Best Australian test batsmen this century

[Wallaby]

Do you know that Marcus North played every one of his tests with Ricky Ponting? Obvious, when you think about it.

In those tests, North and Ponting averaged the same - but North made 5 centuries and Ponting made 2. Same games, same opposition, same conditions.

We couldn't drop North fast enough, but we hung on to Ponting for a few more years.

 

[DaRick]

Do you know that Marcus North played every one of his tests with Ricky Ponting? Obvious, when you think about it.

In those tests, North and Ponting averaged the same - but North made 5 centuries and Ponting made 2. Same games, same opposition, same conditions.

We couldn't drop North fast enough, but we hung on to Ponting for a few more years.

No, Marcus North averaged 35 whereas Ricky Ponting averaged closer to 40 during that period.

I reckon that Ponting was lucky to last the 2010/11 Ashes, but North's average was 35 with a bullet - he averaged below 30 in 2010.

 

[Hellgood]

Watson vs North would be an interesting comparison.

Who would you pick: the guy who's good for at least 20 but struggles to convert or the guy who might score a match-winning century and then follow up with several single figure scores?

In a powerful side, you'd have North as a luxury player who could come in and dominate after we've made a good start but in a weaker side you'd favour Watson for stability.

North in test cricket was more a guy who stood up when the chips were down and things were looking ugly, but when by all rights he should have come out and filled his boots he'd play a really loose shot.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

Ponting definitely

And also the best player on the eye. Loved his style

 

[DaRick]

North in test cricket was more a guy who stood up when the chips were down and things were looking ugly, but when by all rights he should have come out and filled his boots he'd play a really loose shot.

I reckon Shaun Marsh fits that description better.

North often did his best work after we were 4/150+ and otherwise in a good position in the match.

His debut century and century in India are possible exceptions.

 

[Scotland]

North and Shaun Marsh have pretty similar records. North played his last test at 31, Marsh was still being picked on potential at 34.

 

[Hellgood]

I reckon Shaun Marsh fits that description better.

North often did his best work after we were 4/150+ and otherwise in a good position in the match.

His debut century and century in India are possible exceptions.

Fair enough I don't think there were any really obvious examples of him taking control when we were truly looking down the barrel, but more so at the inflection point of the innings where the game could quickly go downhill without a partnership for the 5th wicket. The tons at the Wanderers, Wellington on the first day of the series and Bangalore were all in pretty tricky circumstances both pitch and bowling quality wise.

 

[Hellgood]

North and Shaun Marsh have pretty similar records. North played his last test at 31, Marsh was still being picked on potential at 34.

That's just a load of toss. There's not a more qualified player than Marsh in shield cricket to play the role he is successfully filling in the middle order at present.

 

[Scotland]

That's just a load of toss. There's not a more qualified player than Marsh in shield cricket to play the role he is successfully filling in the middle order at present.

You're right. Marsh's tour of India was outstanding and he wasn't dropped for Bangladesh.

 

[Hellgood]

You're right. Marsh's tour of India was outstanding and he wasn't dropped for Bangladesh.

Where did I say that?

But I did say that there is nobody better in shield cricket equipped to play the role he is currently playing in this series. Can you refute that?

 

[Scotland]

Where did I say that?

But I did say that there is nobody better in shield cricket equipped to play the role he is currently playing in this series. Can you refute that?

You could easily mount a case that Glenn Maxwell deserved the #6 spot going into the Ashes, but it's not really relevant. Marsh was picked and has done well.

The original point is that Marsh was still being recalled at 31, 32, 33, 34... North was dropped at 31 and had his papers stamped. Ditto Cowan. Ditto Bailey. I'd be surprised to see Ferguson again. Etc.

 

[Van_Dyke]

North was dropped at 31 and had his papers stamped

North then went into shithouse form for WA for a few seasons there, averaging 30 in 2011-12, averaging 15 in 2012-13, before finally having a good season in 2013-14 (63), but retiring at the end of that. North stamped his own papers for good with his form after getting dropped

 

[DaRick]

North then went into shithouse form for WA for a few seasons there, averaging 30 in 2011-12, averaging 15 in 2012-13, before finally having a good season in 2013-14 (63), but retiring at the end of that. North stamped his own papers for good with his form after getting dropped

I remember there was actually talk of re-selecting North after that last bumper season, but then his brother passed away and he called it a day.

 

[DaRick]

Fair enough I don't think there were any really obvious examples of him taking control when we were truly looking down the barrel, but more so at the inflection point of the innings where the game could quickly go downhill without a partnership for the 5th wicket. The tons at the Wanderers, Wellington on the first day of the series and Bangalore were all in pretty tricky circumstances both pitch and bowling quality wise.

RE the NZ ton, I never thought that NZ bowling lineup was anything special. Southee had yet to peak, Tuffey and Martin were just OK Test bowlers, Vettori was past his best.

 

[PhatBoy]

I reckon Shaun Marsh fits that description better.

North often did his best work after we were 4/150+ and otherwise in a good position in the match.

His debut century and century in India are possible exceptions.

4 of his 5 centuries came with Australia 4-190 or worse. They were all overseas as well. That’s not a good position. That’s precarious.

 

[DaRick]

4 of his 5 centuries came with Australia 4-190 or worse. They were all overseas as well. That’s not a good position. That’s precarious.

Note that I said good position in the match. Hence why I don't give too much credence to the Headingley and NZ centuries because England had just been bowled out for 102 (Australia would subsequently make around 450) and that NZ side IMO was not particularly strong. In fact they were subsequently bowled out for 157. In that context, 4/176 was certainly not a bad position in the match.

As I said before, his debut century and century in India are possible exceptions.

 

[PhatBoy]

Note that I said good position in the match. Hence why I don't give too much credence to the Headingley and NZ centuries because England had just been bowled out for 102 (Australia would subsequently make around 450) and that NZ side IMO was not particularly strong. In fact they were subsequently bowled out for 157. In that context, 4/176 was certainly not a bad position in the match.

As I said before, his debut century and century in India are possible exceptions.

What may happen later in the game doesn’t suddenly retrospectively make what happens before it more or less valuable.

 

[woota]

IMO Ponting wasn't a good player to watch, but that's just me. I just didn't like his technique. For me Langer was the best player to watch of the Aussie batsmen. Not a big man but the way he would just crack the ball through the covers with exquisite timing and grace was one of the best sights in world cricket. He is perhaps the best cover-driver of the ball there's ever been.

 

[Scotland]

For the first half of his career Langer was criticised for being a nurdler. We love him here because Westralia but he wasn't as good to watch as Mark Waugh or Mark Waugh 2.0 AKA Damien Martyn. I'd prefer to watch Hussey bat, too. Was an excellent off side player and also had the ability to go into beast mode and hit big through the on side, hence he was an ODI/T20 gun.

Ponting was the most complete Aussie batsmen of the era. Had all the strokes and would score freely on both sides of the wicket and forward/backward of square.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

IMO Ponting wasn't a good player to watch, but that's just me. I just didn't like his technique. For me Langer was the best player to watch of the Aussie batsmen. Not a big man but the way he would just crack the ball through the covers with exquisite timing and grace was one of the best sights in world cricket. He is perhaps the best cover-driver of the ball there's ever been.

Boo! (and I liked Langer). Rahul Dravid's cover driving was really a thing of beauty.

I liked watching Mitchell Johnson punch straight down the ground off the back foot. He really should have scored far more runs.

 

[Toe Poke]

Few little anomalies for some people to consider.

Glenn McGrath has more runs (355 runs @ 9.34) than Glenn Maxwell (339 runs @ 26.07)


Take a look yourself at the stats book

That's not an anomaly, it's just a reflection of McGrath having far more batting opportunities than Maxwell.

.

 

[Wallaby]

IMO Ponting wasn't a good player to watch, but that's just me. I just didn't like his technique. For me Langer was the best player to watch of the Aussie batsmen. Not a big man but the way he would just crack the ball through the covers with exquisite timing and grace was one of the best sights in world cricket. He is perhaps the best cover-driver of the ball there's ever been.

Ponting was one of my favourites to watch. It's just what you prefer. I thought Langer was not attractive.

Both absolute guns. I actually rate Langer as Hayden's equal.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

For the first half of his career Langer was criticised for being a nurdler. We love him here because Westralia but he wasn't as good to watch as Mark Waugh or Mark Waugh 2.0 AKA Damien Martyn. I'd prefer to watch Hussey bat, too. Was an excellent off side player and also had the ability to go into beast mode and hit big through the on side, hence he was an ODI/T20 gun.

Ponting was the most complete Aussie batsmen of the era. Had all the strokes and would score freely on both sides of the wicket and forward/backward of square.

Spot on

 

[Feerits Elf]

lolnorf

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

IMO Ponting wasn't a good player to watch, but that's just me. I just didn't like his technique. For me Langer was the best player to watch of the Aussie batsmen. Not a big man but the way he would just crack the ball through the covers with exquisite timing and grace was one of the best sights in world cricket. He is perhaps the best cover-driver of the ball there's ever been.

You are entitled to your opinion. Punter in full flight was simply awesome. The greatest player of the Pull shot I ever saw and the best Aussie batsman I ever saw who dominated bowlers, Langer was a great player but,didn't dominate attacks like Ricky.The only batsman to over shadow Punter was the great Sir Viv.