atg aussie test team

Remove this Banner Ad

eth-dog said:
When we're talking a top 6 position the primary reason should be batting if you have an attack like Australia does. Miller was undoubtedly a great all rounder but it isn't as if he's Kallis or Sobers
Click to expand...


He didn't play comparatively a huge amount of cricket.

Often when looking at guys around WW2 you look at their FC record in conjunction with their test record.

He made 40+ FC tons @ 48 batting at #3 and #4 for Victoria.

He also batted 3/4/5 for Australia in sides that contained Bradman, Harvey and Hassett in it.

It's fair to say he was a ******* good batsman who's test stats on paper don't really reflect how capable he was.

He was a genuine top 5 bat.
 
Pippen94 said:
No - whether it's batsman or all rounder comes down to preference. With all time top 5 & Gilchrist to follow - side won't be short of batting
Click to expand...
When looking at the No.6 position, I agree with eth-dog, it is all about the batting ability. Miller with a test average in the mid 30s does not get a look in at 6.
The question is- do you play Gilly up the order at 6 with Miller at 7 or do you keep Gilly at 7 and have a batsman that averages over 50 at No6 and rely on an all time bowling attack to defend regular totals over 600?
 
Pykie said:
Sorry mate.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The Windies didn't have some all conquering pace attack for 30 consecutive years.

Their attack in the mid 70's still had Sobers, Clive Lloyd, Lance Gibbs in it until the late 70's when Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Marshall, Croft came on the scene. They got absolutely thumped in Australia in 75/76' which was one of their last battering's for about a decade.

They still lost away to India, New Zealand and drew in Australia, New Zealand (again), India and Pakistan at the absolute height of their power.

Then they transitioned to Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh in the late 80's. A great bowling attack, but hardly head and shoulders above some of the modern Australia, South African and even English attacks in the last 30 years. South Africa and Australia have probably had multiple attacks to rival it since and I say that as the #1 ticket holder to the Curtley Ambrose fan club. He's probably my favourite quick of all time.


The Windies attack of the mid 80's IS probably the greatest ever. It had depth as well. But people hold them on some mythical pedastal at times.

Plenty of batsman still took them apart.

Just as happened to the great South African sides recently and the great Australian side of the 90's/00's.

I don't think they would be any more intimidating than facing Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel on a Wanderers pitch in their absolute pomp.

Or facing Mitchell Johnson on that same pitch during his purple patch.
Click to expand...


Slightly debatable.

of the 189 batsmen who faced the West Indies in the 80s, 3 of them had an average above 50.

They were Bruce Edgar from NZ, who played one series against them in 1980.
Andrew Hilditch - ironically understandable given his addiction to hook shots - who played one series against them in the mid-80s
Wasim Raja - played four tests against them in 80-81, never made a century, and had his average cushioned by a handful of not-outs.
In total only 10 players in the entire decade managed to average 40+ against them AND score a hundred.

They conceded 49 hundreds all told for the decade.

For context, 21 players hit centuries and averaged 40+ against Australia between 95-2005.
9 averaged 50+ and there were 84 hundreds hit all told.

Yes the volume of cricket increased but there's not a heck of a lot of data to suggest that batting was easier against that Windies team than it was against another great side.


I have made it very clear where I rate someone like Dale Steyn. I think there's an argument to be made that he is the best fast bowler of all time.

Imagine facing an attack that has him except he looks and bowls a lot like Malcolm Marshall. Then you have Joel Garner bowls like Morne Morkel.
Then you have someone that in terms of build is halfway between both, but quicker than both (Holding), and arguably better as a line and length bowler than any of the ultra quick express bowlers we've seen in recent times. Then there's a menace bowling nearly as quickly, from a stupid height and an impossible angle like Croft. Who just wants to hurt you.

It isn't a pleasant thought. And that's without factoring in Andy Roberts who came before Marshall.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

eth-dog said:
When we're talking a top 6 position the primary reason should be batting if you have an attack like Australia does. Miller was undoubtedly a great all rounder but it isn't as if he's Kallis or Sobers
Click to expand...
Pykie said:
Sorry mate.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The Windies didn't have some all conquering pace attack for 30 consecutive years.

Their attack in the mid 70's still had Sobers, Clive Lloyd, Lance Gibbs in it until the late 70's when Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Marshall, Croft came on the scene. They got absolutely thumped in Australia in 75/76' which was one of their last battering's for about a decade.

They still lost away to India, New Zealand and drew in Australia, New Zealand (again), India and Pakistan at the absolute height of their power.

Then they transitioned to Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh in the late 80's. A great bowling attack, but hardly head and shoulders above some of the modern Australia, South African and even English attacks in the last 30 years. South Africa and Australia have probably had multiple attacks to rival it since and I say that as the #1 ticket holder to the Curtley Ambrose fan club. He's probably my favourite quick of all time.


The Windies attack of the mid 80's IS probably the greatest ever. It had depth as well. But people hold them on some mythical pedastal at times.

Plenty of batsman still took them apart.

Just as happened to the great South African sides recently and the great Australian side of the 90's/00's.

I don't think they would be any more intimidating than facing Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel on a Wanderers pitch in their absolute pomp.

Or facing Mitchell Johnson on that same pitch during his purple patch.
Click to expand...
West indies undefeated at home for 20 years & anywhere for 15 years - one of the most dominant reigns of all time. Better than Aussie run of 1995 to ??
That dominance was on back of pace battery. Go look at series records - One Aussie batsmen may have done well in particular series but came back down the next.
Our best batsmen of 80's; Jones, border, boon, Hughes all averaged under 40 against west indies
 
PhatBoy said:
Slightly debatable.

of the 189 batsmen who faced the West Indies in the 80s, 3 of them had an average above 50.

They were Bruce Edgar from NZ, who played one series against them in 1980.
Andrew Hilditch - ironically understandable given his addiction to hook shots - who played one series against them in the mid-80s
Wasim Raja - played four tests against them in 80-81, never made a century, and had his average cushioned by a handful of not-outs.
In total only 10 players in the entire decade managed to average 40+ against them AND score a hundred.

They conceded 49 hundreds all told for the decade.

For context, 21 players hit centuries and averaged 40+ against Australia between 95-2005.
9 averaged 50+ and there were 84 hundreds hit all told.

Yes the volume of cricket increased but there's not a heck of a lot of data to suggest that batting was easier against that Windies team than it was against another great side.


I have made it very clear where I rate someone like Dale Steyn. I think there's an argument to be made that he is the best fast bowler of all time.

Imagine facing an attack that has him except he looks and bowls a lot like Malcolm Marshall. Then you have Joel Garner bowls like Morne Morkel.
Then you have someone that in terms of build is halfway between both, but quicker than both (Holding), and arguably better as a line and length bowler than any of the ultra quick express bowlers we've seen in recent times. Then there's a menace bowling nearly as quickly, from a stupid height and an impossible angle like Croft. Who just wants to hurt you.

It isn't a pleasant thought. And that's without factoring in Andy Roberts who came before Marshall.
Click to expand...
Hilditch only played two Tests in the 84/85 series, he made 70 and 113 in Melbourne and 2 in Sydney.
 
Doashuey said:
When looking at the No.6 position, I agree with eth-dog, it is all about the batting ability. Miller with a test average in the mid 30s does not get a look in at 6.
The question is- do you play Gilly up the order at 6 with Miller at 7 or do you keep Gilly at 7 and have a batsman that averages over 50 at No6 and rely on an all time bowling attack to defend regular totals over 600?
Click to expand...
There's no one formula for picking sides; england almost always pick all rounder @ 6. There was once a time when Australia was more flexible with its lineup - look at the number of all rounders in the 1950's who played together. Benuard who had career average of 24 batted at 6.
Miller is simply Australia's greatest all rounder. There's very few players with his bowling record who also averaged over 35 with bat. Only Imran comes to mind. He's a lock for team & you just have to build lineup around him
 
The teams that did get a piece of the West Indies almost invariably did it through their bowling.
If they did have a weaker suit after Lloyd and Kallicharan retired it was their batting. Amazing top 3 in Haynes, Greenidge and Richards, in the second half of the 80s Richardson emerged but the 5-6 spot could often be a bit of a weakness by comparison.
 
PhatBoy said:
Slightly debatable.

of the 189 batsmen who faced the West Indies in the 80s, 3 of them had an average above 50.

They were Bruce Edgar from NZ, who played one series against them in 1980.
Andrew Hilditch - ironically understandable given his addiction to hook shots - who played one series against them in the mid-80s
Wasim Raja - played four tests against them in 80-81, never made a century, and had his average cushioned by a handful of not-outs.
In total only 10 players in the entire decade managed to average 40+ against them AND score a hundred.

They conceded 49 hundreds all told for the decade.

For context, 21 players hit centuries and averaged 40+ against Australia between 95-2005.
9 averaged 50+ and there were 84 hundreds hit all told.

Yes the volume of cricket increased but there's not a heck of a lot of data to suggest that batting was easier against that Windies team than it was against another great side.


I have made it very clear where I rate someone like Dale Steyn. I think there's an argument to be made that he is the best fast bowler of all time.

Imagine facing an attack that has him except he looks and bowls a lot like Malcolm Marshall. Then you have Joel Garner bowls like Morne Morkel.
Then you have someone that in terms of build is halfway between both, but quicker than both (Holding), and arguably better as a line and length bowler than any of the ultra quick express bowlers we've seen in recent times. Then there's a menace bowling nearly as quickly, from a stupid height and an impossible angle like Croft. Who just wants to hurt you.

It isn't a pleasant thought. And that's without factoring in Andy Roberts who came before Marshall.
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a selective criteria. Yes the 80's was their dominant period, but Garner, Roberts, Holding, Croft all played in the 70's too.

Plenty of players had good series against them. It's not surprising that a batsman may have had a lapse series 4-6 years later that hurt their average for that decade, but my point stands, they weren't unplayable.

I'm surprised Vengsarker isn't on that list. He hit 6 x 100's against that WI side.

Other notable series:

79/80 AUS - Hughes (Ave 50), Chapell (Ave 45)
79/80 NZ- Edgar (Ave 65)
81/82 AUS - Border (Ave 67), Dyson (Ave 55)
83/84 AUS - Border (Ave 74)
83/84 IND - Vengsarker (Ave 53), Gavaskar (Ave 50)
84/85 AUS - Hilditch (Ave 61), Wessells (Ave 56)
86/87 NZ - Crowe (60)
87/88 IND - Vengsarker (Ave 101)
88/89 AUS - D.Jones (ave 64)


It's also a bit of a skewed stat when looking at total ton's and things of that nature vs the Australian side of that later era.

WI 1980-1990 - Played 81 test matches
AUS 1995-2005 - Played 131 test matches.
 
Pykie said:
It's a bit of a selective criteria. Yes the 80's was their dominant period, but Garner, Roberts, Holding, Croft all played in the 70's too.

Plenty of players had good series against them. It's not surprising that a batsman may have had a lapse series 4-6 years later that hurt their average for that decade, but my point stands, they weren't unplayable.

I'm surprised Vengsarker isn't on that list. He hit 6 x 100's against that WI side.

Other notable series:

79/80 AUS - Hughes (Ave 50), Chapell (Ave 45)
79/80 NZ- Edgar (Ave 65)
81/82 AUS - Border (Ave 67), Dyson (Ave 55)
83/84 AUS - Border (Ave 74)
83/84 IND - Vengsarker (Ave 53), Gavaskar (Ave 50)
84/85 AUS - Hilditch (Ave 61), Wessells (Ave 56)
86/87 NZ - Crowe (60)
87/88 IND - Vengsarker (Ave 101)
88/89 AUS - D.Jones (ave 64)


It's also a bit of a skewed stats when looking at total ton's and things of that nature vs the Australian side of that era.

WI 1980-1990 - Played 81 test matches
AUS 1995-2005 - Played 131 test matches.
Click to expand...


Absolutely, as noted there were less matches played back then. Gavaskar also hit a lot of hundreds against them, they were spread over a fair few games though. Also Courtney Walsh was in the side for much of the 80s, and Ambrose was there for the last 3 years of it.
 
Pykie said:
It's a bit of a selective criteria. Yes the 80's was their dominant period, but Garner, Roberts, Holding, Croft all played in the 70's too.

Plenty of players had good series against them. It's not surprising that a batsman may have had a lapse series 4-6 years later that hurt their average for that decade, but my point stands, they weren't unplayable.

I'm surprised Vengsarker isn't on that list. He hit 6 x 100's against that WI side.

Other notable series:

79/80 AUS - Hughes (Ave 50), Chapell (Ave 45)
79/80 NZ- Edgar (Ave 65)
81/82 AUS - Border (Ave 67), Dyson (Ave 55)
83/84 AUS - Border (Ave 74)
83/84 IND - Vengsarker (Ave 53), Gavaskar (Ave 50)
84/85 AUS - Hilditch (Ave 61), Wessells (Ave 56)
86/87 NZ - Crowe (60)
87/88 IND - Vengsarker (Ave 101)
88/89 AUS - D.Jones (ave 64)


It's also a bit of a skewed stat when looking at total ton's and things of that nature vs the Australian side of that later era.

WI 1980-1990 - Played 81 test matches
AUS 1995-2005 - Played 131 test matches.
Click to expand...
No country was as hard to score runs against for as long as that era of west indies - didn't matter if it was home or away. In the 80's the measure of player was how you did against them
Overall Border averaged 39, Boon 39, Jones 37, Hughes 27, wood 33 (better than career)
 
Pippen94 said:
england almost always pick all rounder @ 6.
Click to expand...
I rest my case.

Seriously though, you say there is more than 1 way to select a side and I agree. We are selecting a completely hypothetical side. For me, Miller is not a lock as I wouldnt have a bowling all-rounder- you want one, that's fine, he is a lock for you but many others would go for the traditional 6 bat+wk/bat+ 4 bowler set up. As I say, with the strength of our batting line up including 4 batsmen with averages of 50+, 1 with 60 + and 1 with nigh on 100, before Gilly walks to the crease, totals of 600 would be common place and I would back a 4 prong attack including Warne, McGrath and Lillee to be able to defend that and take 20 wickets without need for a 5th bowler.
Locks are the likes of Bradman and Warne who are undoubtedly the best in their positions and would be selected by pretty much anyone. Miller is a strong candidate but not a lock unless you absolutely must have an AR..
 
Pippen94 said:
No country was as hard to score runs against for as long as that era of west indies - didn't matter if it was home or away. In the 80's the measure of player was how you did against them
Overall Border averaged 39, Boon 39, Jones 37, Hughes 27, wood 33 (better than career)
Click to expand...

You don't have to lecture me on how good they were. I remember them.

I've freely admitted they are probably the best bowling unit ever.

But, they were also human.

People roll out their names in cricket discussion as like some sort of cheat code.


It's simply not the case, there's been some very comparable quicks in the last 30 years.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Doashuey said:
I rest my case.

Seriously though, you say there is more than 1 way to select a side and I agree. We are selecting a completely hypothetical side. For me, Miller is not a lock as I wouldnt have a bowling all-rounder- you want one, that's fine, he is a lock for you but many others would go for the traditional 6 bat+wk/bat+ 4 bowler set up. As I say, with the strength of our batting line up including 4 batsmen with averages of 50+, 1 with 60 + and 1 with nigh on 100, totals of 600 would be common place and I would back a 4 prong attack including Warne, McGrath and Lillee to be able to defend that and take 20 wickets without need for a 5th bowler.
Locks are the likes of Bradman and Warne who are undoubtedly the best in their positions and would be selected by pretty much anyone. Miller is a strong candidate but not a lock unless you absolutely must have an AR..
Click to expand...

Miller arguably makes the side for his bowling alone.

He took half the amount of wickets as Lillee in half the amount of overs at a better average.

Lillee almost slots into the that same rhetoric as what I was describing above about the WI. The current 80's/90's Australian cricketers who are now commentators grew up absolutely idolising Lillee. They have passed it onto this current generation via the TV.

Of course he was one of our greatest ever, but he's not an automatic lock and levels above some of our other greats. Your post is kind of proof.

He was Australia's highest wicket taker prior to McGrath and Warne, but he also played a shitload more cricket than Davidson and Miller (despite Lilee's injuries).

Miller was a little bit better with the ball than taking a bowling AR "unless you absolutely must..."

He has one of the highest +ve differences between his bowling and batting averages in history.

FWIW, when you make these discussions, you have to decide on a location.

If I'm playing in Australia, England, South Africa ~ 100% I'm taking an attack of McGrath, Lillee, Miller and Davidson.
If I'm in the subcontinent I'm probably going with McGrath, Miller, Warne, O'Reilly and Lyon. With Clarke and Border in the side to boot.
 
Last edited:
Doashuey said:
I rest my case.

Seriously though, you say there is more than 1 way to select a side and I agree. We are selecting a completely hypothetical side. For me, Miller is not a lock as I wouldnt have a bowling all-rounder- you want one, that's fine, he is a lock for you but many others would go for the traditional 6 bat+wk/bat+ 4 bowler set up. As I say, with the strength of our batting line up including 4 batsmen with averages of 50+, 1 with 60 + and 1 with nigh on 100, before Gilly walks to the crease, totals of 600 would be common place and I would back a 4 prong attack including Warne, McGrath and Lillee to be able to defend that and take 20 wickets without need for a 5th bowler.
Locks are the likes of Bradman and Warne who are undoubtedly the best in their positions and would be selected by pretty much anyone. Miller is a strong candidate but not a lock unless you absolutely must have an AR..
Click to expand...


Given those figures it would be just as useful to pick 5 specialise bowlers
 
Pykie said:
Miller arguably makes the side for his bowling alone.

He took half the amount of wickets as Lillee in half the amount of overs at a better average.

Lillee almost slots into the that same rhetoric as what I was describing above about the WI. The current 80's/90's Australian cricketers who are now commentators grew up absolutely idolising Lillee. They have passed it onto this current generation via the TV.

Of course he was one of our greatest ever, but he's not an automatic lock and levels above some of our other greats. Your post is kind of proof.

He was Australia's highest wicket taker prior to McGrath and Warne, but he also played a shitload more cricket than Davidson and Miller (despite Lilee's injuries).

Miller was a little bit better with the ball than taking a bowling AR "unless you absolutely must..."

He has one of the highest +ve differences between his bowling and batting averages in history.

FWIW, when you make these discussions, you have to decide on a location.

If I'm playing in Australia, England, South Africa ~ 100% I'm taking an attack of McGrath, Lillee, Miller and Davidson.
If I'm in the subcontinent I'm probably going with McGrath, Miller, Warne, O'Reilly and Lyon. With Clarke and Border in the side to boot.
Click to expand...


I’m not disagreeing with you but what were Lillee’s averages and strike rates like by comparison?

If there’s two guys with very similar figures but one has had twice the longevity of another then he probably has had the better career.

Rabada and Philander have some figures that rival or better Steyn’s but no way is that a means of saying they’re in the same bracket as he is
 
PhatBoy said:
Given those figures it would be just as useful to pick 5 specialise bowlers
Click to expand...


The most interesting discussion will be where Cummins sits after 50 tests. He's on 30 at the moment.

He's absolutely on track to be in the discussion, even if he only has a 70ish test match career.

He has the best strike rate of any Australian bowler in history to have played 20+ tests.

Davidson as an example only played 40 test matches and Cummins will blow right by him for wkts in the same tests at a freakishly similar average of around 20-21.
 
PhatBoy said:
I’m not disagreeing with you but what were Lillee’s averages and strike rates like by comparison?

If there’s two guys with very similar figures but one has had twice the longevity of another then he probably has had the better career.

Rabada and Philander have some figures that rival or better Steyn’s but no way is that a means of saying they’re in the same bracket as he is
Click to expand...



Miller on the left, Lillee on the right.

1606803749015.png
 
Cummins on the left, Davidson on the right.

1606803814959.png
 
Doashuey said:
I rest my case.

Seriously though, you say there is more than 1 way to select a side and I agree. We are selecting a completely hypothetical side. For me, Miller is not a lock as I wouldnt have a bowling all-rounder- you want one, that's fine, he is a lock for you but many others would go for the traditional 6 bat+wk/bat+ 4 bowler set up. As I say, with the strength of our batting line up including 4 batsmen with averages of 50+, 1 with 60 + and 1 with nigh on 100, before Gilly walks to the crease, totals of 600 would be common place and I would back a 4 prong attack including Warne, McGrath and Lillee to be able to defend that and take 20 wickets without need for a 5th bowler.
Locks are the likes of Bradman and Warne who are undoubtedly the best in their positions and would be selected by pretty much anyone. Miller is a strong candidate but not a lock unless you absolutely must have an AR..
Click to expand...
England won ashes with Botham & Flintoff in top 7 while they aren't too bad with Stokes high up either - more than one way to skin a cat

Back to point i was making; Miller is probably Australia's greatest cricketer after Bradman. As a fast bowler his record matches up with McGrath, Lillee, Lindwall, whom ever. On top of that he averaged 37 as top order batsman - no other Aussie matches that combination. In world cricket only Khan does. Almost unfathomable not to include that a special talent in all time side.

Bat him at 7 - how many other all time teams would have a no.7 with his average??
 
Pippen94 said:
England won ashes with Botham & Flintoff in top 7 while they aren't too bad with Stokes high up either - more than one way to skin a cat

Back to point i was making; Miller is probably Australia's greatest cricketer after Bradman. As a fast bowler his record matches up with McGrath, Lillee, Lindwall, whom ever. On top of that he averaged 37 as top order batsman - no other Aussie matches that combination. In world cricket only Khan does. Almost unfathomable not to include that a special talent in all time side.

Bat him at 7 - how many other all time teams would have a no.7 with his average??
Click to expand...
I'm an unabashed Miller fan but I'd suggest it's Warne second after Bradman, then daylight.
 
Pykie said:
You don't have to lecture me on how good they were. I remember them.

I've freely admitted they are probably the best bowling unit ever.

But, they were also human.

People roll out their names in cricket discussion as like some sort of cheat code.


It's simply not the case, there's been some very comparable quicks in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
West Indies allowed to bowl more bouncers & played on worse pitches.
I liked Indian attack last time they were here but they seemed to have to sh**
West Indies fielded strong pace battery every test for 20+ years
 
PhatBoy said:
Slightly debatable.

of the 189 batsmen who faced the West Indies in the 80s, 3 of them had an average above 50.

They were Bruce Edgar from NZ, who played one series against them in 1980.
Andrew Hilditch - ironically understandable given his addiction to hook shots - who played one series against them in the mid-80s
Wasim Raja - played four tests against them in 80-81, never made a century, and had his average cushioned by a handful of not-outs.
In total only 10 players in the entire decade managed to average 40+ against them AND score a hundred.

They conceded 49 hundreds all told for the decade.

For context, 21 players hit centuries and averaged 40+ against Australia between 95-2005.
9 averaged 50+ and there were 84 hundreds hit all told.

Yes the volume of cricket increased but there's not a heck of a lot of data to suggest that batting was easier against that Windies team than it was against another great side.


I have made it very clear where I rate someone like Dale Steyn. I think there's an argument to be made that he is the best fast bowler of all time.

Imagine facing an attack that has him except he looks and bowls a lot like Malcolm Marshall. Then you have Joel Garner bowls like Morne Morkel.
Then you have someone that in terms of build is halfway between both, but quicker than both (Holding), and arguably better as a line and length bowler than any of the ultra quick express bowlers we've seen in recent times. Then there's a menace bowling nearly as quickly, from a stupid height and an impossible angle like Croft. Who just wants to hurt you.

It isn't a pleasant thought. And that's without factoring in Andy Roberts who came before Marshall.
Click to expand...

Interesting information.

In relation to batsmen who averaged 50+ against the West Indies during the 1980s, I would have thought that Gavaskar and Javed would be among the qualifiers.

Mohinder Amarnath had an excellent series against the Windies in the early 1980s, but might not have been able to sustain a 50+ average for the decade as a whole.

Gooch did well against the West Indies, but I'm probably thinking more of his innings in the first half of the 1990s.

It would be interesting to run the numbers.

What is beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the West Indies side throughout the 1980s was an awesome combination.
 
PhatBoy said:
Exactly
Click to expand...

Hilditch's weakness for the hook became apparent during the 1985 Ashes and deteriorated as the series wore on. He couldn't help himself in the 1st Test against New Zealand at the Gabba in 1985-86. The hooking problem destroyed his Test career in that game, less than a year after his fine Test comeback in Melbourne.
 
Flogwater said:
Hilditch's weakness for the hook became apparent during the 1985 Ashes and deteriorated as the series wore on. He couldn't help himself in the 1st Test against New Zealand at the Gabba in 1985-86. The hooking problem destroyed his Test career in that game, less than a year after his fine Test comeback in Melbourne.
Click to expand...

I actually remember watching footage of Hilditch's last happy hook.

I could have sworn that you could actually hear Richie banging his head against the wall afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wormkilla
Test Who will be in the next overseas Aussie Ashes test team?
Replies
21
Views
1K
The 747
The 747
C
first test of the aussie summer 23/24
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
548
Views
16K
big_e
big_e
Jascave
Test Pick a likely Australian Test team for next summer's series against India
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
5K
cricketnut14
C
Wormkilla
Test Mediocre cricketers to play 100 tests
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
C
Aussie ODI squad v West Indies
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
145
Views
5K
corbies
corbies
C
Australia test squad for NZ tour
Replies
18
Views
581
Gough
Gough
T
Hockley and 3 Test Series
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
The 747
The 747

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top