How incorrect assertions can wind up accepted as fact.

But it's probably reasonble to expect the greater number of English players to be found near the bottom than the top.
Each has only eleven places to fill in a Test side.

England has played 890 tests, Australia 712: 1.25 times as many.

If in CMJ's list there are 33 English tests players to 25 Aussie thats 1.32 times as many.

On that basis, if Australia has 25 then England should have 31 or 32 players. I think that's close enough to allow for a natural bias towards your own country.

Since quantity and quality do not necessarily correspond there is no reason why these proportions should dictate the actual numbers selected but they do suggest that CMJ was not being unreasonable.

Having said that, the exclusion of Davidson is rather inexplicable. As we discovered a couple of years ago he should be rated somewhat higher than Lindwall who appears at 34 on this list (a bit too high IMO). I think somewhere around where Wasim is seems about right.

Fry and Pietersen are two England players who don't belong on the list.

I agree about Fry and KP - although the latter could well justify inclusion in 3 or 4 years. I also doubt the merits of Gower and Cowdrey in this company.

Surely Garner should be included?

I would like Hammond and Headley to change places, and suspect Compton is slightly too high.

Of absent Australians, besides Davidson, Clem Hill, Noble and Trumble deserve close consideration.

I will take the time to make up a list at some stage. I think, inevitably there will be some difficulty in the last 30 or so spots because there would probably 60 or so players to fill those spots of whom a half would have to be left out. Gower, Gooch and Cowdrey would be among those 60. Garner, Noble and Trumble probably would too. Gilchrist also.

The ommission of Hill is as strange as the ommission of Davidson. Hill is a close comparison to Trumper and, if anything, more reliable and a better fielder (and "boxer" too from what I read!). If Trumper is ranked at number 30 it's hard to justify more than 70 points separation based on prettier style alone.

I would rank Hammond and Headley fairly close together, somewhere around the 10 mark. Warne is too high, and O'Reilly and Grimmett are too low. The three should be fairly close together.

Hoever, I imagine most of the players on this list would be on mine.

Dexter is another who might warrant exclusion. He sometimes batted like a top 100 in Australia in 1962-63 but on balance did not excel for long enough and was an indifferent captain.

I doubt Dexter would make my list - even the extended grroup of 60 i referred to earlier. Fine entertaining batsman but many others were better. Jessop is another Englishman who is probably a bit over-rated except for entertainment value. Flintoff is there on potential rather than achievement and I suppose Larwood is too though he would definitely be in the top 100 somewhere.

On the other hand Tom Richardson, Freeman, Hayward, Duckworth and Blythe are notable omissions. Come to think of it, CMJ's list of the top 33 English players would be significantly different to mine.

Hmm. Looking elsewhere, Aubrey Faulkner doesn't seem to be in the list.

I know but can't share your attachment to Tich Freeman.

It seems to me that much of the writing about him extols his merits against "all but the best batsmen". And his record in Australia is mediocre, especially against the better teams.

I agree with you about Jessop - at the highest level he achieved rather little, even if it became legendary.

I don't think Flintoff sustained his top form long enough for inclusion.


I'm probab;y happier with Dexter than with Fry, Gower, Cowdrey or Gooch.

Gower was quite magnificent over more than a decade but stuffed up his figures with frustrating inconsistency. There is a degree to which style can compensate for a lower average, just not to the extreme degree that is usually applied to Trumper. In Gower's case this is enough to make him top of the five names you mention on the bottom line of your post. He was one of the great cover fielders.

Cowdrey is the embodiment of English cricket. All understatement and reserve. His technique was excellent and he should have spent more time as an opener. His figures were not great and were not helped by the pointless recall in 1974/75. Great slip fielder.

Gooch spent most of his career playing catch-up after a poor first few years. There were periods later on when he was as good as any batsman has been and he picked up a ruthlessness which is very rare among English cricketers. All too late to elevate him to the greats however.

Fry was one of those who was great in county cricket but didn't raise his game when playing test cricket. He had the typical instinct of the amateur that success had to be seen to require little effort and spread himself rather thinly across a whole heap of sports and other activities. His professed admiration for Hitler has put me off a bit.

In Dexter's favour he was the only one of these who has figures that match his talent. He came and went in half a decade, which doesn't disqualify him from consideration but requires something really special; which he didn't deliver. I also found him a bit of a pain who was full of silly theories and ideas.

ten years after wrote:Having said that, the exclusion of Davidson is rather inexplicable. As we discovered a couple of years ago he should be rated somewhat higher than Lindwall who appears at 34 on this list (a bit too high IMO). I think somewhere around where Wasim is seems about right.

Damn staight.

ten years after wrote:Hmm. Looking elsewhere, Aubrey Faulkner doesn't seem to be in the list.

Should be a shoe in

Procter, too.

peterg wrote:
I don't think Flintoff sustained his top form long enough for inclusion.

Flintoff wouldn't get anywhere near a place. He has been a class test bowler for about 6 years now, but the first 5 years of his career killed his stats.

But he's better than Jesus.

Although I think Jesus bowling with nail holes in his feet makes him a bit tougher than a bloke who misses the odd Test because of dodgy knees...

So Davo was greater than Jesus's old man then?

Aye, England could have the series sewn up if he wasn't so soft

Sage. May his softness continue.

Screw it, Punter's captaincy doesn't deserve any better than a draw.

Gooch above punter! FFS