All Time Australian XI

[dan warna]

remembered more for being crushed by hadlee and ambrose than the rest of his career.

People forget what a mess a modest lankan attack made of Mark waugh and celebrate his successes.

Deano was a great batsman and just behind border in talent and form for that era.

An outstanding athlete as well where ever he fielded and probably not topped till Punter came along.

 

[Thommo 42]

boon, s.waugh, deano and greg matthews all played in the same era of waugh and all have equivalent or better careers.

I'd probably agree on the first 3, but not Matthews.

Junior Waugh certainly played more match-winning and important innings than Boonie though, and in an era when ODI cricket meant something - he was up there with Deano.

People forget what a mess a modest lankan attack made of Mark waugh and celebrate his successes.

Completely irrelevant. G.Chappell made 4 ducks on the trot, and 7 in 15 innings in 81-82. Doesn't mean we don't celebrate his successes?

Lets not get confused, I wasn't suggesting M.Waugh would be anywhere near an all-time Aussie XI, I just think he is well ahead of Mike Hussey and would still remain ahead of Clarke in the short term.

He is well down the list all-time for middle order players, just off the top of my head - Bradman, GChappell, Ponting, Border, S.Waugh, Harvey, McCabe, Jones, Walters, I.Chappell, Hassett, McCartney & Barnes are probably all ahead of him. So at best, he makes a 4th XI

 

[dan warna]

With regard to hussey as well, he was passed over several times for inferior players, and basically the massive wealth of first class runs forced his selection.

On form he should have been in the side earlier.

Clarke is a funny one. I would have suggested that you are probably correct 12 months ago, that clarke was a bit of a flat track bully, and he was a solid if unconvincing middle order batsman.

I would have suggested that Clarke was exactly like mark waugh 12 months ago, a solid, international quality test batsman, with bigger tickets on him than his form would suggest. Currently he is moving up in the esteem of myself and others by his current rich vein of form.

With regard to greg matthews, he had a fraction of the talent of Mark waugh, and yet in his 30 odd tests, scored nearly 2000 runs at 40, against some of the strongest attacks in recent history.

Had he continued to play, it would not be inconceivable that over a 120 tests he would have accumulated 8000 odd runs and his average would have increased against minnows such as zimbabwe, bangladesh and the weak english and windian attacks of the 90s.

 

[Thommo 42]

Matthews batted 7 and scored 20% of his career runs vs the minnows of Sri Lanka.

His first class batting average of 38 with only 13 hundreds vs M.Waugh's first class average of 52 with 81 hundreds is a better reflection of their abilities with the bat.

With all due respect, Mo Matthews doesn't hold a candle to Mark Waugh. Stuart Law played one test innings, and he was a better player than Greg Matthews.

In fact, M.Waugh's figures with the ball are superior to Matthews at Test Level. Waugh bowled 4853 balls, took 59 wickets at 41 in test cricket. Matthews bowled 6000+ balls and took 61 wickets at 49. Matthews was clearly a better bowler though, which shows how stats can easily be manipulated.

I doubt any sane person would ever suggest Matthews was even on the same planet as Waugh with the bat though.

 

[dan warna]

Matthews batted 7 and scored 20% of his career runs vs the minnows of Sri Lanka.

His first class batting average of 38 with only 13 hundreds vs M.Waugh's first class average of 52 with 81 hundreds is a better reflection of their abilities with the bat.

With all due respect, Mo Matthews doesn't hold a candle to Mark Waugh. Stuart Law played one test innings, and he was a better player than Greg Matthews.

In fact, M.Waugh's figures with the ball are superior to Matthews at Test Level. Waugh bowled 4853 balls, took 59 wickets at 41 in test cricket. Matthews bowled 6000+ balls and took 61 wickets at 49. Matthews was clearly a better bowler though, which shows how stats can easily be manipulated.

I doubt any sane person would ever suggest Matthews was even on the same planet as Waugh with the bat though.

Mark waugh V
England 50
India 33.23
NZ 42.55
Pakistan 42.40
South Africa 42
SL, 24
WI 41
Zimbabwe 90

8000 runs in 120 tests at a shade under 42

Greg Matthews
V England 53.54
India 47
NZ 35
Pakistan 97
SL 54.83
WI 15.70

given they pretty much played in the same era against the same opposition, must have been a fearsome bowling line up down SL that made a mess of Waugh Amusingly you bring up that Matthews scored 20% of his runs against SL, when the fearsome SL bowling attack made a mess of Waugh's stats, against whom he averaged only 24 Minnows eh?

the only real significant different in form is that the great windians made a mess of matthews and Waugh performed well, aside from that, they are on par in their limited experience.

if you are taking FC form, David Hussey is a better FC batsman than Mark Waugh?

waugh had a tremendous amount of talent but didn't bring it often enough to be considered anything but a good ordinary test player with a long career.

Using greg matthews as an example to show why mark waugh was an ordinary test player, not that greg matthews was a great.

That said, had a lot of respect for the fighting qualities matthews brought to his batting.

 

[Thommo 42]

Mark waugh V
England 50
India 33.23
NZ 42.55
Pakistan 42.40
South Africa 42
SL, 24
WI 41
Zimbabwe 90

8000 runs in 120 tests at a shade under 42

Greg Matthews
V England 53.54
India 47
NZ 35
Pakistan 97
SL 54.83
WI 15.70

given they pretty much played in the same era against the same opposition, must have been a fearsome bowling line up down SL that made a mess of Waugh A

Yes, but one played 120 tests and scored 8000 runs. The other played 30 tests, its an important difference.

M.Waugh's best innings were fighting innings, his problem was that he was too lazy to cash in when it was easy.

 

[dan warna]

accumulation does not equal greatness.

That's the argument the indians are using to justify tendulkar is better than bradman.

Waugh scored more test runs than bradman...

Had matthews played 120 tests, against increasingly weaker opposition, its arguable based on evidence that his test form would have held up and he would accumulated as many runs.

Waugh had talent, but in the end, at the performance level, was merely a good ordinary player at test level.

as his fighting innings, they were few and far between, given he played some 200 odd innings.

BTW steve waugh has a better bowling average than mark waugh as well.

 

[Thommo 42]

Had matthews played 120 tests, against increasingly weaker opposition, its arguable based on evidence that his test form would have held up and he would accumulated as many runs.

No its not, because he continued to play first class cricket and average in the 30's and over 190 first class matches, only managed 13 centuries.

Meanwhile, Mark Waugh accumulated 20+ test centuries all over the world in 120 test matches.

It's like suggesting Albert Trott and his australian test average of 102 is a better player than Bradman, because if you assume he played another 50 tests he would have continued to average 100.

 

[BulletDrop]

accumulation does not equal greatness.

That's the argument the indians are using to justify tendulkar is better than bradman.

Waugh scored more test runs than bradman...

Had matthews played 120 tests, against increasingly weaker opposition, its arguable based on evidence that his test form would have held up and he would accumulated as many runs.

Waugh had talent, but in the end, at the performance level, was merely a good ordinary player at test level.

as his fighting innings, they were few and far between, given he played some 200 odd innings.

BTW steve waugh has a better bowling average than mark waugh as well.

What exactly does equal greatness?

Is it only test cricket? Or does ODI cricket also add weight to the argument?

Kallis and Dravid have outstanding test records, but relatively underwhelming ODI records compared to someone like Ponting.

To me, that is goes against both Kallis and Dravid when evaluating their greatness as players.

In the last 20 years I can think of 3 truly great Australian batsmen.

R Ponting
A Border

--------
S Waugh.

Waugh only scored 3 ODI tons, I dont think he was suited to the format bar the rear-guard counter-attack that he perfected in the 99 WC.

 

[courtjester]

What exactly does equal greatness?

Is it only test cricket? Or does ODI cricket also add weight to the argument?

Kallis and Dravid have outstanding test records, but relatively underwhelming ODI records compared to someone like Ponting.

To me, that is goes against both Kallis and Dravid when evaluating their greatness as players.

In the last 20 years I can think of 3 truly great Australian batsmen.

R Ponting
A Border

--------
S Waugh.

Waugh only scored 3 ODI tons, I dont think he was suited to the format bar the rear-guard counter-attack that he perfected in the 99 WC.

ODI tons are pretty hard to come by unless you bat opening or 3. S Waugh usually batted at 5 or 6, which means his job was usually to consolidate if he was in early, or hit out if he was in later in the innings.

His average and SR are good for a OD cricketer. And early in his career, he was possibly the best ODI bowler in the world, especially in the final ten overs.

 

[BulletDrop]

So the question has to be asked, why was Waugh batting at 5 in ODI cricket?

Waugh wasn't a dynamic batsmen at ODI level. He had pretty much the one style. Grind, grind, slog sweep, grind, grind.

You could argue Waugh won the 99 WC off his own back: his innings against SA in the final super six match ensured we progressed to the semi-final. Even then, he came in with us in trouble.

Fact remains, if you compare Ponting's ODI record of 30 odd tons to Dravid's 12 or so ODI tons. The difference is stark.

 

[dan warna]

I would rate Mark Waugh, like brett lee, as ODI greats.

That said I would assume that a measure of greatness in cricket is predominantly based around test cricket.

M. Waugh and Brett lee would arguably be amongst our best 11 ODI cricketers.

Don't rate either of them as great test cricketers.

 

[Thommo 42]

thats because neither of them are great test cricketers, M.Waugh was a very good one though and its insulting to bracket him with someone like Mo Matthews.

Comes down to your definition of great though, playing 120 tests in the crucial #4 position, being one of the greatest fieldsman ever to set foot on a field, bowling spin and medium-fast and scoring a lazy 20 test centuries, including a handful of all-time great innings - makes you pretty damn close to being a 'great' test cricketer. It just won't get you anywhere near australia's best Test XI, which is no disgrace.

 

[medusala]

accumulation does not equal greatness.

That's the argument the indians are using to justify tendulkar is better than bradman.

Totally agree.

Nor do averages. There are some good but not great cricketers around now who average 50. They say the smaller boundaries due to ropes and 2nd tier nations are worth about 7 additonal runs.

Same goes for bowlers ie look how many wickets Murali took vs the rubbish teams vs how many Warnie took.

Border and S Waugh had to play against the Windies at their peak and didnt have much opportunity to paste rubbish attacks from 2nd rate teams. Going back further they had uncovered pitches. Look at recent county cricket scores in the UK to see how hard it is to score on wet rain affected mud dumps.

 

[crownie]

Totally agree.

Nor do averages. There are some good but not great cricketers around now who average 50. They say the smaller boundaries due to ropes and 2nd tier nations are worth about 7 additonal runs.

Same goes for bowlers ie look how many wickets Murali took vs the rubbish teams vs how many Warnie took.

Border and S Waugh had to play against the Windies at their peak and didnt have much opportunity to paste rubbish attacks from 2nd rate teams. Going back further they had uncovered pitches. Look at recent county cricket scores in the UK to see how hard it is to score on wet rain affected mud dumps.

Waugh cant be excused because of that, he had the chance to enjoy the very ordinary attacks of England,Sri Lanka,New Zealand and India in the 90's.

 

[crownie]

an all time australian XI and the last 2 pages are filled with nonsense on Mark Waugh and Greg Mathews

anyway i agree with the OP's team, you could throw a blanket over about 4 openers but i dont think Hayden should be considered.

 

[The Passenger]

i know stats aren't everything but in hussey's case with an average of 9 runs higher than m waugh, i think he has him covered....

but matthews isn't near as a good a batsmen as mark waugh. that is crazy to suggest.

 

[dan warna]

i know stats aren't everything but in hussey's case with an average of 9 runs higher than m waugh, i think he has him covered....

but matthews isn't near as a good a batsmen as mark waugh. that is crazy to suggest.

I never said that.

Matthews has a fraction of the talent of M.Waugh, but on the test arena their contributions are comparable. that would indicate M.Waugh chronically underperformed during his 120 test career, and Matthews got every run out of his ability.

Hence I value Matthews as a fighter, he isn't an Australian great.

M.Waugh I don't rate, talented batsmen, but ultimately a slacker.

 

[courtjester]

The case of Mark Waugh v Greg Matthews is an indication of situations where stats can be misleading.

I'd say Mark Waugh IS a great (Australian batsman), whereas Matthews was an honest toiler who made the most of his abilities. Yet they both ended careers with similar averages.

You have to have seen some of Waugh's greatest innings to know how good he was. His career average in no way reflects his ability, which does suggest some underachievement, but does not undermine his greatness. When he was on, he was possibly as dominant in shitty (turning, dusty) conditions as anyone in the world.

Added to this, he was the best player of spin I've seen in my time, and he is the best slip fielder I've seen, and he was as good a ground fielder in the covers etc as well. Easily our best all round fielder in the last thirty years. Handy off spinner and medium pacer. Gun.

As an all-round package, an all-time great cricketer. Had he averaged 8 or 9 runs more innings, there would be no doubt, he's probably be in the first XI.

 

[Gray Day]

Greatest:
1. Bob Simpson (4869 runs @ 46.81, 72 wickets @ 42.26 from 62 tests)
2. Bill Lawry (5234 runs @ 47.15 from 67 tests)
3. Sir Donald Bradman (6996 runs @ 99.94 from 52 tests)
4. Ricky Ponting (13218 runs @ 53.08 from 163 tests)
5. Greg Chappell (7110 runs @ 53.86 from 87 tests)
6. *Allan Border (11174 runs @ 50.56 from 156 tests)
7. +Adam Gilchrist (5570 runs @ 47.60 from 96 tests)
9. Shane Warne (708 wickets @ 25.41 from 145 tests)
9. Bill O'Reilly (144 wickets @ 22.59 from 27 tests)
10. Dennis Lillee (355 wickets @ 23.92 from 70 tests)
11. Glenn McGrath (563 wickets @ 21.64 from 124 tests)

12th man - Steve Waugh (10927 runs @ 51.06, 92 wickets @ 37.44 from 168 tests)


2nd XI:
1. Matthew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. David Boon
4. Mark Waugh
5. *Steve Waugh
6. Keith Miller
7. +Ian Healy
8. Ray Lindwall
9. Jason Gillespie
10. Fred Spofforth
11. Stuart MacGill

EDIT: I expect Michael Clarke will finish his career in my 2nd XI.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Border and S Waugh had to play against the Windies at their peak and didnt have much opportunity to paste rubbish attacks from 2nd rate teams.

In relation to Waugh, I'm not sure I agree.

If you look through the Windies teams Waugh came up against, I believe they broadly fall into three roughly equal periods;

1) Early on in his career against great sides with four brilliant bowlers or 3 brilliant and one competent bowler (typically the likes of Ambrose, Marshall, Walsh and Patterson/Bishop).
2) Mid period - two great (but ageing) bowlers and two fairly ordinary first change bowlers (typically Amrose, Walsh and the Benjamins - Kenny and Winston with the occasional cameo by the injury plagued Bishop)
3) Late career - a very pedestrian attack (typcially Pedro Collins, Mervyn Dhillon, Vasbert Drakes and so on - and, in the 1997-99 period Walsh who by then was bowling in the mid 120's).

In general terms, Waugh's performances against the Windies improved as his career went on for a final average of 49 against the Windies. His early career against a full Windies line up certainly included some brave knocks but was hardly stellar. He came into his own during the second period described above as he peaked and the Windies began their decline.

My point is, the majority of Waugh's test career was not played against the Windies at their peak.

I agree with you regarding Border and, for those reasons, I think it also reinforces how good Greg Chappell was too. Apart from one miserable series (81/82) he had a brilliant record against the Windies at a time when they were at their most ferocious and when protective clothing was still fairly antiquated. For the first half of his career he faced up without a helmet too.

 

[TheTigerEffect]

My 2 cents worth

1. Ponsford
2. Morris
3. Bradman
4. Ian Chappell (c)
5. Greg Chappell
6. Steve Waugh
7. Gilchrist (wk)
8. Warne
9. Lillee
10. Thomson
11. McGrath

This would be my best ever team. I tossed up between Ian Chappell, Ponting or Harvey (and switching the order a bit) but I thought the Chappell would be a stronger leader. That was my toughest decision.

 

[TheTigerEffect]

Greatest:
1. Bob Simpson (4869 runs @ 46.81, 72 wickets @ 42.26 from 62 tests)
2. Bill Lawry (5234 runs @ 47.15 from 67 tests)
3. Sir Donald Bradman (6996 runs @ 99.94 from 52 tests)
4. Ricky Ponting (13218 runs @ 53.08 from 163 tests)
5. Greg Chappell (7110 runs @ 53.86 from 87 tests)
6. *Allan Border (11174 runs @ 50.56 from 156 tests)
7. +Adam Gilchrist (5570 runs @ 47.60 from 96 tests)
9. Shane Warne (708 wickets @ 25.41 from 145 tests)
9. Bill O'Reilly (144 wickets @ 22.59 from 27 tests)
10. Dennis Lillee (355 wickets @ 23.92 from 70 tests)
11. Glenn McGrath (563 wickets @ 21.64 from 124 tests)

12th man - Steve Waugh (10927 runs @ 51.06, 92 wickets @ 37.44 from 168 tests)


2nd XI:
1. Matthew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. David Boon
4. Mark Waugh
5. *Steve Waugh
6. Keith Miller
7. +Ian Healy
8. Ray Lindwall
9. Jason Gillespie
10. Fred Spofforth
11. Stuart MacGill

EDIT: I expect Michael Clarke will finish his career in my 2nd XI.

It's a second XI but still, Gillespie and MacGill? Personally, I wouldn't have them in my second XI. Perhaps in my 4th. I'd even prefer McDermott or Alderman to Gillespie...

 

[Gray Day]

It's a second XI but still, Gillespie and MacGill? Personally, I wouldn't have them in my second XI. Perhaps in my 4th. I'd even prefer McDermott or Alderman to Gillespie...

I admit I did question those selections a bit myself. 2nd XI was harder to pick.

I think MacGill is criminally under-rated having been in the shadow of Warne. He would have easily played 100 Tests if not for the master. One could argue for Clarrie Grimmett I suppose, have to weigh up the different eras.

Now that you mention McDermott, he is unlucky to miss. Could be a bit of SA-bias here but I thought Gillespie was treated savagely by the selectors for his 2005 Ashes performance. His form warranted him to be dropped at that stage, but pretty shabby stuff that he only played a couple more Tests after that. Had a very good record outside of Australia. Very handy tail-end batsman too.

 

[davefromjerra]

Victor Trumper should be the second player picked in any all time XI.