atg aussie test team

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
Part of the problem with making an ATG Australian Test team is not only that you have to consider the vastly different conditions players from different eras would have faced, but you also had to consider that players from decades ago played fewer Tests, partially because of travel issues but also partially because the game wasn't so professional or commercialised, so there wasn't that pressure on Test players to play more in a bid to justify both their contracts with the board and with third-parties.

I didn't have as many problems making a post-WSC side, because conditions wouldn't have been as diverse and the game had been professionalised and commercialised considerably by WSC. So the difference between batting and bowling averages would overall not have been especially stark, while the number of Tests played per year would have increased considerably because cricket became a full-time job rather than just an amateur competition.

So we'd need to address two questions:
1) What was the batting/bowling average during (say) Trumper's era?
2) How many Tests did they play per year back then?

Of course, you would have to assume that injury or personal issues wouldn't have prevented these players from playing more Tests. Regarding the number of Tests played, you'd assume that bowlers would miss more games due to injury, so the number of Tests they played wouldn't be weighted as far upwards as it would be for batsmen. Of course, there are other factors that would affect averages (timeless Tests testing endurance, rule changes), but it's impossible to properly consider those, so I won't even really try.

Question 1 is addressed below:

1605683797559.png


Trumper's average would be weighted upwards considerably. I would guess that the sharp bumps for both after the 1910s and 1930s were caused by Test players unfortunately dying during the respective World Wars. I'm not sure why this would affect bowlers primarily, except to guess that bowlers either came from a lower class (so were probably more likely to be drafted and pressganged into combat), or were naturally more inclined towards action - maybe a bit of both. Fortunately for all concerned, that hasn't happened since.

The sharp drops for both in the 1950s is interesting - I assume that this was partially caused by a new generation of players emerging and partially due to overcompensating for pitches that would perceived to be too flat, namely by preparing wickets differently, not covering pitches...well, you get the picture. The 1960s represented yet another correction, and one which has more or less held since.

There was a bit of a bump in the 2000s, but not as much as commonly assumed. I do reckon that pitches were a bit flatter in the 2000s, but I think much of this bump comes from Bangladesh, who IMO played Test cricket at least 10 years too early, and the deterioration of Zimbabwe due to internal politics. In the 2010's, Zimbabwe were all but rubbed out of international cricket and Bangladesh basically became 1990's Zimbabwe/SL - Test-standard but generally useless overseas. So the averages normalised some.

Now for Question 2, I couldn't find a precise figure RE how many matches were played per decade. The easiest way to get over this quandary would be to make the following assumptions:
- Not many Test matches were played from 1877-1919. I know I'm being simplistic here by not properly accounting for WWI, but for a frame of reference Victor Trumper played 48 Test matches. That would have been a lot in those days, so I'd increase that by a factor of 2.5 to get a good idea of how many he might have played in the modern era, while accounting for the fact that he was a batsman. That gets me to 120 Test matches, which might seem high, but if you consider that he played for 13 years, it's not so big a stretch. Given that he was a bowler and thus more likely to get injured, I'd increase Spofforth's number by a factor of 2 - which means I can cross him off the list for not having played enough (and because his average actually wasn't outstanding given the era he played in).

- More Test matches were played between 1920-1950, but not much more because of World War II. Wally Hammond played 85 Test matches over a span of 20 years. Ricky Ponting played Test cricket for 17 years and managed 168, while Sachin played Test cricket for 24 years and managed 200. I'll be on the conservative side and increase his number by a factor of 2, which gets me 170 Test matches. Bowlers would increase by a factor of 1.75 or so.

- Between 1951-1976, more Test matches would have been played, but cricket was still an amateur distraction from the demands of work, plus SA were banned after 1970. Considering that Neil Harvey's 79 Tests in 15 years was around 1.25 more than Wally Hammond's, I'll increase his number by a factor of 1.75, which would get him to 119 Test matches. Bowlers would increase by around 1.5 or so.

- From 1977-1979, one has to account for the impact of WSC - the standard of cricket was high (albeit inconsistent), so you have to consider that when evaluating players. Players could play up to 16 SuperTests.

- After 1979, the game would have been professionalised, so Test players would have played markedly more Tests. ODIs and T20s would have cut into their Test records a little - AB actually played more Tests per year than Ricky Ponting did - but not enough for me to seriously affect the weightings.

I will also weigh in favour of a player if they've been placed in the following (in order):
1) Wisden's Cricketers of the Century (up to 2000)
2) My Top 50 post-WSC (current)
3) Six Giants of the Wisden Century (up to 1963)
4) Richie Benaud's Greatest XI (up to 2004)
5) Wisden's ATG Test XI (up to 2013)
6) ACB Team of the Century (up to 2000)
7) ICC Hall of Fame (up to 2013 ATM)
8) CA Hall of Fame (up to 2012 ATM)

I've obviously weighted the more recent ones a bit higher so current players aren't too disadvantaged in favour of older players. Additionally, the smaller the list, the higher weighting it receives. I've placed Wisden below Richie just because of their sheer stupidity - what sort of halfwit doesn't include Gilchrist in their ATG Test XI? Also, being recognised internationally obviously beats merely being recognised domestically.

One very important yet often overlooked factor is how a player fits into a side. If a player doesn't fully fit into the side, I'd be less inclined to select them.

So with the above in mind, here is my 1st XI, with my reasoning (obviously in batting order, not overall quality):
1) Victor Trumper - If you weight his record accordingly, he averaged 53 after 120 Test matches, which is a phenomenal achievement. That he's been selected in 3, 7 and 8, while given an honourable mention in 4, gives him the nod. Granted, he did best in the middle order, but one assumes that opening on sticky wickets would have been trickier than batting in the middle order.

2) Arthur Morris - This was an extremely hard call, especially since his main competitor averaged over 50 after 100+ Test matches. Weighted accordingly, I'd say that Morris' record is the equivalent of playing over 80 Tests and averaging 48-49 in the modern day. What swings me towards Morris rather than Hayden is that 1) his average is not inflated by belting a county-standard ZIM side, 2) he appears not to have had Hayden's issues with swing and seam and 3) he's received more of the above accolades.

3) Don Bradman - 'nuff said.

4) Greg Chappell - Pretty much explained here, plus add a few more gongs.

5) Steve Waugh* - Although I ranked Allan Border higher in my Top 50, there's very little difference between him and Steve Waugh in practice. Border had to deal with more and set up Australia's future success (hence my higher ranking), but Waugh's aggressive, ruthless style of captaincy would suit this side far better than Border's relatively defensive approach. He was at his best at #5, and was a useful quick when he was younger.

6) Keith Miller - I almost selected Ricky Ponting in this side, but it would seem to me that, besides winning more gongs, Miller simply fitted into this team better. If you weight his record, he would have played over 80 Tests, scored over 4000 runs and taken over 250 wickets. Sure, his batting and (almost certainly) fielding were inferior to Ponting's, but his batting record is better than it looks given the context, and the nature of the occasion would bring the best out of him. He's also an ideal partnership breaker. It could well be, however, that Steve Smith's eventual record might make me change my mind, but that's some way off.

7) Adam Gilchrist+ - 'nuff said. I assume that all of Wisden's selectors were drunk or high when they made their XI.

8) Shane Warne - 'nuff said.

9) Ray Lindwall - If you weight his record, it transpires that he would have played almost 100 Tests, which is very impressive for a quick. For much of his career, he played in a relatively easy era for quicks, but IMO Alan Davidson had it easier in this regard. Davidson offered left-arm variety and was a better batsman, but Lindwall was faster and has a larger body of work. Also Lindwall has received more of the above gongs than Davidson, so he gets the nod.

10) Dennis Lillee - 'nuff said.

11) Glenn McGrath - 'nuff said.

2nd XI

1) Matthew Hayden - 'nuff said.

2) Bob Simpson - Ponsford is unlucky, but even if you weight his record he simply hasn't played enough, plus he doesn't actually have much of an advantage over Simpson when you consider his era. Simpson could also provide some part-time leg spin. Langer, Taylor and Lawry were unlucky, especially in light of Langer's partnership with Hayden. Weighted properly, he would have played 105-110 Test matches.

3) Ricky Ponting - 'nuff said.

4) Steve Smith - 'nuff said.

5) Neil Harvey - Usually batted higher up the order, but his record shows that he most likely would have fared very well here. He might be a miserable fart, but he was also a very talented one. Also an extremely good fielder. I actually think that Michael Clarke was a fractionally better cricketer because of his captaincy/bowling, but he wouldn't be as important to this particular side as Harvey IMO. No doubt that he'd also be thrilled to be batting alongside Ricky Ponting (can you say sarcasm?). Gongs are a relevant factor.

6) Allan Border - 'nuff said. Was made 12th man in 6.

7) Ian Healy+ - I had a hell of a time picking between him and Rod Marsh. After all, they both have two gongs. I placed Healy fractionally higher in my Top 50, but I realise now that I didn't weight Marsh properly. Marsh's record would be more extensive than Healy's if weighted properly. That said, the ACB plumped for Healy in their team of the century, and the consensus is that Healy was a fractionally superior keeper to Marsh. So I'd still pick Healy, but I could hardly begrudge someone for preferring Marsh.

8) Alan Davidson - A very fine left-arm quick and a very good lower-order batsman. Weighted accordingly, he would have played over 65 Tests.

9) Richie Benaud* - I do think that O'Reilly was the better spinner, especially when one considers the eras they both played in, but Benaud was one of the finest captains ever, was a very good lower-order batsman and was still a very good spinner. Additionally, if you weight his record he would have played almost 100 Tests. Normally you'd pick the better bowler in your XI, but Benaud added so much to the side in other ways that I couldn't have reasonably overlooked him for the 2nd XI.

10) Pat Cummins - It's a reflection of how good he is that he'd make the 2nd XI despite playing relatively few Tests.

11) Jason Gillespie - There have certainly been better Australian quicks, but none with Gillespie's overall record. Mitchell Johnson is close, but Davidson renders him superfluous by comparison. Thomson was a freak of nature as a bowler, but also a much poorer professional who couldn't offer Gillespie's batting or consistency. Admittedly weighting Thomson's career would place his record in Gillespie's ballpark.

Honourable mentions:
- JL Langer
- NM Lyon
- MG Johnson
- C Grimmett
- MEK Hussey
- MJ Clarke
- R Marsh+
- MA Taylor
- DC Boon
- JR Thomson
- W O'Reilly
- ME Waugh
- WH Ponsford
- CJ McDermott
- Anyone else in my Top 25 post-WSC
- Any Australian in the CA/ICC Hall of Fame

EDIT: I don't know why I'd be so stupid as to forget Bob Simpson's very existence, especially since he averaged mid-50's as an opener. I'll keep the 1st XI as it is due to the weight of consensus, but I've edited the 2nd XI.
 
Last edited:

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
Because Cummins hasn't done enough to pass him for me yet and I think he was a better bowler than Mitchell Johnson. I was 50/50 on him or McDermott though

He was a better ODI bowler, but absolutely not a better Test bowler.

Also Johnson was a better Test batsman and fielder.
 
Think this thread has been done a million times, nobody ever left DK out until the soccer troll came along. And usually the Hayden way is to be ignorant of Trumper rather than Morris, so I guess there's some originality to this installment.

But as I've been implying on here for a while now, to pass any truly original thought about the game at this point, one must broaden his or her horizons...
Clark*
Rolton
Annetts
Perry
Wilson
Kennare
Fields+
Fullston
Fitzpatrick
Thompson
Antonio
Sthalekar (12th)
 
Jan 13, 2015
1,519
904
AFL Club
Sydney
Part of the problem with making an ATG Australian Test team is not only that you have to consider the vastly different conditions players from different eras would have faced, but you also had to consider that players from decades ago played fewer Tests, partially because of travel issues but also partially because the game wasn't so professional or commercialised, so there wasn't that pressure on Test players to play more in a bid to justify both their contracts with the board and with third-parties.

I didn't have as many problems making a post-WSC side, because conditions wouldn't have been as diverse and the game had been professionalised and commercialised considerably by WSC. So the difference between batting and bowling averages would overall not have been especially stark, while the number of Tests played per year would have increased considerably because cricket became a full-time job rather than just an amateur competition.

So we'd need to address two questions:
1) What was the batting/bowling average during (say) Trumper's era?
2) How many Tests did they play per year back then?

Of course, you would have to assume that injury or personal issues wouldn't have prevented these players from playing more Tests. Regarding the number of Tests played, you'd assume that bowlers would miss more games due to injury, so the number of Tests they played wouldn't be weighted as far upwards as it would be for batsmen. Of course, there are other factors that would affect averages (timeless Tests testing endurance, rule changes), but it's impossible to properly consider those, so I won't even really try.

Question 1 is addressed below:

View attachment 1014123

Trumper's average would be weighted upwards considerably. I would guess that the sharp bumps for both after the 1910s and 1930s were caused by Test players unfortunately dying during the respective World Wars. I'm not sure why this would affect bowlers primarily, except to guess that bowlers either came from a lower class (so were probably more likely to be drafted and pressganged into combat), or were naturally more inclined towards action - maybe a bit of both. Fortunately for all concerned, that hasn't happened since.

The sharp drops for both in the 1950s is interesting - I assume that this was partially caused by a new generation of players emerging and partially due to overcompensating for pitches that would perceived to be too flat, namely by preparing wickets differently, not covering pitches...well, you get the picture. The 1960s represented yet another correction, and one which has more or less held since.

There was a bit of a bump in the 2000s, but not as much as commonly assumed. I do reckon that pitches were a bit flatter in the 2000s, but I think much of this bump comes from Bangladesh, who IMO played Test cricket at least 10 years too early, and the deterioration of Zimbabwe due to internal politics. In the 2010's, Zimbabwe were all but rubbed out of international cricket and Bangladesh basically became 1990's Zimbabwe/SL - Test-standard but generally useless overseas. So the averages normalised some.

Now for Question 2, I couldn't find a precise figure RE how many matches were played per decade. The easiest way to get over this quandary would be to make the following assumptions:
- Not many Test matches were played from 1877-1919. I know I'm being simplistic here by not properly accounting for WWI, but for a frame of reference Victor Trumper played 48 Test matches. That would have been a lot in those days, so I'd increase that by a factor of 2.5 to get a good idea of how many he might have played in the modern era, while accounting for the fact that he was a batsman. That gets me to 120 Test matches, which might seem high, but if you consider that he played for 13 years, it's not so big a stretch. Given that he was a bowler and thus more likely to get injured, I'd increase Spofforth's number by a factor of 2 - which means I can cross him off the list for not having played enough (and because his average actually wasn't outstanding given the era he played in).

- More Test matches were played between 1920-1950, but not much more because of World War II. Wally Hammond played 85 Test matches over a span of 20 years. Ricky Ponting played Test cricket for 17 years and managed 168, while Sachin played Test cricket for 24 years and managed 200. I'll be on the conservative side and increase his number by a factor of 2, which gets me 170 Test matches. Bowlers would increase by a factor of 1.75 or so.

- Between 1951-1976, more Test matches would have been played, but cricket was still an amateur distraction from the demands of work, plus SA were banned after 1970. Considering that Neil Harvey's 79 Tests in 15 years was around 1.25 more than Wally Hammond's, I'll increase his number by a factor of 1.75, which would get him to 119 Test matches. Bowlers would increase by around 1.5 or so.

- From 1977-1979, one has to account for the impact of WSC - the standard of cricket was high (albeit inconsistent), so you have to consider that when evaluating players. Players could play up to 16 SuperTests.

- After 1979, the game would have been professionalised, so Test players would have played markedly more Tests. ODIs and T20s would have cut into their Test records a little - AB actually played more Tests per year than Ricky Ponting did - but not enough for me to seriously affect the weightings.

I will also weigh in favour of a player if they've been placed in the following (in order):
1) Wisden's Cricketers of the Century (up to 2000)
2) My Top 50 post-WSC (current)
3) Six Giants of the Wisden Century (up to 1963)
4) Richie Benaud's Greatest XI (up to 2004)
5) Wisden's ATG Test XI (up to 2013)
6) ACB Team of the Century (up to 2000)
7) ICC Hall of Fame (up to 2013 ATM)
8) CA Hall of Fame (up to 2012 ATM)

I've obviously weighted the more recent ones a bit higher so current players aren't too disadvantaged in favour of older players. Additionally, the smaller the list, the higher weighting it receives. I've placed Wisden below Richie just because of their sheer stupidity - what sort of halfwit doesn't include Gilchrist in their ATG Test XI? Also, being recognised internationally obviously beats merely being recognised domestically.

One very important yet often overlooked factor is how a player fits into a side. If a player doesn't fully fit into the side, I'd be less inclined to select them.

So with the above in mind, here is my 1st XI, with my reasoning (obviously in batting order, not overall quality):
1) Victor Trumper - If you weight his record accordingly, he averaged 53 after 120 Test matches, which is a phenomenal achievement. That he's been selected in 3, 7 and 8, while given an honourable mention in 4, gives him the nod. Granted, he did best in the middle order, but one assumes that opening on sticky wickets would have been trickier than batting in the middle order.

2) Arthur Morris - This was an extremely hard call, especially since his main competitor averaged over 50 after 100+ Test matches. Weighted accordingly, I'd say that Morris' record is the equivalent of playing over 80 Tests and averaging 48-49 in the modern day. What swings me towards Morris rather than Hayden is that 1) his average is not inflated by belting a county-standard ZIM side, 2) he appears not to have had Hayden's issues with swing and seam and 3) he's received more of the above accolades.

3) Don Bradman - 'nuff said.

4) Greg Chappell - Pretty much explained here, plus add a few more gongs.

5) Steve Waugh* - Although I ranked Allan Border higher in my Top 50, there's very little difference between him and Steve Waugh in practice. Border had to deal with more and set up Australia's future success (hence my higher ranking), but Waugh's aggressive, ruthless style of captaincy would suit this side far better than Border's relatively defensive approach. He was at his best at #5, and was a useful quick when he was younger.

6) Keith Miller - I almost selected Ricky Ponting in this side, but it would seem to me that, besides winning more gongs, Miller simply fitted into this team better. If you weight his record, he would have played over 80 Tests, scored over 4000 runs and taken over 250 wickets. Sure, his batting and (almost certainly) fielding were inferior to Ponting's, but his batting record is better than it looks given the context, and the nature of the occasion would bring the best out of him. He's also an ideal partnership breaker. It could well be, however, that Steve Smith's eventual record might make me change my mind, but that's some way off.

7) Adam Gilchrist+ - 'nuff said. I assume that all of Wisden's selectors were drunk or high when they made their XI.

8) Shane Warne - 'nuff said.

9) Ray Lindwall - If you weight his record, it transpires that he would have played almost 100 Tests, which is very impressive for a quick. For much of his career, he played in a relatively easy era for quicks, but IMO Alan Davidson had it easier in this regard. Davidson offered left-arm variety and was a better batsman, but Lindwall was faster and has a larger body of work. Also Lindwall has received more of the above gongs than Davidson, so he gets the nod.

10) Dennis Lillee - 'nuff said.

11) Glenn McGrath - 'nuff said.

2nd XI

1) Matthew Hayden - 'nuff said.

2) Bob Simpson - Ponsford is unlucky, but even if you weight his record he simply hasn't played enough, plus he doesn't actually have much of an advantage over Simpson when you consider his era. Simpson could also provide some part-time leg spin. Langer, Taylor and Lawry were unlucky, especially in light of Langer's partnership with Hayden. Weighted properly, he would have played 105-110 Test matches.

3) Ricky Ponting - 'nuff said.

4) Steve Smith - 'nuff said.

5) Neil Harvey - Usually batted higher up the order, but his record shows that he most likely would have fared very well here. He might be a miserable fart, but he was also a very talented one. Also an extremely good fielder. I actually think that Michael Clarke was a fractionally better cricketer because of his captaincy/bowling, but he wouldn't be as important to this particular side as Harvey IMO. No doubt that he'd also be thrilled to be batting alongside Ricky Ponting (can you say sarcasm?). Gongs are a relevant factor.

6) Allan Border - 'nuff said. Was made 12th man in 6.

7) Ian Healy+ - I had a hell of a time picking between him and Rod Marsh. After all, they both have two gongs. I placed Healy fractionally higher in my Top 50, but I realise now that I didn't weight Marsh properly. Marsh's record would be more extensive than Healy's if weighted properly. That said, the ACB plumped for Healy in their team of the century, and the consensus is that Healy was a fractionally superior keeper to Marsh. So I'd still pick Healy, but I could hardly begrudge someone for preferring Marsh.

8) Alan Davidson - A very fine left-arm quick and a very good lower-order batsman. Weighted accordingly, he would have played over 65 Tests.

9) Richie Benaud* - I do think that O'Reilly was the better spinner, especially when one considers the eras they both played in, but Benaud was one of the finest captains ever, was a very good lower-order batsman and was still a very good spinner. Additionally, if you weight his record he would have played almost 100 Tests. Normally you'd pick the better bowler in your XI, but Benaud added so much to the side in other ways that I couldn't have reasonably overlooked him for the 2nd XI.

10) Pat Cummins - It's a reflection of how good he is that he'd make the 2nd XI despite playing relatively few Tests.

11) Jason Gillespie - There have certainly been better Australian quicks, but none with Gillespie's overall record. Mitchell Johnson is close, but Davidson renders him superfluous by comparison. Thomson was a freak of nature as a bowler, but also a much poorer professional who couldn't offer Gillespie's batting or consistency. Admittedly weighting Thomson's career would place his record in Gillespie's ballpark.

Honourable mentions:
- JL Langer
- NM Lyon
- MG Johnson
- C Grimmett
- MEK Hussey
- MJ Clarke
- R Marsh+
- MA Taylor
- DC Boon
- JR Thomson
- W O'Reilly
- ME Waugh
- WH Ponsford
- CJ McDermott
- Anyone else in my Top 25 post-WSC
- Any Australian in the CA/ICC Hall of Fame

EDIT: I don't know why I'd be so stupid as to forget Bob Simpson's very existence, especially since he averaged mid-50's as an opener. I'll keep the 1st XI as it is due to the weight of consensus, but I've edited the 2nd XI.


love your work.
 

Pippen94

Cancelled
Jun 12, 2019
2,670
976
AFL Club
Sydney
Part of the problem with making an ATG Australian Test team is not only that you have to consider the vastly different conditions players from different eras would have faced, but you also had to consider that players from decades ago played fewer Tests, partially because of travel issues but also partially because the game wasn't so professional or commercialised, so there wasn't that pressure on Test players to play more in a bid to justify both their contracts with the board and with third-parties.

I didn't have as many problems making a post-WSC side, because conditions wouldn't have been as diverse and the game had been professionalised and commercialised considerably by WSC. So the difference between batting and bowling averages would overall not have been especially stark, while the number of Tests played per year would have increased considerably because cricket became a full-time job rather than just an amateur competition.

So we'd need to address two questions:
1) What was the batting/bowling average during (say) Trumper's era?
2) How many Tests did they play per year back then?

Of course, you would have to assume that injury or personal issues wouldn't have prevented these players from playing more Tests. Regarding the number of Tests played, you'd assume that bowlers would miss more games due to injury, so the number of Tests they played wouldn't be weighted as far upwards as it would be for batsmen. Of course, there are other factors that would affect averages (timeless Tests testing endurance, rule changes), but it's impossible to properly consider those, so I won't even really try.

Question 1 is addressed below:

View attachment 1014123

Trumper's average would be weighted upwards considerably. I would guess that the sharp bumps for both after the 1910s and 1930s were caused by Test players unfortunately dying during the respective World Wars. I'm not sure why this would affect bowlers primarily, except to guess that bowlers either came from a lower class (so were probably more likely to be drafted and pressganged into combat), or were naturally more inclined towards action - maybe a bit of both. Fortunately for all concerned, that hasn't happened since.

The sharp drops for both in the 1950s is interesting - I assume that this was partially caused by a new generation of players emerging and partially due to overcompensating for pitches that would perceived to be too flat, namely by preparing wickets differently, not covering pitches...well, you get the picture. The 1960s represented yet another correction, and one which has more or less held since.

There was a bit of a bump in the 2000s, but not as much as commonly assumed. I do reckon that pitches were a bit flatter in the 2000s, but I think much of this bump comes from Bangladesh, who IMO played Test cricket at least 10 years too early, and the deterioration of Zimbabwe due to internal politics. In the 2010's, Zimbabwe were all but rubbed out of international cricket and Bangladesh basically became 1990's Zimbabwe/SL - Test-standard but generally useless overseas. So the averages normalised some.

Now for Question 2, I couldn't find a precise figure RE how many matches were played per decade. The easiest way to get over this quandary would be to make the following assumptions:
- Not many Test matches were played from 1877-1919. I know I'm being simplistic here by not properly accounting for WWI, but for a frame of reference Victor Trumper played 48 Test matches. That would have been a lot in those days, so I'd increase that by a factor of 2.5 to get a good idea of how many he might have played in the modern era, while accounting for the fact that he was a batsman. That gets me to 120 Test matches, which might seem high, but if you consider that he played for 13 years, it's not so big a stretch. Given that he was a bowler and thus more likely to get injured, I'd increase Spofforth's number by a factor of 2 - which means I can cross him off the list for not having played enough (and because his average actually wasn't outstanding given the era he played in).

- More Test matches were played between 1920-1950, but not much more because of World War II. Wally Hammond played 85 Test matches over a span of 20 years. Ricky Ponting played Test cricket for 17 years and managed 168, while Sachin played Test cricket for 24 years and managed 200. I'll be on the conservative side and increase his number by a factor of 2, which gets me 170 Test matches. Bowlers would increase by a factor of 1.75 or so.

- Between 1951-1976, more Test matches would have been played, but cricket was still an amateur distraction from the demands of work, plus SA were banned after 1970. Considering that Neil Harvey's 79 Tests in 15 years was around 1.25 more than Wally Hammond's, I'll increase his number by a factor of 1.75, which would get him to 119 Test matches. Bowlers would increase by around 1.5 or so.

- From 1977-1979, one has to account for the impact of WSC - the standard of cricket was high (albeit inconsistent), so you have to consider that when evaluating players. Players could play up to 16 SuperTests.

- After 1979, the game would have been professionalised, so Test players would have played markedly more Tests. ODIs and T20s would have cut into their Test records a little - AB actually played more Tests per year than Ricky Ponting did - but not enough for me to seriously affect the weightings.

I will also weigh in favour of a player if they've been placed in the following (in order):
1) Wisden's Cricketers of the Century (up to 2000)
2) My Top 50 post-WSC (current)
3) Six Giants of the Wisden Century (up to 1963)
4) Richie Benaud's Greatest XI (up to 2004)
5) Wisden's ATG Test XI (up to 2013)
6) ACB Team of the Century (up to 2000)
7) ICC Hall of Fame (up to 2013 ATM)
8) CA Hall of Fame (up to 2012 ATM)

I've obviously weighted the more recent ones a bit higher so current players aren't too disadvantaged in favour of older players. Additionally, the smaller the list, the higher weighting it receives. I've placed Wisden below Richie just because of their sheer stupidity - what sort of halfwit doesn't include Gilchrist in their ATG Test XI? Also, being recognised internationally obviously beats merely being recognised domestically.

One very important yet often overlooked factor is how a player fits into a side. If a player doesn't fully fit into the side, I'd be less inclined to select them.

So with the above in mind, here is my 1st XI, with my reasoning (obviously in batting order, not overall quality):
1) Victor Trumper - If you weight his record accordingly, he averaged 53 after 120 Test matches, which is a phenomenal achievement. That he's been selected in 3, 7 and 8, while given an honourable mention in 4, gives him the nod. Granted, he did best in the middle order, but one assumes that opening on sticky wickets would have been trickier than batting in the middle order.

2) Arthur Morris - This was an extremely hard call, especially since his main competitor averaged over 50 after 100+ Test matches. Weighted accordingly, I'd say that Morris' record is the equivalent of playing over 80 Tests and averaging 48-49 in the modern day. What swings me towards Morris rather than Hayden is that 1) his average is not inflated by belting a county-standard ZIM side, 2) he appears not to have had Hayden's issues with swing and seam and 3) he's received more of the above accolades.

3) Don Bradman - 'nuff said.

4) Greg Chappell - Pretty much explained here, plus add a few more gongs.

5) Steve Waugh* - Although I ranked Allan Border higher in my Top 50, there's very little difference between him and Steve Waugh in practice. Border had to deal with more and set up Australia's future success (hence my higher ranking), but Waugh's aggressive, ruthless style of captaincy would suit this side far better than Border's relatively defensive approach. He was at his best at #5, and was a useful quick when he was younger.

6) Keith Miller - I almost selected Ricky Ponting in this side, but it would seem to me that, besides winning more gongs, Miller simply fitted into this team better. If you weight his record, he would have played over 80 Tests, scored over 4000 runs and taken over 250 wickets. Sure, his batting and (almost certainly) fielding were inferior to Ponting's, but his batting record is better than it looks given the context, and the nature of the occasion would bring the best out of him. He's also an ideal partnership breaker. It could well be, however, that Steve Smith's eventual record might make me change my mind, but that's some way off.

7) Adam Gilchrist+ - 'nuff said. I assume that all of Wisden's selectors were drunk or high when they made their XI.

8) Shane Warne - 'nuff said.

9) Ray Lindwall - If you weight his record, it transpires that he would have played almost 100 Tests, which is very impressive for a quick. For much of his career, he played in a relatively easy era for quicks, but IMO Alan Davidson had it easier in this regard. Davidson offered left-arm variety and was a better batsman, but Lindwall was faster and has a larger body of work. Also Lindwall has received more of the above gongs than Davidson, so he gets the nod.

10) Dennis Lillee - 'nuff said.

11) Glenn McGrath - 'nuff said.

2nd XI

1) Matthew Hayden - 'nuff said.

2) Bob Simpson - Ponsford is unlucky, but even if you weight his record he simply hasn't played enough, plus he doesn't actually have much of an advantage over Simpson when you consider his era. Simpson could also provide some part-time leg spin. Langer, Taylor and Lawry were unlucky, especially in light of Langer's partnership with Hayden. Weighted properly, he would have played 105-110 Test matches.

3) Ricky Ponting - 'nuff said.

4) Steve Smith - 'nuff said.

5) Neil Harvey - Usually batted higher up the order, but his record shows that he most likely would have fared very well here. He might be a miserable fart, but he was also a very talented one. Also an extremely good fielder. I actually think that Michael Clarke was a fractionally better cricketer because of his captaincy/bowling, but he wouldn't be as important to this particular side as Harvey IMO. No doubt that he'd also be thrilled to be batting alongside Ricky Ponting (can you say sarcasm?). Gongs are a relevant factor.

6) Allan Border - 'nuff said. Was made 12th man in 6.

7) Ian Healy+ - I had a hell of a time picking between him and Rod Marsh. After all, they both have two gongs. I placed Healy fractionally higher in my Top 50, but I realise now that I didn't weight Marsh properly. Marsh's record would be more extensive than Healy's if weighted properly. That said, the ACB plumped for Healy in their team of the century, and the consensus is that Healy was a fractionally superior keeper to Marsh. So I'd still pick Healy, but I could hardly begrudge someone for preferring Marsh.

8) Alan Davidson - A very fine left-arm quick and a very good lower-order batsman. Weighted accordingly, he would have played over 65 Tests.

9) Richie Benaud* - I do think that O'Reilly was the better spinner, especially when one considers the eras they both played in, but Benaud was one of the finest captains ever, was a very good lower-order batsman and was still a very good spinner. Additionally, if you weight his record he would have played almost 100 Tests. Normally you'd pick the better bowler in your XI, but Benaud added so much to the side in other ways that I couldn't have reasonably overlooked him for the 2nd XI.

10) Pat Cummins - It's a reflection of how good he is that he'd make the 2nd XI despite playing relatively few Tests.

11) Jason Gillespie - There have certainly been better Australian quicks, but none with Gillespie's overall record. Mitchell Johnson is close, but Davidson renders him superfluous by comparison. Thomson was a freak of nature as a bowler, but also a much poorer professional who couldn't offer Gillespie's batting or consistency. Admittedly weighting Thomson's career would place his record in Gillespie's ballpark.

Honourable mentions:
- JL Langer
- NM Lyon
- MG Johnson
- C Grimmett
- MEK Hussey
- MJ Clarke
- R Marsh+
- MA Taylor
- DC Boon
- JR Thomson
- W O'Reilly
- ME Waugh
- WH Ponsford
- CJ McDermott
- Anyone else in my Top 25 post-WSC
- Any Australian in the CA/ICC Hall of Fame

EDIT: I don't know why I'd be so stupid as to forget Bob Simpson's very existence, especially since he averaged mid-50's as an opener. I'll keep the 1st XI as it is due to the weight of consensus, but I've edited the 2nd XI.
Don't let anybody say you didn't put much thought into it
 

Pippen94

Cancelled
Jun 12, 2019
2,670
976
AFL Club
Sydney
Think this thread has been done a million times, nobody ever left DK out until the soccer troll came along. And usually the Hayden way is to be ignorant of Trumper rather than Morris, so I guess there's some originality to this installment.

But as I've been implying on here for a while now, to pass any truly original thought about the game at this point, one must broaden his or her horizons...
Clark*
Rolton
Annetts
Perry
Wilson
Kennare
Fields+
Fullston
Fitzpatrick
Thompson
Antonio
Sthalekar (12th)
Well Australia keeps playing tests hence need to regularly revisit. Meanwhile women's team rarely play tests...
 

DeadlyAkkuret

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Mar 10, 2007
29,393
17,528
Ensconced in velvet
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Lakers, West Ham
And a "rest of the world" XI to play them:

Hobbs (c)
Sutcliffe
Sangakkara
Kallis
Tendulkar
Sobers
Ames (+)
I Khan
Marshall
Kumble
Murali

Does anyone else miss the days of the Australia V World XI games? I know it was common but I always loved events like that. Australia V Australia A as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ok Boomer

Cancelled
A Star Wars Fan Pokemon is Life
Jul 27, 2015
8,965
14,495
South West
AFL Club
West Coast
1) Hayden
2) Ponsford
3) Bradman (c)
4) Ponting
5) Smith
6) Miller
7) Gilchrist
8) Warne
9) Lillee
10) O'Reilly
11) McGrath

12) G Chappell

Toughest decisions are the second opener after Haydos the arrogant brute, the number 5 and the fourth bowler after Warne, McGrath, Lillee. With Miller in the side, I do not have a problem picking a second spinner. I think Lindwall gets underrated in these discussions too.
 
1) Hayden
2) Ponsford
3) Bradman (c)
4) Ponting
5) Smith
6) Miller
7) Gilchrist
8) Warne
9) Lillee
10) O'Reilly
11) McGrath

12) G Chappell

Toughest decisions are the second opener after Haydos the arrogant brute, the number 5 and the fourth bowler after Warne, McGrath, Lillee. With Miller in the side, I do not have a problem picking a second spinner. I think Lindwall gets underrated in these discussions too.

Good side. Personally I couldn't have Hayden, there was a bit of Flat Track Bullying with him. I would have Greg Chappell in, shift Miller down 1, OReilly 12th. I wouldn't have two spinners.
 

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
My all time team would go with two spinners (Warne and O'Reilly) with Miller batting #6 to provide an excellent third quick bowling option. Miller's performances with the ball alone could warrant selection.

?, ?, Bradman, Smith, ?, Miller, Gilchrist, Warne, O'Reilly, Lillee, McGrath

Both opening positions are really tight. I'd probably rank them Ponsford, Hayden, Woodfull, Simpson, Lawry as my top five Australian openers but would need to think about more.

The fifth spot again is very tight and likewise would need to think about it more but at first thought would probably rank them Ponting, Chappell, Border, S Waugh as the next best Australian middle order batsmen behind Bradman and Smith.

The other eight positions are absolute locks for mine.

An all time Test XI for Australia with 2 spinners in it doesn't feel like it really reflects us as a cricketing nation tbh.
Not sure I'd completely agree with this. Certainly our preferred bowling set up is 3 quick bowlers and a spinner (as is the case for any non Asian test team aside from West Indies from the mid 70's to early 90's).

But we've got a reasonably decent history of playing two spinners - O'Reilly and Grimmett played 15 tests alongside each other. Richie Benaud played 15 tests alongside Bill Johnston, 17 next to Ian Johnson and 13 with Lindsay Kline. Johnston and Johnson played 29 tests as teammates (Johnston was a Colin Miller style medium and off spin combo). Warne played 16 with MacGill, 17 with May and 9 with MIller.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
My all time team would go with two spinners (Warne and O'Reilly) with Miller batting #6 to provide an excellent third quick bowling option. Miller's performances with the ball alone could warrant selection.

?, ?, Bradman, Smith, ?, Miller, Gilchrist, Warne, O'Reilly, Lillee, McGrath

Both opening positions are really tight. I'd probably rank them Ponsford, Hayden, Woodfull, Simpson, Lawry as my top five Australian openers but would need to think about more.

The fifth spot again is very tight and likewise would need to think about it more but at first thought would probably rank them Ponting, Chappell, Border, S Waugh as the next best Australian middle order batsmen behind Bradman and Smith.

The other eight positions are absolute locks for mine.


Not sure I'd completely agree with this. Certainly our preferred bowling set up is 3 quick bowlers and a spinner (as is the case for any non Asian test team aside from West Indies from the mid 70's to early 90's).

But we've got a reasonably decent history of playing two spinners - O'Reilly and Grimmett played 15 tests alongside each other. Richie Benaud played 15 tests alongside Bill Johnston, 17 next to Ian Johnson and 13 with Lindsay Kline. Johnston and Johnson played 29 tests as teammates (Johnston was a Colin Miller style medium and off spin combo). Warne played 16 with MacGill, 17 with May and 9 with MIller.

1) The only reason why I didn't have Smith as a lock at #4 is simply because of reduced longevity, an especially telling measure against a batsman as talented as Greg Chappell. His failures with the captaincy also tarnish him a little in my eyes.

2) Ponsford and Woodfull didn't play enough, even with their match numbers adjusted to accord with modern numbers. Woodfull would have played 70 Tests at around the same average, which while good wasn't as good as Morris.

3) No consideration of Victor Trumper? I get that he was better in the middle order, but opening on sticky wickets was like hell on earth. In that context, averaging 30's opening is actually really impressive. In modern conditions, he wouldn't have that problem, so there's no reason why he couldn't have played 120 Tests in the modern era (as I've argued).

4) I picked Steve Waugh as captain not just because of his sheer mental toughness and his ability to conjure up backs-to-the-wall knocks like they were going out of fashion, but also because his aggressive, attacking captaincy style would likely beat most of this side's opponents into submission.

5) RE O'Reilly, he was an enormously effective legspinner, seemingly a superior version to Kumble in that he bowled at medium pace while trading on subtle variations, while his action made picking him up worse. Somebody like that is going to be nightmare on a dustbowl, because all he'd need to do is fire at the pitch and let it do his work. However, in today's age, the opposition will watch a lot of O'Reilly and he would have lost some of his mystique and thus effectiveness. With those conditions in mind, I'd have a bowling lineup of Lindwall, Lillee, McGrath and Warne. Lindwall would make it well into My Top 50 if his era was covered.
 
Last edited:

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
2) Ponsford and Woodfull didn't play enough, even with their match numbers adjusted to accord with modern numbers. Woodfull would have played 70 Tests at around the same average, which while good wasn't as good as Morris.
Ponsford played 29 of 40 tests from his debut to final game. Woodfull played 35 of 35. I think you've probably undersold how many tests they would have played if they were playing today. Not sure if Ponsford was injured or unavailable due to work duties etc. They were first choice openers for 10 and 8 years, which IMO is more the enough longevity for selection in an all time Australian XI.

Morris was a massive oversight from mine. He might even be in front of Hayden. Again, would need to look more closely at numbers and performances across the board. I would also consider playing Hayden in a team even if he wasn't rated top 2 due to his aggressiveness.
3) No consideration of Victor Trumper? I get that he was better in the middle order, but opening on sticky wickets was like hell on earth. In that context, averaging 30's opening is actually really impressive. In modern conditions, he wouldn't have that problem, so there's no reason why he couldn't have played 120 Tests in the modern era (as I've argued).
All pre-WWI cricketers are hard to pin down on where they sit because averages are skewed significantly lower. Also making the case foggier is a huge discrepancy in performances from pretty much every pre WWI cricketer against England compared to the weaker South Africans.

It's a bloody tough one and I wonder if there has ever been a real good attempt of normalising performances pre-WWI? If there has been I haven't seen it.

Trumper, HIll, Bardsley and Armstrong lead the charge of pre-WWI Australian batsmen but it's very difficult to judge whether the adjustment of poor batting conditions to modern conditions is enough to bring them up to the level of Hayden, Ponsford, Ponting, Border greatness or are they still on that level below with the likes of Taylor, Slater, Martyn, Ian Chappell etc.

Is it as simple as saying pre-WWI batsmen scored 23 runs per dismissal, whilst since WWI it's been 30.7 (with generally a gentle upwards rising from 1920's to a peak in the 2000's), so we simply multiple pre-WWI averages by 1.33. This would give Trumper et al each an average of around 51 which sounds about right for the leading batsmen of an era. Still wouldn't account for George Lohmann's massively outlying bowling average of 10.75.
4) I picked Steve Waugh as captain not just because of his sheer mental toughness and his ability to conjure up backs-to-the-wall knocks like they were going out of fashion, but also because his aggressive, attacking captaincy style would likely beat most of this side's opponents into submission.
If Steve Waugh is in someone's best XI you certainly would make a strong case for him being the captain. Absolutely ruthless he was.
5) RE O'Reilly, he was an enormously effective legspinner, seemingly a superior version to Kumble in that he bowled at medium pace while trading on subtle variations, while his action made picking him up worse. Somebody like that is going to be nightmare on a dustbowl, because all he'd need to do is fire at the pitch and let it do his work. However, in today's age, the opposition will watch a lot of O'Reilly and he would have lost some of his mystique and thus effectiveness. With those conditions, in mind, I'd have a bowling lineup of Lindwall, Lillee, McGrath and Warne. Lindwall would make it well into My Top 50 if his era was covered,
Certainly a valid call to have Lindwall in the team ahead of O'Reilly. Personal preference. For mine, if I went a fourth quick I'd probably actually go Alan Davidson for the variety but there is absolutely nothing in that call really.

With O'Reilly I think he would probably bowl with a different style if he were around now and no doubt some of his mystique may have gone with the additional video footage teams have now, but at the same time he gets the same vision to analyse and probe batsmen.
 

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
I'm not sure the lack of longevity arguments works on Steve Smith. 70 tests is well long enough to consider a players overall body of work and it's only 14 less tests than say Greg Chappel. And he has scored more runs than Chappell which is more important than number of tests.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
Ponsford played 29 of 40 tests from his debut to final game. Woodfull played 35 of 35. I think you've probably undersold how many tests they would have played if they were playing today. Not sure if Ponsford was injured or unavailable due to work duties etc. They were first choice openers for 10 and 8 years, which IMO is more the enough longevity for selection in an all time Australian XI.

Morris was a massive oversight from mine. He might even be in front of Hayden. Again, would need to look more closely at numbers and performances across the board. I would also consider playing Hayden in a team even if he wasn't rated top 2 due to his aggressiveness.

Well, it is admittedly hard to get a good idea of exactly how many Tests the likes of Ponsford and Woodfull would have played because the period I measured (1920-1950) was clearly disrupted by WWII, and cricket was not a fully professionalised game, as you've implied. Using the Ponting measurement, Woodfull would have played around 80 Tests in the modern era. Using my more conservative measurement, he would have played around 70 Tests. Using Sachin's measurements, he would have played 67 Tests. As I've noted above, Wally Hammond played 85 Tests in 20 years.

I put Morris just ahead of Hayden, even using my more conservative measurements, because I felt that he was simply more reliable in swinging/seaming conditions. Also, he didn't belt 380 against a county-standard Zimbabwean outfit.

All pre-WWI cricketers are hard to pin down on where they sit because averages are skewed significantly lower. Also making the case foggier is a huge discrepancy in performances from pretty much every pre WWI cricketer against England compared to the weaker South Africans.

It's a bloody tough one and I wonder if there has ever been a real good attempt of normalising performances pre-WWI? If there has been I haven't seen it.

Trumper, HIll, Bardsley and Armstrong lead the charge of pre-WWI Australian batsmen but it's very difficult to judge whether the adjustment of poor batting conditions to modern conditions is enough to bring them up to the level of Hayden, Ponsford, Ponting, Border greatness or are they still on that level below with the likes of Taylor, Slater, Martyn, Ian Chappell etc.

Is it as simple as saying pre-WWI batsmen scored 23 runs per dismissal, whilst since WWI it's been 30.7 (with generally a gentle upwards rising from 1920's to a peak in the 2000's), so we simply multiple pre-WWI averages by 1.33. This would give Trumper et al each an average of around 51 which sounds about right for the leading batsmen of an era. Still wouldn't account for George Lohmann's massively outlying bowling average of 10.75.

I have tried above (not sure if you've read?), but in my case the normalisations were approximate and relied heavily on outside judges.

I can't seriously disagree with anything else you've said. Your points are as valid as mine.

Steve Waugh is in someone's best XI you certainly would make a strong case for him being the captain. Absolutely ruthless he was.

Certainly a valid call to have Lindwall in the team ahead of O'Reilly. Personal preference. For mine, if I went a fourth quick I'd probably actually go Alan Davidson for the variety but there is absolutely nothing in that call really.

With O'Reilly I think he would probably bowl with a different style if he were around now and no doubt some of his mystique may have gone with the additional video footage teams have now, but at the same time he gets the same vision to analyse and probe batsmen.

Yeah, Ricky Ponting and Allan Border were arguably better overall, but Steve Waugh's style of captaincy suited the 1st XI much better than Ponting's (more methodical, defensive and slightly less ruthless) or Border's (too defensive and was often more content to grind out a draw than go for the win). It's not like you'd lose much with Waugh at #5 - the guy was an absolute colossus for most of the 90's.

RE Lindwall, I ought to have clarified that I'd have placed him at #5 or #6 in my Top 50. Richie likes him, and he appears to have had plenty of charisma/flair/impact/influence himself (which was why I placed Lillee as highly as I did). I'd actually seriously consider placing him at #5 - he didn't have Chappell's habit of picking and choosing the Tests he wanted to play, and he also captained the side. People who've seen both have struggled to separate Lillee and Lindwall, though I would place Lillee fractionally ahead. It's sort of like the McGrath/Lillee showdown - very hard to separate them (IMO people who think that Lillee was better by the length of the Flemington straight are having a lend).

Someone like Davidson I would place at around #13 - clearly an extremely effective bowler with useful variety (as you've rightly noted), but his record isn't extensive enough for mine and his era was probably among the friendliest for bowling in general. Not to say that you'd lose much if you put him in the 1st XI - a quality quick is a quality quick.

RE O'Reilly, if he bowled with a different style, he'd be significantly less effective because his action made his variations harder to pick up. What you'd do is wheel him out as a second spinner on bouncy decks (the GABBA/Optus Stadium, but not the WACA) and turners alongside Shane Warne, and sit back and watch the show. Even the 90's Indian batting lineup would struggle to deal with them in tandem because O'Reilly was so much more like Kumble than Warne.

I'm not sure the lack of longevity arguments works on Steve Smith. 70 tests is well long enough to consider a players overall body of work and it's only 14 less tests than say Greg Chappel. And he has scored more runs than Chappell which is more important than number of tests.

The difficulty with Smith is that while his record is stupendous, he does rely a lot on his eye. Ricky Ponting fell off a cliff as a result, although for mine Smith is a much more adaptable batsman than Ricky was, so I suspect the subsequent drop-off won't be quite as significant.

It's still too early to tell for mine though.
 
May 5, 2016
43,464
48,499
AFL Club
Geelong
1) The only reason why I didn't have Smith as a lock at #4 is simply because of reduced longevity, an especially telling measure against a batsman as talented as Greg Chappell. His failures with the captaincy also tarnish him a little in my eyes.

2) Ponsford and Woodfull didn't play enough, even with their match numbers adjusted to accord with modern numbers. Woodfull would have played 70 Tests at around the same average, which while good wasn't as good as Morris.

3) No consideration of Victor Trumper? I get that he was better in the middle order, but opening on sticky wickets was like hell on earth. In that context, averaging 30's opening is actually really impressive. In modern conditions, he wouldn't have that problem, so there's no reason why he couldn't have played 120 Tests in the modern era (as I've argued).

4) I picked Steve Waugh as captain not just because of his sheer mental toughness and his ability to conjure up backs-to-the-wall knocks like they were going out of fashion, but also because his aggressive, attacking captaincy style would likely beat most of this side's opponents into submission.

5) RE O'Reilly, he was an enormously effective legspinner, seemingly a superior version to Kumble in that he bowled at medium pace while trading on subtle variations, while his action made picking him up worse. Somebody like that is going to be nightmare on a dustbowl, because all he'd need to do is fire at the pitch and let it do his work. However, in today's age, the opposition will watch a lot of O'Reilly and he would have lost some of his mystique and thus effectiveness. With those conditions in mind, I'd have a bowling lineup of Lindwall, Lillee, McGrath and Warne. Lindwall would make it well into My Top 50 if his era was covered.


Extra points for Lindwall for being a rugby league player
 
May 5, 2016
43,464
48,499
AFL Club
Geelong
The difficulty with Smith is that while his record is stupendous, he does rely a lot on his eye. Ricky Ponting fell off a cliff as a result, although for mine Smith is a much more adaptable batsman than Ricky was, so I suspect the subsequent drop-off won't be quite as significant.

It's still too early to tell for mine though.

This. if ever there was a player for whom slightly declining reflexes could present a problem, it is Smith - I would guess that he's going to get a lot of LBW and bowled issues as he ages. But having said that a guy like Gayle who traded on his eye for a long time has managed to adapt. He's broken down his game to just blocking or leaving what he can't smash, and muscling everything in his arc to the boundary.
 

Cold Sober

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 28, 2016
6,656
8,099
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man U .White Sox;Storm,Victory
It's funny, when selecting best sides.
Shane Warne hands- down best spinner ever but, McGill could have been if Warnie didn't get a chance.
Yet McGill never comes into consideration for a second spinner option for said teams.
 

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
It's funny, when selecting best sides.
Shane Warne hands- down best spinner ever but, McGill could have been if Warnie didn't get a chance.
Yet McGill never comes into consideration for a second spinner option for said teams.
Or if MacGIll was five years older, he probably beats Warne to the test position. Would you drop a good leg spinner averaging in the high 20's in test cricket for an overweight loudmouth who averaged mid 30's in the shield ?

One theory behind Warne's substandard performances in the shield was that he switched off at the lower level and thrived on the pressure of test cricket and making the batsmen crack. Maybe if there was a test spot to take he would have upped his game when playing for Victoria. I certainly that's plausible.
 

Pippen94

Cancelled
Jun 12, 2019
2,670
976
AFL Club
Sydney
It's funny, when selecting best sides.
Shane Warne hands- down best spinner ever but, McGill could have been if Warnie didn't get a chance.
Yet McGill never comes into consideration for a second spinner option for said teams.
Problem is so many great leg spinners for Australia; warne, grimmett, tiger, benaud & Armstrong as all rounder. Lyon just has Trumble or Noble...
 
Back