View Full Version : An All Time Ashes Test match -Australia v England
Jascave
13 Oct 2010, 09:48
With the Ashes series on the horizon, why not pick an all-time Australia side to play against an all-time England series in a 'dream Ashes Test'?
Here are the two line-ups:
AUSTRALIA
Victor Trumper
Matthew Hayden
Sir Donald Bradman (c)
Allan Border
Greg Chappell
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Jeff Thomson
Glen McGrath
Neil Harvey (12th)
ENGLAND
Herbert Sutcliffe
Jack Hobbs
Sir Geoff Boycott
Dr WG Grace (c)
Ted Dexter
Sir Ian Botham
Alan Knott (wk)
Derek Underwood
Harold Larwood
Bob Willis
John Snow
Darren Gough (12th)
Dr Awkward
13 Oct 2010, 10:33
Is your team based on Ashes performances only or just the greatest ever teams for each country?
Would love to see Dr Grace face Warne, Lillee or Mc Grath. Wouldn't last 5 balls!
No Ponting...?
Must be because of batting order not because of ability.
royboy2
13 Oct 2010, 15:52
David Gower ?
S F Barnes ?
Ian Healy or Rod Marsh over Gilchrist every day of the week.
TheColeTrain
13 Oct 2010, 21:07
Ponting much better then Steve Waugh.
Gilchrist as WK is almost as locked in as Warne and Bradman....
Bomber Bears
13 Oct 2010, 21:10
Ponting much better then Steve Waugh.
Gilchrist as WK is almost as locked in as Warne and Bradman....
If your judging against England, Steve Waugh hit 3200 runs at 58 with 10 centuries and won a couple of series as captain. Ponting has thus far scored 2363 at 48 with 8 centuries. Ponting is no doubt a better batsmen than Waugh, but against the poms Steve Waugh would be the first name on your team sheet. He destroyed that country in our 8 Ashes victories in a row.
royboy2
13 Oct 2010, 21:16
Gilchrist as WK is almost as locked in as Warne and Bradman....
Now he's retired have you forgotten that he couldn't keep?
TheColeTrain
13 Oct 2010, 21:28
Don't be stupid, while he wasn't as clean with the gloves as Healy and Marsh, he was still good behind the stumps.
His batting more then makes up for it.
Don't be stupid, while he wasn't as clean with the gloves as Healy and Marsh, he was still good behind the stumps.
His batting more then makes up for it.
Gilchrist's batting was excellent, especially his strike rate in all forms of the game. His keeping was only OK, and you can tolerate that in the short form of the game, but in Tests, which is what the OP is about, you need 20 wickets, and can't tolerate a below standard keeper merely because of his run scoring ability.
Gilchrist averaged 20 per innings more than Healy (Gilly avg 47, Healy 27). I would happily sacrifice 20 runs per innings to have a world class keeper behind the stumps in a Test over a batsman-keeper who is prone to periods of missed catches and stumpings.
Dr Awkward
14 Oct 2010, 08:48
Gilchrist's batting was excellent, especially his strike rate in all forms of the game. His keeping was only OK, and you can tolerate that in the short form of the game, but in Tests, which is what the OP is about, you need 20 wickets, and can't tolerate a below standard keeper merely because of his run scoring ability.
Gilchrist averaged 20 per innings more than Healy (Gilly avg 47, Healy 27). I would happily sacrifice 20 runs per innings to have a world class keeper behind the stumps in a Test over a batsman-keeper who is prone to periods of missed catches and stumpings.
lol now I've heard everything, you sound like that jealous twat Darren Berry. Gilchrist is a walk up start to the International All Time XI let alone our side. Should be the 2nd picked after Don.
His batting superiority far exceeds his wicket-keeping shortcomings which were overstated anyway he was a classy keeper and only people who couldn't let go of Healy and embrace the new generation of cricketers wouldn't admit that.
Gilchrist changed the game not just for keepers but in general, he won matches off his own bat. Who do you think the opposition would rather have played against, they were sh*t scared bowling to Gilly at No.7. Healy was a high quality but run-of the mill player.
royboy2
14 Oct 2010, 09:09
Gilchrist changed the game not just for keepers but in general.
Yeah! It meant you didn't have to be able to catch to be the wicket keeper
lol now I've heard everything, you sound like that jealous twat Darren Berry. Gilchrist is a walk up start to the International All Time XI let alone our side. Should be the 2nd picked after Don.
Seriously, don't embarrass yourself with shit like that.
Second picked after Bradman? On what basis? His batting average of 47? His mediocre keeping? Spare me.
Steve Waugh, Alan Border, Matt Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne all have far greater claims on being picked in the all time XI before Gilchrist. Not to mention Sobers, Richards Vic, Richards Barry, Tendulkar, West Indian bowling attack, etc.
His batting superiority far exceeds his wicket-keeping shortcomings which were overstated anyway he was a classy keeper and only people who couldn't let go of Healy and embrace the new generation of cricketers wouldn't admit that.
On many occasions that Gilchrist did damage with the bat, he would enter the game with the score at 5-400 or therabouts with little pressure at all, facing fatigued and mentally beaten bowlers with Gilchrist having a license to throw the bat with no accountability. A great destroyer of weak bowling he was. Second after Bradman he ain't.
Gilchrist changed the game not just for keepers but in general, he won matches off his own bat. Who do you think the opposition would rather have played against, they were sh*t scared bowling to Gilly at No.7.
Gilchrist won many ODIs off his own bat. Besides the damage he and Langer did in the Test v Pakistan in the late '90s he very rarely won a Test match off his own bat. The damage was usually done before he got to the crease.
He could only manage an average of 38 over his last 5 years of Test cricket (2004-2008). Hardly game changing stuff.
Healy was a high quality but run-of the mill player.
Just embarassed yourself again.
You want a high scoring, quick scoring batsman, you pick Gilchrist over Healy. You need a Test keeper, one that will help you get 20 wickets, and not fluff 1-2 chances per Test, you pick Healy, or Marsh, or any other of a half dozen Aussie keepers over the years before you even get near Gilchrist.
Wallaby
14 Oct 2010, 09:32
I must say I became a Gilchrist fan once he became the permanent keeper (not just the ODI). His ODI performances early on were not great, but no complaints about his Test performances.
Certainly never as good as Healy with the gloves, but at least the equal of Marsh. Marsh was close to his batting equal in the first half of his career (up to WSC), but he declined severely after that.
Anjd Gilchrist's batting was not just about '20 more runs per innings' - his batting speed helped set up many test win for Australia. I doubt if anyone with a higher test average has a better strike rate.
Fior England, I don't think Boycott or Dexter should be anywhere near the team. Not even close.
Try Hammond, Compton, Ranjitsinghi, Maclaren, May, Barrington, Hutton.
For the bowling, I'm sure there are several better than Willis - Trueman, Bedser, Barnes, Tate - all much better-credentialled.
Here's mine.
Aus
Simpson
Hayden
Bradman
Ponting
Harvey
Gregory
Gilchrist
Warne
Spofforth
Lillee
Turner
England
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Grace
Barrington
Knott
Bedser
Laker
Barnes
Verity/Trueman (depends whether Grace is bowling fast or slow)
Australia win easily.
gbatman
14 Oct 2010, 10:23
Gilchrist was a great keeper. Have you seen Haddin or anything England have served up the last decade or what Pakistan call keepers? Gilly could take catches no other keeper could. Gilchrist was the greatest keeper ever because he could bat like a top class batsman and because he could keep. Short memory. Obviously only remembers gilly's poor keeping the last year or two of his career.
Cousin Jed
14 Oct 2010, 10:41
Gilchrist was a great keeper. Have you seen Haddin or anything England have served up the last decade or what Pakistan call keepers? Gilly could take catches no other keeper could. Gilchrist was the greatest keeper ever because he could bat like a top class batsman and because he could keep. Short memory. Obviously only remembers gilly's poor keeping the last year or two of his career.
Yeah I agree, Gilly's last year with the gloves was pretty poor, but before that he was a more than good enough keeper.
Dr Awkward
14 Oct 2010, 14:50
DeanoT I'm not going to argue with you we are clearly on different pages nothing you can say will change my opinion that Gilchrist is the greatest keeper/batsman.
I disagree that he always came in with no pressure, and I disagree that he fluffed lots of chances with the gloves.