Best Australian Test Bowling Duos.

[PhatBoy]

I was having a think about this kind of thing a little while ago, noting that during the Australian cricket team's lowest on-field point during the mid-80's, they had a really fine battery of quicks. Even South Africa, in current times, which has fallen behind the 8-ball, still has a world class fast bowling lineup. Made me think that batsmen are possibly the most important facet to a team's lineup. Clearly, you need runs to win the match, but then again you can't win without taking 20 wickets. So I don't really know for sure lol.

Anyway, Jack Gregory was the real deal that's for sure. Australia's greatest all-rounder up until Miller.

Having the batsmen to at least give your bowlers SOMETHING is the main thing. Look at my West Indies attack. They have been nearly as good as anyone in the last 3-4 years but it’s only when the awful batting line up produces a century or two that it results in victory

 

[jle101]

Having the batsmen to at least give your bowlers SOMETHING is the main thing. Look at my West Indies attack. They have been nearly as good as anyone in the last 3-4 years but it’s only when the awful batting line up produces a century or two that it results in victory

Very true. Even throughout the 2000's I always rated the Windies pace factory. Clearly not on par with the bowlers from the 70's - 90's, but the likes of Tino Best, Jermaine Lawson, Merv Dillon, Jerome Taylor, Fidel Edwards & Ravi Rampaul were all great talents.

Pity that outside out Chanders, the Universe boss, the Prince & Ramu their batting was always susceptible.

I guess the thing about cricket is, a bowler can make many mistakes during a day's play & still come out on top. Whereas for batsmen, you could make one early mistake & its curtains. Four wides & then a wicket? That's a win for the bowler. Four sixes in a row & then cleaned bowled? That's another win for the bowler.

 

[PhatBoy]

Very true. Even throughout the 2000's I always rated the Windies pace factory. Clearly not on par with the bowlers from the 70's - 90's, but the likes of Tino Best, Jermaine Lawson, Merv Dillon, Jerome Taylor, Fidel Edwards & Ravi Rampaul were all great talents.

Pity that outside out Chanders, the Universe boss, the Prince & Ramu their batting was always susceptible.

I guess the thing about cricket is, a bowler can make many mistakes during a day's play & still come out on top. Whereas for batsmen, you could make one early mistake & its curtains. Four wides & then a wicket? That's a win for the bowler. Four sixes in a row & then cleaned bowled? That's another win for the bowler.

100 per cent.

collymore was another good one.

edwards and taylor in particular had gifts that could have been utilised far better

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

They say that the greatest of all-rounders would get picked on merit for either discipline alone.

When thinking of Australians, how many genuine all-rounders have we had according to this criterion? My guess would be Noble, Armstrong, Gregory, Miller & Benaud. Could be missing someone important, but it seems we've been missing that piece of the puzzle since the 60's. Even Armstrong & Benaud are a bit iffy tbh.

You'd have to classify Gilchrist as an all rounder wouldn't you.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

In the 50's my uncle had a shop in Smith St, Collingwood and lived at the back of the shop. Across the road was the Grace Darling Hotel owned by Max Rippon. Max had played for Fitzroy, Sth Melb and St Kilda. While at St Kilda he played with his uncle Ted Rippon, who had also played at Essendon and would later be VP of Essendon, a radio and TV commentator, on World of Sport. He also owned the Auburn Hotel (Now The Geebung Polo Club).

As a regular at the Grace Darling, my uncle was on very good terms with Max and was often invited across whenever he had people of note who were drinking and playing cards upstairs at the hotel. In 1954 he was invited across for a card game. When he got there Miller and Lindwall were in attendance. The played cards and drank until 4am, when the game finished up. The next morning my uncle was listening to the radio description of the Melbourne Test only to hear the commentator say that Miller and Lindwall seemed to be flat and were not bowling with their usual zip. My uncle could only agree, he didn't feel 100% either.

 

[jle101]

You'd have to classify Gilchrist as an all rounder wouldn't you.

Absolutely. Keeper-batsmen are all-rounders for sure.

 

[jle101]

Ok best Test keeper/batsmen of the past 30 years.

Gilly gets my vote. Sangakkara probably next.

I'd take Sanga every day of the week & twice on Sundays. Played almost twice as many innings as Gilly & managed to average 10 more than him despite having fewer not outs, batting higher up the order & playing in a worse team on more difficult pitches.

 

[jle101]

They say that the greatest of all-rounders would get picked on merit for either discipline alone.

When thinking of Australians, how many genuine all-rounders have we had according to this criterion? My guess would be Noble, Armstrong, Gregory, Miller & Benaud. Could be missing someone important, but it seems we've been missing that piece of the puzzle since the 60's. Even Armstrong & Benaud are a bit iffy tbh.

Come to think of it, another bloke that might belong on this list is Colin McCool.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I'd take Sanga every day of the week & twice on Sundays. Played almost twice as many innings as Gilly & managed to average 10 more than him despite having fewer not outs, batting higher up the order & playing in a worse team on more difficult pitches.

What was Kumar's average when he was wicketkeeper? I have no doubt it'll be lower than Gilly's.

 

[jle101]

What was Kumar's average when he was wicketkeeper? I have no doubt it'll be lower than Gilly's.

I could imagine it being lower as well. Probably somewhere in the 40's. Played most of his digs at first drop though. Never batted below No. 5.

 

[The Passenger]

They say that the greatest of all-rounders would get picked on merit for either discipline alone.

When thinking of Australians, how many genuine all-rounders have we had according to this criterion? My guess would be Noble, Armstrong, Gregory, Miller & Benaud. Could be missing someone important, but it seems we've been missing that piece of the puzzle since the 60's. Even Armstrong & Benaud are a bit iffy tbh.

Even the greatest all rounders, who may have got picked in either discipline, none of them would have been known as stars if they only had their weaker suit.

Unless of course being able to concentrate on just batting or bowling improved that area, and it most likely would, but to what degree is questionable. For example, if Keith Miller was a batsmen only I doubt his average would rise from high 30's to something around 50.

 

[The Passenger]

Clearly, you need runs to win the match, but then again you can't win without taking 20 wickets. So I don't really know for sure lol.

If you can't take 20 wickets your often going to be relying on deceleration's to win test matches.

In the history of test cricket, only 15 teams (or some similar tiny amount) have won a test with less than 18 wickets. Plenty of teams, even in modern times, win with sub optimal runs on the board.

Obviously really good teams will be strong across both disciplines, but if only your bowling is strong you can still win tests reasonably consistently, with numerous other factors thrown in (hypothetically if you can't even find batsmen who average in the 30's then you're pretty much ****ed, although that's a pretty extreme example).

Australia through the 2010s had some really poor batting line ups, but managed to win numerous big series on the back of our strong bowling, particularly the quicks.

 

[Kyptastic]

I could imagine it being lower as well. Probably somewhere in the 40's. Played most of his digs at first drop though. Never batted below No. 5.

Sanga's record as keeper:

 

[footyfan1978]

Australia has produced some fine Test bowling duos thruout our cricket history. In the 70s our finest was a pairing of West Aussie Dennis Lillee, back from crippling back injury and Jeff Thomson a young tearaway from Sydney with a quirky slingshot action. The duo were to form possibly the most lethal combination in our history for nine explosive years..

Nine years?
Surely these two really only team together explosively for two or three years at best.
Before my time. I watched cricket from World Series Cricket and never saw Thommo play in WSC on tv. After WSC cricket was over, Aussie Test team had the likes of Lillee, Pascoe, Alderman, Dymock etc. I just barely saw him and he was nowhere near as quick as what he must have been in mid 70's.
Even footage of 1977 Centenary Test has Lillee in it but not Thomson. It seems to be they were only together as lethal duo in mid 70's. By the time I saw them in same Aussie side sometimes in early 80's they were veterans and raw pace of their youth had long passed them.
I wish I had seen them between 1974 and 1976 when they must have been at the most menacing but heard stories even then, Lillee had come back from injury so also had lost some pace of his early 70's.
Seems hype to make out they were an explosive duo of 9 years. Two or three is what I've always believed as what they were as a genuine dynamic duo.

 

[cricketnut14]

Nine years?
Surely these two really only team together explosively for two or three years at best.
Before my time. I watched cricket from World Series Cricket and never saw Thommo play in WSC on tv. After WSC cricket was over, Aussie Test team had the likes of Lillee, Pascoe, Alderman, Dymock etc. I just barely saw him and he was nowhere near as quick as what he must have been in mid 70's.
Even footage of 1977 Centenary Test has Lillee in it but not Thomson. It seems to be they were only together as lethal duo in mid 70's. By the time I saw them in same Aussie side sometimes in early 80's they were veterans and raw pace of their youth had long passed them.
I wish I had seen them between 1974 and 1976 when they must have been at the most menacing but heard stories even then, Lillee had come back from injury so also had lost some pace of his early 70's.
Seems hype to make out they were an explosive duo of 9 years. Two or three is what I've always believed as what they were as a genuine dynamic duo.

26 tests together - Lillee and Thomson combined for 217 wickets at 27.2

Starc and Hazlewood have eclipsed Lillee and Thomson

Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood are a more prolific fast bowling team than Australia's most famous pace pair, Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson. That's…

www.theroar.com.au

 

[PhatBoy]

Ok best Test keeper/batsmen of the past 30 years.

Gilly gets my vote. Sangakkara probably next.

ABDV had a stupid record as a keeper batsman
Averaged 57 with 7 hundreds in 24 matches and his keeping was quite tidy

 

[PhatBoy]

Even the greatest all rounders, who may have got picked in either discipline, none of them would have been known as stars if they only had their weaker suit.

Unless of course being able to concentrate on just batting or bowling improved that area, and it most likely would, but to what degree is questionable. For example, if Keith Miller was a batsmen only I doubt his average would rise from high 30's to something around 50.

Disclaimer: I never saw Hadlee, bugger all of Botham, and obviously Miller, Sobers etc. I saw a bit of imran and dev.

imran was a decent enough batsman that he could have played as one but he would have had to lift his overall record so it’a tough to definitively say that he WOULD have but over his last 50 tests or whatever it was he averaged 50.

kallis is the obvious one for me.
He simply didn’t need to be a better bowler than he was because his specialist bowling teammates were THAT good for almost all of his career. But he had height, was arguably their best pure swing bowler for quite a while, bowled fast, had a fantastic bouncer. He had the most assets that a specialist would desire, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[footyfan1978]

26 tests together - Lillee and Thomson combined for 217 wickets at 27.2

As I suspected, nothing like the 9 year longevity description.
About three years worth of Tests.

 

[footyfan1978]

Not sure what the record of Grimmet and O'Reilly but they must have been special duo.
Australia won 16 Tests in a row. The two biggest wicket takers in side during that time would be in the running for sure.
So suspect that either Gillespie and McGrath, Warne and McGrath or Gillespie and Warne. The other bowler was probably sometimes Fleming or Lee, cannot recall if Fleming was still playing then. Kasper was around this time too.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

Sanga's record as keeper:

View attachment 1178635

Sangakkara only played as a keeper in the 48 tests between 2000-2008. As you can see from the info you have posted he averages 40.48 for that time. He had 202 dismissals in those tests.
Gilchrist played 96 games as a keeper, averaged 47.6 and had 416 dismissals.
Sangakarra played exactly half the number of games as a keeper that Gilchrist did. So it is fairly easy to see if his number add up.

 

[RohitSharma]

Mcgrath and Gilespie

 

[Cold Sober]

Warne and McGill could have been interesting had they played together more.
Lillee and Thommo for me followed by Warne and McGrath.

 

[Pippen94]

Not sure what the record of Grimmet and O'Reilly but they must have been special duo.
Australia won 16 Tests in a row. The two biggest wicket takers in side during that time would be in the running for sure.
So suspect that either Gillespie and McGrath, Warne and McGrath or Gillespie and Warne. The other bowler was probably sometimes Fleming or Lee, cannot recall if Fleming was still playing then. Kasper was around this time too.

McGrath
Warne
Lee
Fleming
Miller

From memory in that order

 

[footyfan1978]

McGrath
Warne
Lee
Fleming
Miller

From memory in that order

Sounds about right. Thought Miller might be part of it. Was that the time of the blue hair or before it?

 

[Pippen94]

Sounds about right. Thought Miller might be part of it. Was that the time of the blue hair or before it?

Yeah, blue hair was 2001 Sydney test vs west indies. Warne missed that series