England's ten Greatest Test Matches

John Hall

unread,

Jul 23, 2018, 5:04:10 PM7/23/18

to

To mark England's imminent 1,000th Test match, the BBC are inviting
readers of their website to choose the greatest of all time from a
short-list of sixteen:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/44919073

My own selection was:

Oval 1882 1
Headingley 1981 2
Mumbai 2012 3
Edgbaston 2005 4
Lord’s 1963 5
Trent Bridge 2013 6
Edgbaston 1981 7
Trent Bridge 2005 8
Melbourne 2010 9
Old Trafford 1956 10

I put The Oval 1882 first because it was not just a very exciting match
but has great historical significance, giving rise to The Ashes. Perhaps
not surprisingly, it's the only Test in the BBC's short-list that
England lost. (I think the drawn Test against West Indies at Lord's in
1963 is the only other one that England did not win.) Not surprisingly,
the BBC's list is heavily weighted towards more recent times, with only
two matches from before WW2.
--
John Hall
"Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history
that man can never learn anything from history."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Mike Holmans

unread,

Jul 23, 2018, 5:31:46 PM7/23/18

to

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 22:02:38 +0100, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>To mark England's imminent 1,000th Test match, the BBC are inviting
>readers of their website to choose the greatest of all time from a
>short-list of sixteen:
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/44919073
>
>My own selection was:
>
>Oval 1882 1
>Headingley 1981 2
>Mumbai 2012 3
>Edgbaston 2005 4
>Lord’s 1963 5
>Trent Bridge 2013 6
>Edgbaston 1981 7
>Trent Bridge 2005 8
>Melbourne 2010 9
>Old Trafford 1956 10
>
>I put The Oval 1882 first because it was not just a very exciting match
>but has great historical significance, giving rise to The Ashes. Perhaps
>not surprisingly, it's the only Test in the BBC's short-list that
>England lost. (I think the drawn Test against West Indies at Lord's in
>1963 is the only other one that England did not win.) Not surprisingly,
>the BBC's list is heavily weighted towards more recent times, with only
>two matches from before WW2.

It doesn't include Headingley 1991, which included what I regard as
the greatest Test innings of all time, so I'm not playing.

Cheers,

Mike

max.it

unread,

Jul 23, 2018, 5:39:33 PM7/23/18

to

England's worst test matches might be a mre difficult choice ;)
It is srange that matches from the age of primitive cricket don't
feature highly.

max.it

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

mike

unread,

Jul 23, 2018, 6:51:16 PM7/23/18

to

yes indeed and the oval 1991 was pretty good. it was the first
time for me anyway to see England make 400 and then skittle
out the windies thanks to Tufnell. and in the same vein the Barbados
test where stewart made I think century in both innings and England won.

I would also add the test where the crowd helped dry out the ground
after it was flooded so that underwood could run through the oz
with a few balls to spare. b4 my time but I've seen it many times on tv.

mike

>
> England's worst test matches might be a mre difficult choice ;)
> It is srange that matches from the age of primitive cricket don't
> feature highly.
>

probably cos theres non one alive who can remember them

mike

jzfre...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 23, 2018, 7:27:26 PM7/23/18

to

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 7:39:33 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> England's worst test matches might be a mre difficult choice ;)

How much time do you think we have?!

Offramp

unread,

Jul 24, 2018, 1:40:43 AM7/24/18

to

I don't like the idea of "from a short-list of sixteen". It might be fallout from the Boaty McBoatface calamity: in future we will be told who we can vote for. I'd prefer a completely free vote.

RH156RH

unread,

Jul 24, 2018, 3:35:35 AM7/24/18

to

Pointless exercise when it is so heavily slanted to recent times... RH

MaybeYes

unread,

Jul 24, 2018, 3:39:31 AM7/24/18

to

EVERY post i make he comes running like a wee puppy needing a clap.
Here Doggy Doggy ....go fetch the ball now

John Hall

unread,

Jul 24, 2018, 5:39:58 AM7/24/18

to

In message <5b564b0...@news.aioe.org>, max.it <m...@tea.time> writes

>England's worst test matches might be a mre difficult choice ;) It is
>srange that matches from the age of primitive cricket don't feature
>highly.

These polls almost invariably have a strong bias towards recent times.
My own list would probably have included Old Trafford and The Oval in
1902, the first of the two Melbourne Test in 1911-2 and The Oval match
in 1926 (all of these being against Australia).

David North

unread,

Jul 25, 2018, 1:59:01 AM7/25/18

to

I might well have included Kingston 1990 and Christchurch 1992 (I think
that was the first nail-biting finish that I remember).

--
David North

blu...@ivillage.com

unread,

Jul 25, 2018, 2:30:42 AM7/25/18

to

Using the same criteria (nail biting), the 1982/83 MCG Test was right up there. Border and Thomson's last stand. Tavare spilling the ball, only for Miller to catch it and end the game.

-Moriarty

rter...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 26, 2018, 3:05:25 AM7/26/18

to

Op maandag 23 juli 2018 23:04:10 UTC+2 schreef John Hall:

I think we can all understand that these shortlists are biased towards recent memory, but this is ridiculous. 9 of 16 since 2000? Come on. I had expected better from the BBC.

Plus, some of their choices shouldn't even make a top-10 of Test matches since 2000.

Broad's 8-15 merits a place on any shortlist of English bowling performances, but other than that, the Test itself was thoroughly unremarkable. I thoroughly disliked nearly every minute of the 2013 Trent Bridge Test. Melbourne 2010 is in there, but Adelaide was much, much better as a Test match. I will never forget the last afternoon of the Oval 2005, but that was due to the occasion, not due to the overall quality of the match. (Though here I may be stretching my point a bit...)

Bridgetown 1994 is missing as well.

RtH

David North

unread,

Jul 26, 2018, 8:31:28 AM7/26/18

to

<rter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4a8dc2b-c1a9-4df1...@googlegroups.com...

"Broad's 8-15 merits a place on any shortlist of English bowling
performances, but other than that, the Test itself was thoroughly
unremarkable."

I don't suppose the first 3/4 of Headingley '81 was very remarkable from an
England point of view either.
--
David North

rter...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 26, 2018, 9:45:17 AM7/26/18

to

Op donderdag 26 juli 2018 14:31:28 UTC+2 schreef David North:

I'm not even sure I should respond to this, as a big part of me says you're trolling.

But I'll bite:

Trent Bridge 2015 was decided before lunch on the first day. What great or memorable Tests are over so soon? England didn't even grind Aus down by posting 450/4d, instead reaching an otherwise unremarkable 391/9.

My point was that a good bowling (or batting) performance does not necessarily equal a good Test match.

TB 2015 does not nearly feature in my personal list of best English Test wins this century, let alone of all time. But perhaps it does in yours. That's fine.

RtH

David North

unread,

Jul 27, 2018, 3:16:14 AM7/27/18

to

On 26/07/2018 14:45, rter...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 26 juli 2018 14:31:28 UTC+2 schreef David North:
>> <rter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f4a8dc2b-c1a9-4df1...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> "Broad's 8-15 merits a place on any shortlist of English bowling
>> performances, but other than that, the Test itself was thoroughly
>> unremarkable."
>>
>> I don't suppose the first 3/4 of Headingley '81 was very remarkable from an
>> England point of view either.
>

> I'm not even sure I should respond to this, as a big part of me says you're trolling.

No, just pointing out that even if a Test is great (whatever you take
that to mean), it is rarely more than a small fraction of it that stands
out.

> But I'll bite:
>
> Trent Bridge 2015 was decided before lunch on the first day.

(Going off at a tangent) It was heavily in England's favour, but
"decided" is a bit of an exaggeration. Matches can turn around, as
Headingley '81 proved. Comparing Australia's chances at lunch on the
first day at TB, when England were 47 behind at 13/0, with England's
chances at Headingley when they were still 92 behind in their second
innings with 3 wickets left, I expect most people would have thought
Australia had a better chance. England won the 1st Test of 1886/87 after
being put in and bowled out for 45.

> What great or memorable Tests are over so soon? England didn't even grind Aus down by posting 450/4d, instead reaching an otherwise unremarkable 391/9.
>
> My point was that a good bowling (or batting) performance does not necessarily equal a good Test match.

Yes, I know (and Headingley '81 did have two outstanding performances).

> TB 2015 does not nearly feature in my personal list of best English Test wins this century, let alone of all time. But perhaps it does in yours. That's fine.

It depends on how you interpret "best wins" (and how long your list is).
Was Headingley a great win because they spent most of the match getting
themselves into a near-hopeless position rather than dominating from the
start? Certainly it wasn't a great win numerically!

--
David North

unread,

Jul 27, 2018, 4:12:15 PM7/27/18

to

But this was the biggest win of the series... the biggest of all time! (By runs).

David North

unread,

Jul 28, 2018, 9:21:49 AM7/28/18

to

On 27/07/2018 09:27, Offramp wrote:
> As an all round display I have always liked the 1st Test against Australia at Brisbane, Nov 30 - Dec 5 1928.
>
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17596/scorecard/62562/australia-vs-england-1st-test-england-tour-of-australia-1928-29/

Btw, you can delete everything after the scorecard number in CI URLs if
you want to shorten them, e.g.:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17596/scorecard/62562

> It included the first ever declaration in a Test in Australia. England won by 675 runs.

The margin would probably have been rather smaller if the all-rounders
Gregory (cartilage problems) and Kelleway (food poisoning) hadn't been
incapacitated though. Neither played another Test.

--
David North

David North

unread,

Jul 28, 2018, 9:38:06 AM7/28/18

to

Yes, but they had to drop Mead to accommodate him, which weakened the
batting, leaving Larwood batting at #7. Luckily, Hammond had a
phenomenal series with the bat.

--
David North

Offramp

unread,

Jul 28, 2018, 2:26:07 PM7/28/18

to

On Saturday, 28 July 2018 14:21:49 UTC+1, David North wrote:

> Btw, you can delete everything after the scorecard number in CI URLs if
> you want to shorten them, e.g.:
>
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17596/scorecard/62562

Thanks! I like giving links but often they are a bit long. That is useful.

Offramp

unread,

Jul 29, 2018, 7:37:10 AM7/29/18

to

In today’s MoS Broad gives his top 3, where he played.
3rd is http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11718/scorecard/667901/
Which is v Sri Lanka at Headingly 2014. SL won by 100 runs.

RH156RH

unread,

Jul 29, 2018, 10:00:19 AM7/29/18

to

Tate and White were good enough batsmen to do the double, Tate on multiple occasions, Larwood was a good enough batsman to make a Test 70 on this tour and a Test 98 during Bodyline and Geary scored 8 first class hundreds and two Test 50s. Duckworth was the only real English tail-ender. in the series. RH