Hammond's test record is almost unparalleled, so I went for him.
That said Hobbs and Hutton have extraordinary records, as well.
Hammond 7249 at 58.45
Hutton 6971 at 56.67
Hobbs 5410 at 56.94
And all three lost 5 years of their prime (Hammond's might not have lasted that long, but he was still playing for England after WWII) to war.
Hobbs was 32 and averaging 57.32 when WWI broke out. In his next 29 tests from 1920-1930 he averaged 62.13 (famously half his hundreds come in his 40s and he was the oldest man to score a test century).
Hutton was 23 when WWII broke out. He was averaging 67.25 (mainly thanks to scoring 364) from only 13 tests.
Hammond was 36 when WWII broke out. He was averaging 61.45.
The other Englishmen whose records are up there are Ken Barrington who scored 6806 at 58.67 and Herbert Sutcliffe's 4555 at 60.73. Hopefully Root will move closer to them this winter.
I like the side you picked of players you have seen and I'd pretty much agree, I think, though Warne would have to be in there.
Who is Harris, though? .. Can't place him.
Ryan Harris.
Only played 27 tests because of injury but 12 of them were Ashes tests. Amongst Australian bowlers over the last 50 years to have taken 100+ wickets only McGrath took his wickets cheaper (so statistically better than Warne, Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Craig McDermott, Bruce Reid, Jason Gillespie, Mitchells Starc and Johnson etc).
He's not a stat pick though, I just think him one of the toughest bowlers of the last 20 years. Fast, extra bounce and relentless accuracy constantly probing away whilst giving you nothing. The perfect foil to Mitchell Johnson. In those 12 Ashes tests I can't remember him bowling badly.
Gooch didn't have a great record against Oz and neither did Stewart come to think of it. You simply can't talk about the Ashes without including Shane Warne - he has done more for test cricket in the modern era than anyone or anything.
I was choosing English and Australian players rather than basing on Ashes performances. Gooch and Stewart both demonstrated their quality against the best of their day, the West Indians.
"From those I've seen"
Did you always have your eyes closed when Warne was bowling? Must admit, I watched his stuff from behind the sofa once or twice...
Ha, but seriously whilst Warne may have got in the heads of some England players, as a bowler it was McGrath that I feared in that Aussie line-up. When Warne replaced McGrath at the end of a spell I breathed a sigh of relief as the pressure lifted. England were able to beat Warne but not McGrath. 2005 is the most famous example but England only lost 5 times in 14 tests (with 4 wins and 5 draws making it a fairly even contest) against Warne but not McGrath as opposed to losing 3 out of 6 tests against McGrath not Warne, with England's solitary win being in a dead rubber once the Ashes had already been decided (Dean Headley at MCG).
Warne took his drug-assisted wickets at 25.41 - that's very good but McGrath took his wickets at 21.64. That's elite. Plus you also need to consider the calibre of those wickets. McGrath took disproportionately top order wickets whilst Warne took disproportionately low order wickets.
This blog and some of the links touches upon it.