botham, Knott, Larwood, Barnes, Rhodes
David Frith
David Frith
Cricket historian, writer and archivist. Author of the definitive history of Bodyline
XI: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Compton, Barrington, Botham, Knott, Laker, Verity, Larwood, Barnes
Tim de Lisle
Tim de Lisle
Former editor of Wisden and Wisden Cricket Monthly; editor of Intelligent Life magazine
XI: Hobbs, Brearley, Hammond, Pietersen, Barrington, Greig, Botham, Knott, Trueman, Underwood, Barnes
Steven Lynch
Steven Lynch
Deputy editor of Wisden, editor of the Cricinfo Guide to International Cricket, and writer of the Ask Steven column on Cricinfo
XI: Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Compton, Pietersen, Botham, Knott, Barnes, Larwood, Laker, Trueman
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Former cricket correspondent for the Times the BBC and the Daily Telegraph; Test Match Special commentator
XI: Hutton, Hammond, Compton, May, Botham, Knott, Rhodes, Laker, Trueman, Barnes
Peter Roebuck
Peter Roebuck
Former captain of Somerset; author of It Never Rains and Sometimes I Forgot to Laugh among other books.
XI: Hobbs, Hutton, May, Hammond, Compton, Barrington, Knott, Larwood, Tyson, Barnes, Underwood
Mike Selvey
Mike Selvey
Former England fast bowler; cricket correspondent of the Guardian
XI: Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Barrington, Botham, Knott, Larwood, Tyson, Snow, Barnes
John Stern
John Stern
Editor, The Wisden Cricketer
XI: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Gower, Barrington, Botham, Knott, Larwood, Bedser, Underwood, Snow

    'I have what it takes to be a great Test batsman'

Couch Talk: West Indies batsman Kraigg Brathwaite on his mental approach, and his captaincy ambitions

What to expect from this World Cup

Jarrod Kimber: A random list of things that you may or may not see at the 2015 mega-event

Forever young

The Cricket Monthly: Famous players at the age of 25, in pictures
Download the app: for iPads | for Android tablets

    Ronchi's blitz, and remarkable ODI recoveries

Ask Steven: Also, the fastest ODI 150s, and the highest Test totals without a half-century

When will we see the first truly freelance cricketer?

Jon Hotten: Will the likes of Pietersen become guns for hire in the full sense of the term?

News | Features Last 7 days

Off-stump blues leave Dhawan flailing

The out-of-form Shikhar Dhawan still has the backing of his captain, but there's no denying his slump has arrived at an inconvenient time for India and his technical issues have to be sorted out before they attempt to defend the World Cup

Kohli at No. 4 - defensive or practical?

It seems Virat Kohli is to not bat before the 12th or 13th over to strengthen the middle and the lower middle order. It suggests a lack of confidence in what was supposed to be India's strength in their title defence: their batting

Open with Rohit and Binny, with Kohli at No. 3

India's batting is going the way of their bowling in Australia, and they need get their order sorted before the World Cup

On TV it looks uglier than it actually is

Often reasonable arguments on the field look nasty beyond the boundary and on camera

Ten things that are different at this World Cup

And one that will be the same. A look at what has changed since 2011

News | Features Last 7 days