The arrival of Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack as the English spring moves into summer is always a significant delight for the dedicated cricket person. You probably have to be that to appreciate the wonders of this remarkable 1,500 or so page tome, full of apparently indigestible facts and figures. For the initiated, though, it is hard to overestimate the delights within. Any edition of Wisden can be the classic “Desert Island” book choice; it will keep you gripped almost indefinitely.
As I say the uninitiated may find that hard to understand. But anyone can understand one of the book’s most compelling features: the Five Cricketers of the Year.
As Lawrence Booth, the current editor, puts it in the 2026 edition, the Five “represent a tradition that dates back to 1889,…” (in 2011, the year before Booth became editor, there were only Four, but we can skirt over that.) He continues: “The five are picked by the editor, and the selection is based primarily, but not exclusively, on excellence in and / or influence on the previous English season. No one can be chosen more than once.”
It is the personal element, the fact that it is the editor’s choice, that is part of the appeal. Everybody who is interested will have their own ideas as to who should be selected.
Historically, and not surprisingly, the focus was exclusively on the previous English summer. This approach was changed as a result of one innings. In 2002 the Five included V V S Laxman, who had played no cricket in England during the 2001 season. But in March 2001, in Kolkata, in the second Test against Australia, Laxman played what many would argue was the greatest Test innings of all time, 281, which helped India become only the third side in history to win a Test after following on. As editor Graeme Wright explained in the preface, “Laxman immediately became an exception” to the tradition that selection was based on performances in the previous English season. Since then selection has been slightly more nuanced. Women have featured among the Five since 2018.
Distinct patterns have inevitably emerged. A key ingredient is the Test series – in recent years almost always two – played in England. Inevitably in the years since 1889 there have been far more English players selected than from anywhere else. Excellence in domestic county cricket has been a huge part of the history of the Five, which means that there are plenty of men selected who played no international cricket, or at least no Test cricket, at all.
Pausing here to consider Booth’s selections for the 2026 edition, they comprise four members of the Indian touring side, and the Nottinghamshire captain and former England opener Haseeb Hameed.
Hameed’s selection is perfectly understandable. He led his county to the Championship title and was the second highest run scorer in Division One.
I said that everyone has their own views on the Five. Personally, I would have found room for Aiden Markram, who made a wonderful match-winning century for South Africa against Australia in the World Test Championship final at Lord’s. But picking him would have meant not picking one of the four Indian tourists, captain Shubman Gill, all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja, wicket-keeper Rishabh Pant and fast bowler Mohammed Siraj.
Pausing again, it is very unusual indeed for the editor to select four players from a touring side. If the first thing one knew about the 2025 season was the choice of the Five in the 2026 Wisden, one would have assumed that India had won the series overwhelmingly; in fact it was a two-all draw. The series was outstanding in many respects, with players from both sides contributing some remarkable performances. Of course most England players could not be selected because they had been one of the Five previously, including Gus Atkinson and Jamie Smith, who only seem to have been around for a few months, such is the pace of everything. Even so to choose four Indians is exceptional. The 2023 Ashes was, one could argue, an equally outstanding series: the Five in 2024 included two Australians and two Englishmen. The editor in 1949, Norman Preston, selected five of Don Bradman’s Invincibles, who had won four-nil. That has never been repeated, although in 2005 five members of the then England side were selected, but, because the book is an English book based on the English season, that is a bit different. In the 1962 almanack, there were also five Australians: four members of Richie Benaud’s Ashes – winning (two-one) side, including the captain himself, and the remarkable Somerset all-rounder, Bill Alley, who scored 3,000 runs and took 100 wickets (and who never played for Australia). Two years after the Invincibles, West Indies astonished the cricket world by beating England three-one in a four-match series. Four of their players were selected; that seems appropriate in such a decisive victory. The result was exactly the same after Frank Worrell’s magnificent West Indies side beat England three-one in 1963; four of the tourists were chosen. Likewise in 1994 after Australia had routed England, inspired by Shane Warne’s Ball of the Century to Mike Gatting; four Australians were selected. In 2006 when the editor, Matthew Engel, had to consider performances in the 2005 Ashes, one of the greatest of all series, he chose three England players and two Australians in the 2006 almanack. The same proportion had applied in 1954, celebrating England’s first Ashes series victory since Bodyline twenty years earlier. In 1982 John Woodcock, editing the edition brought out to celebrate Botham’s Ashes, selected three Australians. West Indies beat England five-nil in 1984 and four-nil in 1988; in each case only one West Indian was selected as one of the Five in the relevant almanack, because their leading players had already been selected (though Desmond Haynes had to wait till 1991). Many West Indians played lots of county cricket which provided another opportunity for selection; that rarely happens today. The same of course is true with England players. In 1948 it was a different world, with only six Test playing countries, two of which, New Zealand and India, rarely provided candidates for selection. The editor’s task is very different today.
Booth’s task in 2025 had been very different from his task this year. Two slightly underwhelming touring sides, West Indies and Sri Lanka, meant slim pickings in the Wisden Five department. Booth opted for two members of the victorious England side, Atkinson and Smith, two county stalwarts in Dan Worrall of Surrey and Liam Dawson of Hampshire, and the England slow left arm spinner Sophie Ecclestone. Calling Dawson a county stalwart may seem odd especially now that he seems to be back in the England fold, at least for T20s, but the fact is that he was selected for his achievements in county cricket, and such has been his consistency with bat and ball for Hampshire that he might well have been selected in any one of the last three or four years.
The county stalwart has always been a feature of the Five. The classic modern example is Darren Stevens, a medium-paced seamer who picked up wickets for fun in his later years in county cricket and who was also a highly accomplished and often very aggressive batter. He was selected in 2021, when he was 45 – Wisden had not selected an older player since Ewart Astill of Leicestershire in 1933. (You can read posts dated 2 July 2018 and 31 May 2021 about Stevens’ remarkable achievements.) Other favourites include Peter Sainsbury, the only man to be part of both Hampshire’s Championship winning sides, in 1961 and 1973, Lancashire’s “Flat Jack” Simmons and Essex’s Brian “Tonker” Taylor.
There are lots of non-Test players in the long list of those selected to be one of the Five. Even some of the Test players selected might raise an eyebrow. Somebody just looking at the list (to be found at the back of the book), might puzzle at the name R A L Massie, selected in 1973. If our diligent student digs further, he will discover that in his career Western Australian Massie played just six Tests, taking 31 wickets at an average of 20, which is pretty good. But in his very first Test, against England at Lord’s in 1972, Massie took eight wickets in each England innings helping Australia to a famous victory. To say he sank without trace thereafter would be an exaggeration, but … well, as a financial adviser might say, selection as a Wisden Five is no guarantee of future performance.
But if you wanted an example of what you might call a Perfect Five, you could do a lot worse than Booth’s selection for 2013 – remember, players are often selected at the start of their careers. How is this for a roll call of cricketing lustre: Jonny Bairstow, Brendon McCullum, Steve Smith, Ben Stokes and Kane Williamson.
Now back to Booth’s 2026 selection. One can see why he found it difficult to include Markram. Gill, the Indian captain, made almost 600 runs in the first two Tests. Pant made twin centuries in the first match. Siraj was the only fast bowler on either side to play in all five Tests, was hostile throughout, and bowled a critical spell at The Oval which enabled India to square the series, from an apparently unpromising, if not hopeless position.
That leaves Jadeja. He headed the batting averages, helped by four not outs: Gill and opener K l Rahul scored more runs but England could not get Jadeja out. His century at Old Trafford secured a vital draw. His bowling, however, was not the force it had been in previous years; he took seven wickets in the series at an average of over seventy.
It is not unreasonable to assume that Booth must have calculated that Markram – and perhaps Rahul – is young enough to have other opportunities to become one of the Five. Jadeja is unlikely to tour England again – although, as usual, his fielding suggested he was the fittest player on either side – and he has been one of the world’s outstanding all-rounders, along with Stokes, in the last dozen years. It would be quite wrong if he were mot selected as one of the Five.
One of the remarkable things about the Wisden Five is the number of outstanding players who have not been selected.
Often there is a simple explanation for this. Good examples are provided by two brilliant Australians, who made stacks of runs all over the world – except in England: Doug Walters and David Warner. Their non-selection is understandable. But there are other payers whose achievements generally make it seem odd that they have been excluded from this uniquely ancient and select award. I have selected an eleven of such players, but first a word about some players who didn’t make it into my team either.
Given the nature of the book, one would expect that all successful England Test cricketers would have been selected, but there are some surprising exceptions. One is Phil Tufnell, who won home Tests against Australia and West Indies with his left arm spin. His successors, Ashley Giles and Monty Panesar, were both chosen. Tufnell had no less talent than either of them, but, unlike them, but in common with many of his contemporaries, he never played in an Ashes-winning side. The same is true of the other significant England player not to have been chosen as one of Wisden’s Five, Mark Butcher. He scored an amazing match-winning hundred against Australia at Headingley in 2001, and captained England once. Not many people with those credentials have failed to be selected. Butcher’s father, Alan, also a successful opener for Surrey and then Glamorgan, was a one-Test – wonder (India at The Oval in 1979. He was one of the Wisden Five in 1991. (He was also a one-ODI-wonder (Australia, 1980) which meant he played one more ODY than Mark.) One Ashes winner who was not chosen by Wisden, another father of a famous son, was Chris Broad. He made three hundreds for Gatting’s side Down Under in 1986-87 but none of his six Test hundreds was made in England. Two county stalwarts who ought surely to have been selected were Don Kenyon and Tom Cartwright.
Moving overseas, here are some more surprising omissions. Michael Slater was a super-aggressive opener for Australia, who loved batting against England. Ross Taylor made more Test runs for New Zealand than anyone apart from Williamson. Carl Hooper was an elegant batter, brilliant fielder and useful off-spinner. He was also a very effective overseas player for Kent. Mitchell Johnson was to my mind the most exhilarating fast bowler of recent years. Morne Morkel was a vital part of a very strong pace attack. Wes Hall, a magnificent Bajan fast bowler, delivered perhaps the two most famous overs in Test history: the last over in the tied Test at Brisbane in 1950-62, and the final over in the Lord’s Test of 1963; his opening partner, Charlie Griffith, was picked by Wisden in 1964. Rangana Herath took more Test wickets than any left-arm bowler other than Mitchell Starc; 21 of his 433 Test wickets were taken in England, over three series.
And now the eleven. Just to make it clear, current players, such as Nathan Lyon and Josh Hazlewood, have not been considered; their chance might still come.
The first opener is Virender Sehwag. He was an exhilarating stoke player with a penchant for big scores. Only four men have made two scores of over 300 in Test history. Don Bradman and Brian Lara are two of them; Sehwag is the third.
It would be a good quiz question: who is the fourth player, after Bradman, Lara and Sehwag, to have made two scores of over 300 in Test cricket. The answer is T20 champion Chris Gayle. Gayle’s Test record in England was not great but how can a list which really ought to acknowledge the all-time greats not include the Universe Boss.
At number three we have Mike Hussey. “Mr Cricket” is just the sort of character you want at number three, utterly reliable and selfless. Such was the strength of the Australian middle order that it took him a while to break into the side but once he was in he stayed, averaging 51 in “only” 79 Tests.
A B de Villiers was an outstanding sportsman. As a batter he excelled in all formats, and his strokeplay was inventive and ingenious. He averaged over 50 in Test cricket and could justly be said to have been the greatest batsman of his specific generation, which included Michael Clarke, Kevin Pietersen and his teammate Hashim Amla. In the series in England in 2008 he headed the South African averages, with 64; teammates Neil McKenzie and Mark Boucher were among the Five for 2009.
Inzamam-ul-Haq was one of the most intriguing of all batsmen. From the moment the wider cricket public became aware of him, during the 1992 World Cup, he exerted a special appeal. There was something unique about his lumbering, yet balletic movements. And there was a Test match batting average of 49.60.
At number six is the captain, the Prince of Kolkata, Sourav Ganguly. Around the time of the millennium Ganguly was probably the most significant player in world cricket. Under his captaincy India started to develop from a collection of talented individuals to being the world-beating team they ultimately became.
The almanack has always been generous in recognising wicketkeepers. In the old days specialist keepers, such as Australia’s Don Tallon and Gil Langley, were chosen. More recently there have been Tom Blundell and Ben Foakes (remember him?). One keeper never selected was Farokh Engineer. Indian by birth, Lancastrian, or Manchurian, by adoption, Engineer remains one of cricket’s great characters.
My spinner is Abdul Qadir. He kept the magic of leg spin alive before the arrival of Shane Warne. He had more variations than the great Australian, though he lacked Warne’s accuracy and theatrical sidelines.
I have three pace bowlers. For sheer speed, albeit for a brief period, in my period as a cricket watcher it has been impossible to match Jeff Thomson. Speed of course isn’t everything. One of the most challenging opening bowlers in recent years was Vernon Philander. Last man in my team is Makhaya Ntini, who took more wickets for South Africa than anyone apart from Dale Steyn and Shaun Pollock.
The tail is a bit long. Not surprisingly there is a dearth of eligible all-rounders. Trevor Goddard is available, but in place of whom?
As I said at the start it’s the personal element in the selection of the Five that makes it fun, like the Notes. It’s what makes the editorship of Wisden surely one of the most significant jobs in sports journalism.
It’s just intriguing to see how many truly great players have never been selected.
