atg aussie test team

[LukeParkerno1]

either way stiff to miss out - i guess you could tinker with the 2nd XI as warner/finch as a pair and individually, as their stats back up.

play m.waugh @ 3

so many one day stars we have produced and i guess you can't get them alll in.

I’d play Warner in the second side with Mark Waugh opening probably.

 

[eddiesmith]

Smith is completely underrated in the short format.

People dismiss him as being an ordinary T20 player, despite him being dominant in the IPL at times. His record is very comparable in the IPL to Shane Watson's who is considered one of the best imports in the leagues history. Probably only behind Warner, AB and Gayle.

He's now 6th behind Ponting (30), Warner (18), Waugh (18), Finch (17), Gilchrist (16) for ODI 100's for Australia with 11.

He's the only one on that list other than Ponting that wasn't an opener, he has the second highest average of that group behind Warner with 43.71.

He has the third highest SR on that list behind Warner and Gilchrist with 88.63.

He 100% makes an ATG ODI side ahead of someone like Hussey.

Dean Jones was a trailblazer, he also played at a time when scoring rates were low and a player going at 70 SR and batting for 45 overs at that clip was considered a match winning innings. He's not a lay down misere for a ATG short format side. It's a bit like Trumper and the ATG test sides.


I'd have Maxwell ahead of Bevan and Symonds. I'd take Symonds ahead of Bevan for a modern ODI.

A combo of Maxwell and Symonds with their bowling options, fielding etc would be unbelievable in the same side.

Yet in ODI cricket, Jones has more runs and a better average than Smith so yes he should be in the team ahead of him

 

[Pykie]

Smith opened a fair bit this year. Smith is okay in t20’s but he’s not great at them yet, neither was Virat for quite a while. Smith will get better the more t20’s he plays though. Watson was elite in t20 it’s no bad thing if he doesn’t end as good as Watson.

Smith has opened 4 times in 86 innings in the IPL, for 2 x 50's @ 31 with a SR of 147.

Which is better than Watson's average.


Mate, Virat is the greatest T20I player ever. Even he has only made 5 x tons in the IPL and they have all been as an opener.

Virat has batted #3 86 times in the league @ 36.23 with a SR of 126.

Smith at #3 (40inn) in the IPL @ 38.31 @ SR 130.

You are absolutely underselling Smith's record, #3 is not an easy position in to play in T20 and Smith has one of the best records in the league at the position.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Smith has opened 4 times in 86 innings in the IPL, for 2 x 50's @ 31 with a SR of 147.

Which is better than Watson's average.


Mate, Virat is the greatest T20I player ever. Even he has only made 5 x tons in the IPL and they have all been as an opener.

Virat has batted #3 86 times in the league @ 36.23 with a SR of 126.

Smith at #3 (40inn) in the IPL @ 38.31 @ SR 130.

You are absolutely underselling Smith's record, #3 is not an easy position in to play in T20 and Smith has one of the best records in the league at the position.

Number 3 does not stop may players getting hundreds in t20 cricket. Yes it’s handy to open but number 3 is just as likely to be in on the first over anyway. We can debate it till the cows go down but Watson is a much better t20 player in my view and that’s not even considering his bowling.

 

[Pykie]

Number 3 does not stop may players getting hundreds in t20 cricket. Yes it’s handy to open but number 3 is just as likely to be in on the first over anyway. We can debate it till the cows go down but Watson is a much better t20 player in my view and that’s not even considering his bowling.

Actually it does, sorry.

Only one player has made 1+ century from outside of the opening positions in IPL history and that's ABD batting @ #3 with 3 x 100's. If Smith makes another, he will be in a club of 2.

You can't back up what you are saying statistically.

I mean, this is logical isn't it? The fielding restrictions are in place for the first 6 overs of the match, giving openers a a distinct advantage over #3 or #4 positions.

The only player on this list who has scored their 100's outside of the openers position is AB. Every single one of them have scored their tons in the opening position. There's only 120 balls in the innings and the openers are generally going to soak up some of them and then you are going to lose balls to your partner.

T20 100's are not easy to make and any 100 outside of the opening position is actually rare.

The fact that Smith's record is comparable to Watson despite playing #3 or #4 and Watson playing predominantly as an opener only strengthens my point.

You really don't seem to understand some of the intricacies of T20 cricket and it's statistics.

 

[Slysh]

i think the real question is, if smith retired tomorrow would he feature in australia's best XI ?

At a minimum, he has to be spoken in the same breath as Ponting & G.Chappell as our 2best bat ever

he may not chase down pontings 13,000+ runs or play 168 tests, but if he makes 10,000+ runs @ 55+ it's enough for me to place him right behind bradman.

Yeah totally agree, i know it is a different era but it is almost impossible to make a case for Cahppell > Smith at this point.

 

[Pippen94]

Yeah totally agree, i know it is a different era but it is almost impossible to make a case for Cahppell > Smith at this point.

Why?? Look what Greg Chappell did against West Indies & World xi in wsc - don't think anybody has faced attacks as good before or since

 

[Slysh]

Why?? Look what Greg Chappell did against West Indies & World xi in wsc - don't think anybody has faced attacks as good before or since

Because looking purely at test numbers he has more runs at a higher average with more hundreds.

 

[Pippen94]

Because looking purely at test numbers he has more runs at a higher average with more hundreds.

Just looking at stats doesn't take into account era's or opposition - you got turner or spofforth in your xi??

 

[Slysh]

Just looking at stats doesn't take into account era's or opposition - you got turner or spofforth in your xi??

Actually looking at the era helps the case for Smith more. Smith is an outlier and no one touches him in the test arena.

Chappell made 7110 runs at an average of 53.86

Across his same era we have

Richards 5579 @ 53.64
Gavaskar 8625 @ 51.33
Miandad 4906 @ 56.39
Boycott 5505 @ 50.50

Chappell is an all time great and rightly in the discussion for a spot in this team but Smith has him covered in all areas and is more dominant in his own era than Chappell was in his.

 

[Pippen94]

Team of odi players nobody has mentioned;
Boon
S Marsh
Martyn
Lehmann
Bailey
Carey
O'Donnell
P Taylor
Fleming
Zampa
Tait

 

[Pykie]

Actually looking at the era helps the case for Smith more. Smith is an outlier and no one touches him in the test arena.

Chappell made 7110 runs at an average of 53.86

Across his same era we have

Richards 5579 @ 53.64
Gavaskar 8625 @ 51.33
Miandad 4906 @ 56.39
Boycott 5505 @ 50.50

Chappell is an all time great and rightly in the discussion for a spot in this team but Smith has him covered in all areas and is more dominant in his own era than Chappell was in his.

People automatically include the WI in any argument about a 70's/80's cricketer as some sort of a tie breaker.

They only played them once every few years, just like they do now. Australia played in 4 series against the WI in the 1970's an example.

There were plenty of absolutely s**t bowlers getting about in that era. Far more medium pace bowlers getting around the traps than ever plays at current test level either.

Even "greats" like Botham and Willis weren't as good as statistically good as someone like Steyn or Cummins with the ball. Lever, Woolmer, Greig isn't an earth shattering bowling lineup despite having Snow and Underwood.

They had shitty pitches that did plenty to their advantage, compared to the mostly flat pitches of today also.

You can counter the WI argument with the fact the 70's and 80's cricketers never had to play South Africa, like the current generation did.

Australia toured India twice in 20 years in the 70's & 80's. Something that generation didn't have to do as frequently. We've toured India more times since 1997 than we did in the 60 years preceding it.


I'm sure if some Australian batsman never had to tour India, their records would be even better (Ponting comes to mind - He averages 56 in test cricket if you exclude his average of 25 over there).

 

[Pippen94]

Actually looking at the era helps the case for Smith more. Smith is an outlier and no one touches him in the test arena.

Chappell made 7110 runs at an average of 53.86

Across his same era we have

Richards 5579 @ 53.64
Gavaskar 8625 @ 51.33
Miandad 4906 @ 56.39
Boycott 5505 @ 50.50

Chappell is an all time great and rightly in the discussion for a spot in this team but Smith has him covered in all areas and is more dominant in his own era than Chappell was in his.

Averages tend to come down as player's career comes to end - Ponting's record would've been similar to that.
How does Chappell record compare to Aussie players at time??

 

[Pykie]

Averages tend to come down as player's career comes to end - Ponting's record would've been similar to that.
How does Chappell record compare to Aussie players at time??

What relevance is that?

Excluding Warner, Smith averaged about 30 more than the rest of our batting lineup for a time there.

It can come down to being in a poor team like Smith encountered.

 

[Slysh]

Averages tend to come down as player's career comes to end - Ponting's record would've been similar to that.
How does Chappell record compare to Aussie players at time??

Yes but Smith already has him covered for runs and 100's. Even if Smith's average plummets and comes back to the pack he will have him significantly covered in other areas.

Smith is the clear GOAT of this era when it comes to test matches, that is the standard Chappell has to set in his own if you are using the era argument.

 

[Pippen94]

What relevance is that?

Excluding Warner, Smith averaged about 30 more than the rest of our batting lineup for a time there.

It can come down to being in a poor team like Smith encountered.

More likely gives indication that era favours batsmen

 

[Pykie]

More likely gives indication that era favours batsmen

Yet most people would argue the game currently favours batsman. With most of our batting lineup for the last 5-6 years averaging in the low to mid 30's.

Doesn't always correlate.

 

[Pippen94]

People automatically include the WI in any argument about a 70's/80's cricketer as some sort of a tie breaker.

They only played them once every few years, just like they do now. Australia played in 4 series against the WI in the 1970's an example.

There were plenty of absolutely sh*t bowlers getting about in that era. Far more medium pace bowlers getting around the traps than ever plays at current test level either.

Even "greats" like Botham and Willis weren't as good as statistically good as someone like Steyn or Cummins with the ball. Lever, Woolmer, Greig isn't an earth shattering bowling lineup despite having Snow and Underwood.

They had shitty pitches that did plenty to their advantage as well compared to the mostly flat pitches of today also.

You can counter the WI argument with the fact the 70's and 80's cricketers never had to play South Africa, like the current generation did.

Australia toured India twice in 20 years in the 70's & 80's. Something that generation didn't have to do as frequently. We've toured India more times since 1997 than we had in the 60 years preceding it.

Bowling fast doesn't make you more dangerous. Most effective bowler of my lifetime is McGrath who operated at about 132km per h.
Currently test wickets in Australia are roads & there's a preference for bowlers who generate own pace - it's only way to take wickets. Same bowlers struggle in England where you need skill - most of our batsmen struggle over there as well

 

[Gough]

Yes but Smith already has him covered for runs and 100's. Even if Smith's average plummets and comes back to the pack he will have him significantly covered in other areas.

Smith is the clear GOAT of this era when it comes to test matches, that is the standard Chappell has to set in his own if you are using the era argument.

Chappell scored nearly 1500 runs at 56 during WSC which would have had him beating Boycott for most runs ever when he retired if those games were included. I also think it's becoming increasingly difficult to compare modern batsmen to their predecessors. T20 has changed the dynamic of Test cricket as well, the game is far, far more professional than when Chappell played and changes in bat technology startling. I don't think that detracts from what Smith has done, it just makes comparison more difficult.

 

[Pykie]

Bowling fast doesn't make you more dangerous. Most effective bowler of my lifetime is McGrath who operated at about 132km per h.
Currently test wickets in Australia are roads & there's a preference for bowlers who generate own pace - it's only way to take wickets. Same bowlers struggle in England where you need skill - most of our batsmen struggle over there as well

I never said anything about pace. There's a difference between being a medium fast bowler and a genuine medium pacer.

There's also a big difference between Glenn McGrath/Stuart Clark/Philander types and a part time medium pacer of the 60's/70's/80's bowling at 115kph.

This wasn't exactly rare either. The Matthew Wade/Mike Hussey/Graham Gooch style bowlers weren't your 1 or 2 over novelty back then. They bowled 10+ overs a lot of the time.

Part timers these days are almost exclusively spinners. It was probably the opposite 40 years ago. How often do you see a medium pacer in test cricket? Once every few series, if that?


For every argument you can make regarding modern pitches and someone like Steve Smith, I'd counter it by saying, if thats the case, someone like Dale Steyn is probably a sub 16 average bowler in the 70's on those pitches. So the modern generation of batsman are actually facing on average BETTER bowlers than they did in the 70's/80's.

 

[Pippen94]

Yes but Smith already has him covered for runs and 100's. Even if Smith's average plummets and comes back to the pack he will have him significantly covered in other areas.

Smith is the clear GOAT of this era when it comes to test matches, that is the standard Chappell has to set in his own if you are using the era argument.

Australian wickets over last decade are the most batter friendly ever seen. Smith averages 71 at home. I notice Warner has more runs in Australia at slightly worse average of 65. While Smith has brilliant record overseas homes tests do inflate his record

 

[Pippen94]

I never said anything about pace. There's a difference between being a medium fast bowler and a genuine medium pacer.

There's also a big difference between Glenn McGrath/Stuart Clark/Philander types and a part time medium pacer of the 60's/70's/80's bowling at 115kph.

This wasn't exactly rare either. The Matthew Wade/Mike Hussey/Graham Gooch style bowlers weren't your 1 or 2 over novelty back then. They bowled 10+ overs a lot of the time.

Part timers these days are almost exclusively spinners. It was probably the opposite 40 years ago. How often do you see a medium pacer in test cricket? Once every few series, if that?


For every argument you can make regarding modern pitches and someone like Steve Smith, I'd counter it by saying, if thats the case, someone like Dale Steyn is probably a sub 16 average bowler in the 70's on those pitches. So the modern generation of batsman are actually facing on average BETTER bowlers than they did in the 70's/80's.

Point out medium pacer here;

World Series Cricket - Bowling Averages

World Series Cricket - Best Bowling Averages

howstat.com

 

[Pykie]

Australian wickets over last decade are the most batter friendly ever seen. Smith averages 71 at home. I notice Warner has more runs in Australia at slightly worse average of 65. While Smith has brilliant record overseas homes tests do inflate his record

And yet Pat Cummins averages 21 with the ball with a SR in the 30's on those same pitches. Bumrah in his one tour, Steyn also.

So how do you weight that?

Standard reasoning would be that they should be rated well ahead of the WI quicks who have similar records on far less batter friendly pitches....

 

[Pykie]

Point out medium pacer here;

World Series Cricket - Bowling Averages

World Series Cricket - Best Bowling Averages

howstat.com

I didn't realise WSC counted towards anyone's test careers.....

Look at some of the super tests, it was basically what would have been the South African bowling attack + Khan and Underwood and the other lineups it was just the WI bowling attack.

It's really not different to someone like Warner taking apart Steyn, Morkel, Philander, McLaren in SAF in 14'.

He averaged 91 in that series....

Any player of that ability can have an outstanding 3 or 4 games.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

If we are to assume Bradman is at 3 - then IMO - we have the following competing for 2 spots

Chappell, Ponting, Smith, Waugh, Border, Ponsford

I'd have Gilly at 6 and Miller at 7.