Cricinfo All-time XI: Australia

[Jef Costello]

Not really. Hes stiff for sure but there is only 2 spots there when you play an all rounder at 6 and theres some bloke rusted on at 3.

Greg Chappell, as has been discussed here, edges Ponting as our 2nd best bat, for most who saw them play. That is no slur on Punter at all, but Greg was a sublime bat at a time when Test Bowling was at its zenith, especially in the Super Tests etc when he averaged 60 odd in the Windies. The Windies were miles ahead of current pace bowling stocks and our current bats never had to face Warne and McGrath.

Punter vs Border, could easily see Punter in, but its not majorly unfair either way. On pure objective terms Punter is probably the better bat, but Border averaged 50 against some incredible quicks, played by himself for about 5 years, played the subcontinent well and probably gets extra brownie points for rebuilding Aus cricket completely to WC 87 and Ashes 89. This patriarch role makes things tough for Punter. l wouldnt argue with a side with either one of them in. Both Great players and Punter is next man in. If Swaugh had snuck ahead of him it would have been unfair for sure.

Who is the Skipper?

 

[Wallaby]

They're an interesting lot some of those English batsmen.

Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond effectively finished pre WW2 (though Hammond played a few tests post war) and averaged high 50's (sutcliffe averaged 60). They were more or less contemporaries of Bradman, which puts his 99.94 in perspective.

Hutton and Barrington were post WW2 and averaged mid to high 50's, which was a great achievement. Weekes and Walcott also averaged mid to high 50's in this period and Compton (another pom) also averaged 50. During this period Australia's best was probably Harvey, who averaged 48. This woujld suggest he was very good, but not the standout of his era.

The 70's/early 80's are interesting. The batsmen averaging 50 or higher were Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad. Chappell finished with the best record, though Richard's (test record) was greatly reduced in his final few years (well into the 1980's) when he emphasised entertainment more so than protecting his wicket. Chappell and Richards were the standouts, though we can only shake our heads at what might have been had Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock been afforded sustained test careers.

50+ averages remained relatively rare until the mid 90's when they became relatively commonplace (helped in part by more test playing nations). Even so, it appears that over the past 15 years that many nations have 2 or even 3 players with averaging above 50.

Don't forget, in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's the poms played a heap of tests against the West Indies, SA, New Zealand, and India , Australia didn't. They were the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of their time. New Zealand took 26 years to win their first test and 40-odd years to beat the poms (not until the 70's). By contrast, Australia played NZ in 1946, and the 2nd ever test was in 1973.

For example Bradman played 1 series against the Windies (averaged 70 - maybe they were his bogey team), one series versus SA (average 201 and one series against India (average 178). He 'only' averaged 89 against the poms.

I think you have to go by what their contemporaries said about them, and how they compared statistically agiinst thier own era. I am comfortable with Trumper. I would also include Spofforth - he was the No 1 bowler in the world for about 10 years - even the poms said so.

Fot those who say they don't want O'Reilly because of 'team balance', there were plenty of eras where 2 or 3 spinners were common in a side. In 1908 the South Africans tok 4 googly bowlers to England and played them all in the same side. In the late '50s when the only good bowlers the West indians had were Ramadhin and Valentine, they would take the second new ball, give the fast men one or two overs at most to see if there was any swing/seam/bounce and then RUB THE BALL ON THE PITCH to remove the shine (perfectly legal) and give it back to the spinners.

So before you say 3 seamers/one spinner' specify the period - covered pitches or not, timeless tests or not, new ball after 55 or 85 overs (or several variations in between), helmets, leg-side restrictions, etc. The last one is interesting - the leg-side restrictions were brought in to stop bodyline, but actually had a more significant effect on off-spinners.

Barman - more beers please! It's going to be a long night!

 

[crownie]

Don't forget, in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's the poms played a heap of tests against the West Indies, SA, New Zealand, and India , Australia didn't. They were the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of their time. New Zealand took 26 years to win their first test and 40-odd years to beat the poms (not until the 70's). By contrast, Australia played NZ in 1946, and the 2nd ever test was in 1973.

For example Bradman played 1 series against the Windies (averaged 70 - maybe they were his bogey team), one series versus SA (average 201 and one series against India (average 178). He 'only' averaged 89 against the poms.

I think you have to go by what their contemporaries said about them, and how they compared statistically agiinst thier own era. I am comfortable with Trumper. I would also include Spofforth - he was the No 1 bowler in the world for about 10 years - even the poms said so.

Fot those who say they don't want O'Reilly because of 'team balance', there were plenty of eras where 2 or 3 spinners were common in a side. In 1908 the South Africans tok 4 googly bowlers to England and played them all in the same side. In the late '50s when the only good bowlers the West indians had were Ramadhin and Valentine, they would take the second new ball, give the fast men one or two overs at most to see if there was any swing/seam/bounce and then RUB THE BALL ON THE PITCH to remove the shine (perfectly legal) and give it back to the spinners.

So before you say 3 seamers/one spinner' specify the period - covered pitches or not, timeless tests or not, new ball after 55 or 85 overs (or several variations in between), helmets, leg-side restrictions, etc. The last one is interesting - the leg-side restrictions were brought in to stop bodyline, but actually had a more significant effect on off-spinners.

Barman - more beers please! It's going to be a long night!

yes but were they the class of Warne and O'Rielly?

Warne could bowl for as long as it wants so if that Aussie team played on a pitch useless for spinners then one spinner is going to be a wasted spot in the team.

 

[crownie]

if you read the responses on the cricketinfo team on the web site it actually makes the standard of posting here pretty good.

one indian poster has bagged the team because it doesn't have any current cricketers while the indian team will have Tendulkar and mybe Sehwag.

 

[Hass]

For those of you questioning the inclusion of two spinners (and two legspinners at that), it's worth noting that Bill O'Reilly was a very different style of bowler to Shane Warne.

O'Reilly was six-foot-two and used to bowl at a pace approaching fast-medium ie. close to 130 kilometres per hour. In contrast Shane Warne bowled at about 80-90 kilometres per hour.

When O'Reilly died, Don Bradman called him the greatest bowler he ever faced or watched. Considering how much the two men hated each other that accolade means a lot.

 

[eth-dog]

respected but no way can Waugh be ahead of Greg Chappell.

bowling i totally agree with.

Waugh is ahead slightly for me, I loved them both but I just loved Stevies last Test

 

[Wallaby]

When O'Reilly died, Don Bradman called him the greatest bowler he ever faced or watched. Considering how much the two men hated each other that accolade means a lot.

I have grown very dubious about Bradman's 'expert opinion'. (I mean, what would he know, compared to me?)

It just seems that the 'Best-ever' Bradman always says are his contemporaries, and particularly those who were on the 1948 side to England (when England were very weak).

For the record, Bradman used to slaughter O'Reilly in State games.

Arthur Morris and Don Tallon seem to get the favoured treatment because they were on the 1948 team. Morris's fame rests primarily on Bradman's referral - his record is good, but no better than many others (say Taylor, Simpson, Lawry, Woodfull). But because he had his 2 good series against the poms in 46/47 and 48 (when they were crap) he gets treated as a god.

Tallon might have been good in 46/47 and 48, but he had a rapid decline and was replaced by Gil Langley by '53 because of poor form (he had been selected as the No 1 keeper). He was a weak batsman as well. Whenever I read about tests, I seem to come across phrases such as 'so-and-so was dropped by Tallon - no-one could remember the last time the aussie champ had dropped a catch'. I seem to see these regularly. I reckon he had a legend over and above his actual ability (says me, who never played first-class cricket, never saw Tallon play, and claims better knowledge than Don Bradman (who's he?).

 

[Wallaby]

My other beef is Ponsford v Woodfull. Ponsford always gets thrown up as a contender for the all-time XI - Woodfulll never.

They played about the same time, (Ponsford test debut in 24/25 - Woodfull in '26 - both retired after '34).

Ponsford averaged 48 - Woodfull 46. Both hit 7 centuries. Woodfull's centuries were always as an opener, Ponsford made a couple from No. 4.

It seems much of the reverence for Ponsford comes from his ability to make huge scores - his 2 big partnerships with Bradman (2 of his last 3 innings in test cricket) in particular. In those 2 innings he made 20% of his total test runs! So Woodfull was more consistent.

In first class cricket, Ponsford hit 47 centuries, Woodfull 49 (both played for Vic, so played the same opponents). Ponsford averaged 65.18, Woodfull 64.99. Their records are virtually identical across the board - innings, runs, catches. They played 162 and 174 matches. Woodfull took 1 first-class wicket - Ponsford didn't.
The only significant differences are - Ponsfords ability to make big scores (4 over 300), and Woodfull was the one made captain.

I think Woodfull is severely under-rated - He played in the eras of the two greatest 'big-innings' batsmen of all time - Ponsford and Bradman - so there were no headlines left over for him.

 

[Wallaby]

Damn, I said I wasn't going to do anymore of these debates because they are pointless - you cannot compare players across different eras.

It's fun, though.

 

[courtjester]

In terms of team balance, I'd have Lindwall or Davidson over O'Reilly. Takes nothing away from O'Reilly, but I'd only want one spinner in my team. Davidson gives the team some variety with left arm pace.

I'll take Ponting over Border, though I rate him so highly. Border faced some of the best bowlers: Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, he was so tough.

I'd have Ponsford over Trumper. Ponsford was a run machine. I'd consider Hayden, but I'd probably take Morris as the left hander. Bill Lawry is a forgotten man in these teams it seems, averaged 47 in a period of some good pace bowlers. People speak so highly of Morris's batsmanship, and that counts for me.

I'm tempted to include Healy who was peerless with the gloves, but how can you leave out Gilchrist in terms of excitement down the order (and very good as a keeper)

1st XI
Ponsford
Morris
Bradman
G. Chappell
Ponting
Gilchrist
Miller
Davidson
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

Rest of touring squad
Border
O'Reilly
Lindwall
Hayden
S.Waugh

What are people's thoughts on Bill Lawry? Probably doesn't quite make the cut, but he's another guy often overlooked. He probably gets overlooked because he didn't play in one of the 'golden eras'.

I guess the contenders for opening are:

Ponsford
Trumper
Hayden
Lawry
Morris
Taylor
Langer
Simpson

I wonder whether there is a lot more nostalalgia with a guy like Trumper? How did his average compare with his peers?

 

[TassieSaint]

How could they not have Ponting :S

 

[Belnakor]

I wonder whether there is a lot more nostalalgia with a guy like Trumper? How did his average compare with his peers?

Trumper only made 2 centuaries from opener as well. He was definately one of the top batsmen of his age though, his speciality on "Sticky Wickets" was well known and back in those days they didn't care so much about averages.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Waugh is ahead slightly for me, I loved them both but I just loved Stevies last Test

Last tests?

Waugh made 80 in his last innings from memory.

Chappell made 182 which wasn't a bad little knock either.

 

[eth-dog]

Last tests?

Waugh made 80 in his last innings from memory.

Chappell made 182 which wasn't a bad little knock either.

Waughs is fresher in mind . look, Chappell is very very close, just IMO Waugh is slightly better. plus Waugh was a brilliant captain (yes I know it's easy with Warne and McGrath)

 

[Wicked Lester]

Waughs is fresher in mind . look, Chappell is very very close, just IMO Waugh is slightly better. plus Waugh was a brilliant captain (yes I know it's easy with Warne and McGrath)

IMHO Greg Chappell is so far ahead of Steve Waugh its not funny. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[crownie]

IMHO Greg Chappell is so far ahead of Steve Waugh its not funny. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

i cant see any reason to convince me why Waugh was better.

Chappell was consistent and faced far better attacks and pitches not always batsman friendly.

Waugh was lucky Australia sucked so much as he might not of made it with the slow start he had, his average blossomed later in his career with the help of better pitches and coming into bat with the old ball rarely under any pressure.

 

[saj_21]

Can we clone Keith Miller? Impressive stats.

I would of had Hayden in over morris, ponting unlucky, no need for two leg spinners. And how coul only 8 of the 10 judges include Gilly, there have been superior glovemen but gillys is by far and away the best keeper batsmen the world has ever seen, his glove work was pretty sharp.

 

[Wicked Lester]

And how coul only 8 of the 10 judges include Gilly, there have been superior glovemen but gillys is by far and away the best keeper batsmen the world has ever seen, his glove work was pretty sharp.

Without making excuses for the selectors (I'd have picked Gilly too), I suspect some of them would be of the view that with the quality of the batting order there is little pressing need for a gun batsman at 7, therefore the best 'keeper' should be selected.

Gilly was a capable keeper, but it's hard to argue his keeping is the best Australia's ever had.

 

[courtjester]

You'd pick Oldfield or Healy if you were selecting on keeping skill alone.

 

[King Elvis]

Without making excuses for the selectors (I'd have picked Gilly too), I suspect some of them would be of the view that with the quality of the batting order there is little pressing need for a gun batsman at 7, therefore the best 'keeper' should be selected.

Gilly was a capable keeper, but it's hard to argue his keeping is the best Australia's ever had.

Anybody else think that Gilly has been seriously under-rated as a Keeper?

 

[courtjester]

Anybody else think that Gilly has been seriously under-rated as a Keeper?

Yep. He's up there with the best.

 

[Wallaby]

Anybody else think that Gilly has been seriously under-rated as a Keeper?

As a keeper? No. He was an OK test keeper (although he wasn't very good when he started - he learnt along the way), and he was certainly better than some we've had (oh, look - there's Greg Dyer and John McLean! Hi guys!).

But he was nowhere near the level of Healy or Berry. Its hard to pinpoint where the difference was - Gilchrist didn't drop many (not many at all) - but it's hard to evaluate how many chances he never laid a glove on that a great keeper would have at least made a better effort at.

The question is - how important is a great keeper over a merely good keeper? If you batting average is 18-20 runs higher than the better keeper, how many catches are you allowed to drop (or not even touch), and how many more byes are you allowed to let through? It's a question that has been argued since cricket began.

I would have Gilchrist in my team above any other keeper.

 

[courtjester]

But he was nowhere near the level of Healy or Berry. Its hard to pinpoint where the difference was - Gilchrist didn't drop many (not many at all) - but it's hard to evaluate how many chances he never laid a glove on that a great keeper would have at least made a better effort at.

You know, you hear people say that, but he took some great catches down the leg-side (particularly off Gillespie) that were spectacular. I can hardly ever remember saying "he should've got that".

I reckon the difference between Gilly and Healy and Berry is almost an aesthetic thing, Gilly didn't "look" as good keeping, but he was excellent nonetheless.

I don't see a great deal of difference between Gilchrist and Healy/Berry to be honest. It's marginal.

 

[Belnakor]

I don't see a great deal of difference between Gilchrist and Healy/Berry to be honest. It's marginal.

Gilly's extra height and reach if anything made him more able to take hangers. I think the only thing Gilly was marginally poorer at was keeping to Warne, but was superior to the pacemen.

 

[Jef Costello]

Gilly was left handed and quite big - he was good down the leg side for sure. That aside l dont think he was in the same class as a keeper as Heals on other aspects. Healy and Taylor was the best combo l have ever seen behind the stumps and Healy to Warne and May was superb for sharp chances and stumpings from the chances offered. Heals was a phenomenal gloveman, incredibly quick with his hands and so well balanced. l do remember Gilly missing stumpings more often than Heals and the sharper chances when keeping up. l think he improved heaps (though was poor in 2005 Ashes) and was a good keeper and its not about him being shit at all but just how good Healy really was with the gloves - lve heard Gilly say so himself often enough. Worth his weight in gold though of course because of his batting and automatic inclusion with Lillee, Warne, Mcgrath and the Don.

btw Warne had Heals at 10 and Gilly at 20 in his Top 50 (not noted for its sobriety of course with Swaugh at 26 just behind Boof!).