All-time best teams for test nations

[Ill Chicken]

Have a look at who Morris played against. England were good opposition then as well.

It's an egocentric trait to want people from your own era in these teams. Ponsford was probably the 2nd or 3rd best Australian batsman of all time. Cricinfo:



The bowling attacks Morris faced were some of the best new ball bowlers in Voce and Bedser (who Bradman rated as the best).

Who would you suggest should be there?

I'm sorry but the last series that Ponsford played in was nothing but a batting paradise. Over six players averaged 50 for the series. Grimmett and O'Reilly bowled over 700 overs between them, while England's spinners bowled about 400 overs.

I couldn't care less if Ponsford had injuries and so forth, that's the name of the game and it's not about could of been, Hayden may not have finished the way he did had his injury occurred last year or his back problem during the slump of 2004-05, I'm not going to bring that into contention. What can easily be said of the bowlers that Ponsford and Morris faced were that of the four of five, three or four them averaged over 30. This is fact. If you're prepared to discount Hayden's performance against Zimbabwe who continually gets punished by the critics for being successful against a weak team, yet Bradman averaged 200 against teams like South Africa and India who can only be described as woeful, particularly the first half of the 20th century where they struggled to win a game.

Then again, people lamenat that Ponsford was successful against an early West Indies team. So he should have been and the rest of the Australian side, the West Indies were only a four year old test nation at the time. It should be viewed the same as people view Bangledesh and Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and a touring India for the majority of their history.

The fact is equipment, pitches and so on have nothing to do with it. You really think anyone was bowling as quick and I mean consistently quick as today back then? I would be suprised if more than one or two bowlers from that era would have been able to bowl 90mph let alone be consistenly in the mid 80 mph mark. You can't tell me that the professionalism and standards that it takes to make an Australian test side these days can be seen as a detrimental to one's case for making an all time test side because the dawn of cricket is apparently harder to play.

 

[krisholio14]

I'm sorry but the last series that Ponsford played in was nothing but a batting paradise. Over six players averaged 50 for the series. Grimmett and O'Reilly bowled over 700 overs between them, while England's spinners bowled about 400 overs.

I couldn't care less if Ponsford had injuries and so forth, that's the name of the game and it's not about could of been, Hayden may not have finished the way he did had his injury occurred last year or his back problem during the slump of 2004-05, I'm not going to bring that into contention. What can easily be said of the bowlers that Ponsford and Morris faced were that of the four of five, three or four them averaged over 30. This is fact. If you're prepared to discount Hayden's performance against Zimbabwe who continually gets punished by the critics for being successful against a weak team, yet Bradman averaged 200 against teams like South Africa and India who can only be described as woeful, particularly the first half of the 20th century where they struggled to win a game.

Then again, people lamenat that Ponsford was successful against an early West Indies team. So he should have been and the rest of the Australian side, the West Indies were only a four year old test nation at the time. It should be viewed the same as people view Bangledesh and Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and a touring India for the majority of their history.

The fact is equipment, pitches and so on have nothing to do with it. You really think anyone was bowling as quick and I mean consistently quick as today back then? I would be suprised if more than one or two bowlers from that era would have been able to bowl 90mph let alone be consistenly in the mid 80 mph mark. You can't tell me that the professionalism and standards that it takes to make an Australian test side these days can be seen as a detrimental to one's case for making an all time test side because the dawn of cricket is apparently harder to play.

With all due respect, they played on uncovered pitches without boundary ropes where the bats were like fence palings compared to the quality of bats getting around now.

Hell, the quality of bats has improved 10 fold since I got my first good bat 25 years ago, let alone 80 years ago.

Arthur Morris himself was involved in a legendary test against the Windies where the rudimentary covers on the pitch split and one end was soaking wet. After a combined total of 22 wickets were lost in the first day (for less than 200 runs), Morris, as captain, reversed the batting order in the hope the pitch would sufficiently improve by the time the genuine bats came in. That just would not happen these days.

I cannot comprehend how you can possibly say conditions and equipment doesn't make any difference. Look at footy, where the speed of the game has increased massively in no small measure due to the fact that the game is played on bowling green type surfaces these days, not in 6 inches of mud at Moorabbin or Glenferrie like days gone by. Clearly you dont remember Bjorn Borg's ill fated attempt to return to the tennis tour with a wooden racquet as well?

All i'm going to say further on the matter is that my Grandparents have been watching cricket for over 70 years. They rated Ponsford and Morris extremely highly, and they aren't 'back in my day' types by a long shot.

If you think Hayden should be in the side, no problems. His record is good enough to put him in contention for anyones best team. However, I don't think his record is such that he himself should be an automatic inclusion.

 

[krisholio14]

One of the biggest problems comparing today with past players is the sheer volume of cricket played nowadays - a poor series these days tends to get 'swallowed' up by next week's trip to the next series.

I'm always fascinated why everyone always automatically puts Greenidge and Haynes into the West Indies 'best ever' team - fact is, their record is not that great (and they never faced the WI bowling which was the best in the world at the time). They stuck around for a very long time because they were very good - not great, but very good. Neither of them would get in based on their own record as a solo batsman. Better WI batsmen include Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Lara, Lloyd, Sobers, Headley, Richards, and Chanderpaul - and maybe Kallicharan, Richardson, Rowe and Kanhai - many of them could and did at times open.

The key with Greenidge and Haynes for mine, was that they opened at a time when bowling attacks across the board were at the strongest point in the history of cricket. Even New Zealand had a more than handy bowling lineup during their careers. The other thing with them too, is that they were an opening combination in every sense of the word. In my time of watching cricket, possibly only Langer and Hayden have worked as well as consistently as a duo as those two.

 

[Respected Journo]

Part of the problem with Ponting and Hayden is that they have not faced great bowling attacks in the same way Border and Steve Waugh (and even Mark Taylor did). There is a vast difference between facing Ambrose, Marshall, Patterson and Walsh or Wasim and Waqar; and facing a team like Zimbabwe or facing Sri Lanka with only Murali to really contend with.

Hayden only averaged 33 in the 2005 Ashes when Jones, Harmison, Flintoff and Jones really attacked Australia with pace. In the same series Ponting averaged under 40. Personally, I think this is disappointing for guys who are contending to be in an all-time team. This was a tough series and neither of them took control of the series (as you'd expect them to do). I consider them both absolute greats, but count this against them. Another factor is that Hayden's average was inflated by around 3 or 4 runs by that 380 against Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe don't rate as a bowling attack. Everyone will disagree, but I rate Mark Taylor as a better opener that Hayden. He faced far superior pace bowling attacks. The one thing to be said for Hayden is that he was an excellent player of spin for an opener, as is reflected in his average against India.

On contemplation, my revised Australian team is:

Ponsford
Morris
Bradman
G.Chappell
N. Harvey
Miller
Gilchrist
Davidson
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

12th- O'Reilly

Not much logic there to be honest.

One series does not constituent a big enough sample size to say that Ponting and Hayden would struggle against "great" attacks.

I don't think that 2005 England attack was that good to be honest, even then Ponting still averaged 40. A year later he belted that same attack, bar Jones, into submission. There have still been some damn good bowlers around in international cricket, this myth that current averages are inflated is a common theme people use to discredit players they normally don't like. It really is a myth though.

I'd take Ponting over Border and Waugh in a heartbeat.

People forget that apart from the Windies there wasn't much around in the 80's.

 

[Respected Journo]

With all due respect, they played on uncovered pitches without boundary ropes where the bats were like fence palings compared to the quality of bats getting around now.

Hell, the quality of bats has improved 10 fold since I got my first good bat 25 years ago, let alone 80 years ago.

Arthur Morris himself was involved in a legendary test against the Windies where the rudimentary covers on the pitch split and one end was soaking wet. After a combined total of 22 wickets were lost in the first day (for less than 200 runs), Morris, as captain, reversed the batting order in the hope the pitch would sufficiently improve by the time the genuine bats came in. That just would not happen these days.

I cannot comprehend how you can possibly say conditions and equipment doesn't make any difference. Look at footy, where the speed of the game has increased massively in no small measure due to the fact that the game is played on bowling green type surfaces these days, not in 6 inches of mud at Moorabbin or Glenferrie like days gone by. Clearly you dont remember Bjorn Borg's ill fated attempt to return to the tennis tour with a wooden racquet as well?

All i'm going to say further on the matter is that my Grandparents have been watching cricket for over 70 years. They rated Ponsford and Morris extremely highly, and they aren't 'back in my day' types by a long shot.

If you think Hayden should be in the side, no problems. His record is good enough to put him in contention for anyones best team. However, I don't think his record is such that he himself should be an automatic inclusion.

Fair point, but we can't live in the past by degenerating achievements based on petty arguments like the quality of cricket bats. Or uncovered pitchs. There are two ways in each argument.

Uncovered pitchs are going to "inflate" spinners averages.

Bowlers succeeding on todays flat wickets would have carved it up on a sticky wicket back in the 40's.

Sport science has also progressed greatly and no doubt some of the atheletes today would run rings around some of the players from 60 years ago.

Do you see where people can go with these arguments? We should not a birthdate against certain players. Rather we should remember that good players will average over 50 with the bat and that good bowlers will average in the 20's. Using that formula you can't go very wrong.

Lets leave the little petty arguments at the front door, because you can easily make a case for any era. Cricket more then any other sport is held back by living in the past.

 

[Ill Chicken]

With all due respect, they played on uncovered pitches without boundary ropes where the bats were like fence palings compared to the quality of bats getting around now.

Yeah I play on uncovered pitches every weekend, its pretty tough.

Hell, the quality of bats has improved 10 fold since I got my first good bat 25 years ago, let alone 80 years ago.

It's called innovation, it's appears to be naturally occurring in most professional sports. But I fail to see why that is relevant? Batsmen aren't making any more runs than usual, yes they maybe hitting more boundaries but they could also be factored by ropes, but it could also be taken into account that players are stronger, better hand-eye coordination and more willingness to hit the ball hard when it is in your area ie Australia have played a dominant attacking form of cricket in the last 10 years, rather than play every ball on its merits and wait for the loose ball. Anyway all players are on an equal footing because they all have access to the same quality of bats, no one is advantage so it doesn't come into the question.

End of the day, give McGrath a brand new bat, send him back in time, would he end up on the all time greats for batting? No, but he would have destroyed everyone with the ball.

Arthur Morris himself was involved in a legendary test against the Windies where the rudimentary covers on the pitch split and one end was soaking wet. After a combined total of 22 wickets were lost in the first day (for less than 200 runs), Morris, as captain, reversed the batting order in the hope the pitch would sufficiently improve by the time the genuine bats came in. That just would not happen these days.

Yeah, Morris won the toss and batted first. Genius, especially when the second day was a rest day.

I cannot comprehend how you can possibly say conditions and equipment doesn't make any difference. Look at footy, where the speed of the game has increased massively in no small measure due to the fact that the game is played on bowling green type surfaces these days, not in 6 inches of mud at Moorabbin or Glenferrie like days gone by. Clearly you dont remember Bjorn Borg's ill fated attempt to return to the tennis tour with a wooden racquet as well?

It doesn't make a difference because the game is the same for everyone that takes the field that day or during that era. As facilities improve so do the coaching and training methods and match application. Clearly attempting to play tennis with an obsolete racquet is going to be a disadvantage. Does this mean that Roger Federer isn't arguably the greatest tennis player of all time? No, because the competition and standard of tennis is the equal to what it would have been when wooden racquets were used.

All i'm going to say further on the matter is that my Grandparents have been watching cricket for over 70 years. They rated Ponsford and Morris extremely highly, and they aren't 'back in my day' types by a long shot.

Haha. Okay you're right, cricket back in the middle of the 20th century was the pinnacle of test cricket and since the playing ability has subsequently dropped. Seriously though, when a definitive opinion on a cricketer's ability is required, I'll ask to get in touch with your Grandparents.

If you think Hayden should be in the side, no problems. His record is good enough to put him in contention for anyones best team. However, I don't think his record is such that he himself should be an automatic inclusion.

No one deserves automatic inclusion, but grandioso comments that Hayden should average four less and failed against quality bowling attacks is completely untrue especially when they can't even quote correct stats from previous series or are unable to show comparatible evidence as to why a player is greater than. Holding a player accountable for playing well is a joke.

 

[courtjester]

Yeah I play on uncovered pitches every weekend, its pretty tough.



No one deserves automatic inclusion, but grandioso comments that Hayden should average four less and failed against quality bowling attacks is completely untrue especially when they can't even quote correct stats from previous series or are unable to show comparatible evidence as to why a player is greater than. Holding a player accountable for playing well is a joke.

If you're playing on an uncovered turf wicket it's time for your cricket association to invest some money in equipment.

No one is holding Hayden accountable for playing well. The fact of the matter is that he (as an opening batsman) never faced an A-grade pace attack apart from England 2005. Other than that, I bet you can't name an A-grade pace attack he played against (and dominated.)

I fully rate Hayden as a player, don't get me wrong. I realise you can only play against whoever the opposition have. BUT. In considering an all time team these things have to come into contention.

 

[krisholio14]

Yeah I play on uncovered pitches every weekend, its pretty tough.



It's called innovation, it's appears to be naturally occurring in most professional sports. But I fail to see why that is relevant? Batsmen aren't making any more runs than usual, yes they maybe hitting more boundaries but they could also be factored by ropes, but it could also be taken into account that players are stronger, better hand-eye coordination and more willingness to hit the ball hard when it is in your area ie Australia have played a dominant attacking form of cricket in the last 10 years, rather than play every ball on its merits and wait for the loose ball. Anyway all players are on an equal footing because they all have access to the same quality of bats, no one is advantage so it doesn't come into the question.

End of the day, give McGrath a brand new bat, send him back in time, would he end up on the all time greats for batting? No, but he would have destroyed everyone with the ball.



Yeah, Morris won the toss and batted first. Genius, especially when the second day was a rest day.



It doesn't make a difference because the game is the same for everyone that takes the field that day or during that era. As facilities improve so do the coaching and training methods and match application. Clearly attempting to play tennis with an obsolete racquet is going to be a disadvantage. Does this mean that Roger Federer isn't arguably the greatest tennis player of all time? No, because the competition and standard of tennis is the equal to what it would have been when wooden racquets were used.



Haha. Okay you're right, cricket back in the middle of the 20th century was the pinnacle of test cricket and since the playing ability has subsequently dropped. Seriously though, when a definitive opinion on a cricketer's ability is required, I'll ask to get in touch with your Grandparents.



No one deserves automatic inclusion, but grandioso comments that Hayden should average four less and failed against quality bowling attacks is completely untrue especially when they can't even quote correct stats from previous series or are unable to show comparatible evidence as to why a player is greater than. Holding a player accountable for playing well is a joke.

Who said i'm holding a player accountable for that?

You're the one who seems to think that your opinion on the matter is the be all and end all and that I and others who prefer other players in the opening spot have rocks in our heads.

You like Hayden and would have him in your side, and that is quite OK. As I said, his record definitely puts him up there in the group of openers that have claims on a spot in the best ever Aussie team.

I have weighed up the options from what I've seen, what I know about cricket and what i've heard from anecdotal evidence from people who know their cricket, and have seen Ponsford, Morris and Hayden all play.

If I was picking an Aussie side purely based on players I've seen, i'd find it very hard to mount an argument for leaving him out.

But we are talking all time, and it is my preference, and most others, to put Morris and Ponsford in there. Hell, Don Bradman rated them as the best openers he played with and among the very best he's seen, and he's a far far better position to judge than you or I.

You have made arguments against their inclusion, some of which have validity, some of which I don't agree with, but then, there are also arguments to suggest Hayden isn't as good as his record suggests either.
Neither of us can be proven right or wrong, it's purely subjective, so why you want to basically infer that myself and others are morons for not putting him in there i'm not quite sure.

 

[krisholio14]

Fair point, but we can't live in the past by degenerating achievements based on petty arguments like the quality of cricket bats. Or uncovered pitchs. There are two ways in each argument.

Uncovered pitchs are going to "inflate" spinners averages.

Bowlers succeeding on todays flat wickets would have carved it up on a sticky wicket back in the 40's.

Sport science has also progressed greatly and no doubt some of the atheletes today would run rings around some of the players from 60 years ago.

Do you see where people can go with these arguments? We should not a birthdate against certain players. Rather we should remember that good players will average over 50 with the bat and that good bowlers will average in the 20's. Using that formula you can't go very wrong.

Lets leave the little petty arguments at the front door, because you can easily make a case for any era. Cricket more then any other sport is held back by living in the past.

It's all relative theres no doubt about it, and as I keep saying, Hayden would be right up there in anyones reckoning in picking an all time Aussie XI.

I will just say, however, that I don't think pure averages is the full stop on the argument. Other factors need to be taken into account. I guess it's the weight people like myself and others here put on certain factors that influence decisions like this one.

 

[crownie]

can i have the 10 minutes of my life back i wasted reading this thread?

you bunch of nuffies.

 

[krisholio14]

can i have the 10 minutes of my life back i wasted reading this thread?

you bunch of nuffies.

Shouldn't the thread title have been warning enough for you?

At least you'll know better for next time.

 

[DoubleO7]

Here are some of Hayden's stats for you to ponder over, Ill Chicken.

Average of 33.6 against Bangledesh from 5 innings.
Average of 36.55 against New Zealand from 18 innings.
Average of 43.7 against South Africa from 36 innings.
Average of 250.50 against Zimbabwe from 3 innings.

Average of 34.50 in England.
Average of 35.66 in Bangladesh.
Average of 28.14 in New Zealand.
Average of 34.66 in South Africa.
Average of 40.12 in Sri Lanka.

Matthew Hayden away from home is not so great with a batting average of 41.69 (still good) compared with a home average of 57.88.

Between 1996 and 2001, Hayden batted in 17 innings against the WI. He averaged a modest 24.3 runs. Why did I only include the first 17 innings? Because WI had no World Class bowlers after 2003.

 

[bullish23]

Here are some of Hayden's stats for you to ponder over, Ill Chicken.

Average of 33.6 against Bangledesh from 5 innings.
Average of 36.55 against New Zealand from 18 innings.
Average of 43.7 against South Africa from 36 innings.
Average of 250.50 against Zimbabwe from 3 innings.

Average of 34.50 in England.
Average of 35.66 in Bangladesh.
Average of 28.14 in New Zealand.
Average of 34.66 in South Africa.
Average of 40.12 in Sri Lanka.

Matthew Hayden away from home is not so great with a batting average of 41.69 (still good) compared with a home average of 57.88.

Between 1996 and 2001, Hayden batted in 17 innings against the WI. He averaged a modest 24.3 runs. Why did I only include the first 17 innings? Because WI had no World Class bowlers after 2003.

Geez the guy can't win. If he had averaged 100+ against bangladesh he would be accused of being a flat track bully. To state up to 2001 is fairly pointless because it wasn't until 2001 he cemented his place in the side. The fact he brought his average up to 50+ after a slow start to his career proves what a great player he became.

You conveniently leave his away averages out against India and Pakistan. He belted Akhtar around quite a few times and in India he was outstanding in a series where Ponting averaged around 4.

Hayden's career record is outstanding for an opener. You can cut and paste selected stats all you want, but most fair minded judges would have him in Australia's all time XI.

 

[DoubleO7]

Geez the guy can't win. If he had averaged 100+ against bangladesh he would be accused of being a flat track bully. To state up to 2001 is fairly pointless because it wasn't until 2001 he cemented his place in the side.

And why is that? Maybe because the quality of the bowling around the world dropped off dramatically? It's not pointless at all. It shows how Matthew Hayden was against World Class bowlers and the ones beneath them.

You conveniently leave his away averages out against India and Pakistan. He belted Akhtar around quite a few times and in India he was outstanding in a series where Ponting averaged around 4.

Matthew Hayden has never played in Pakistan, I repeat, never, therefore, do not exist. His total average against Pakistan is below his career average as well (46.75 - 50.73). Playing in a neutral venue is not considered away. His overall average against India both home and away is great and is well known.

 

[crownie]

And why is that? Maybe because the quality of the bowling around the world dropped off dramatically? It's not pointless at all. It shows how Matthew Hayden was against World Class bowlers and the ones beneath them.



Matthew Hayden has never played in Pakistan, I repeat, never, therefore, do not exist. His total average against Pakistan is below his career average as well (46.75 - 50.73). Playing in a neutral venue is not considered away. His overall average against India both home and away is great and is well known.

or the batting got better.

 

[krisholio14]

Geez the guy can't win. If he had averaged 100+ against bangladesh he would be accused of being a flat track bully. To state up to 2001 is fairly pointless because it wasn't until 2001 he cemented his place in the side. The fact he brought his average up to 50+ after a slow start to his career proves what a great player he became.

You conveniently leave his away averages out against India and Pakistan. He belted Akhtar around quite a few times and in India he was outstanding in a series where Ponting averaged around 4.

Hayden's career record is outstanding for an opener. You can cut and paste selected stats all you want, but most fair minded judges would have him in Australia's all time XI.

Are you suggesting the majority of posters in here are not fair minded?

As I said earlier, if I was picking an Aussie XI from players that I have actually watched play (and from the point where I actually somewhat understood what was going on in the middle), I would most certainly include Matthew Hayden.

 

[DoubleO7]

or the batting got better.

Most likey a bit of both.

 

[Ill Chicken]

How many tests did the whole of all Australian players during that period play against an opposition in the sub-continent, New Zealand or West Indies prior to 1950?

 

[courtjester]

Geez the guy can't win. If he had averaged 100+ against bangladesh he would be accused of being a flat track bully. To state up to 2001 is fairly pointless because it wasn't until 2001 he cemented his place in the side. The fact he brought his average up to 50+ after a slow start to his career proves what a great player he became.

You conveniently leave his away averages out against India and Pakistan. He belted Akhtar around quite a few times and in India he was outstanding in a series where Ponting averaged around 4.

Hayden's career record is outstanding for an opener. You can cut and paste selected stats all you want, but most fair minded judges would have him in Australia's all time XI.

That last sentence is rubbish. If I was selecting an Aus XI of players I've actually seen (1980 on), I still wouldn't have him (I'd have Taylor and Slater).

Akhtar isn't a great bowler either. And Hayden's success against India proves he was a fine player of spin (not the #1 prerequisite for an opener).

If you want Hayden in your team, good. Some fair minded judges don't.

 

[courtjester]

can i have the 10 minutes of my life back i wasted reading this thread?

you bunch of nuffies.

or the batting got better.

Hahahahaha. You're into it!

 

[Respected Journo]

The problem with these arguments is that people naturally dislike certain players due to personality traits or percieved flaws in their character. As such it is impossible to have a fair, balanced discussion on a players merits as a batsmen/bowler.

If your going to say that Hayden benefitted from average world wide bowling attacks, then surely that overlay has to be applied to every batsmen's statistics. Of course, the over zealous fans will scream that Hayden never had to face Warne or McGrath. Well he would have in the nets and at domestic cricket.

The same applies with the quality of cricket bats.

Just because Hayden had an average series against England in 2005 doesn't mean he struggled against A-Grade attacks. That is illogical to draw that from one series. Especially considering he didn't do that bad a year later against the identical attack, bar one bowler. Even then, im not sure if the 2005 England attack was that good to be honest.

Mike Coward has no hesitation in calling Hayden a great player, and he would have seen a hell of a lot of cricket. People can find Hayden unlikeable, and there is no doubt that clouds people's judgements. But gee the guy could bat and he rightly deserves to be in the mix for any all time eleven.

 

[crownie]

The problem with these arguments is that people naturally dislike certain players due to personality traits or percieved flaws in their character. As such it is impossible to have a fair, balanced discussion on a players merits as a batsmen/bowler.

If your going to say that Hayden benefitted from average world wide bowling attacks, then surely that overlay has to be applied to every batsmen's statistics. Of course, the over zealous fans will scream that Hayden never had to face Warne or McGrath. Well he would have in the nets and at domestic cricket.

The same applies with the quality of cricket bats.

Just because Hayden had an average series against England in 2005 doesn't mean he struggled against A-Grade attacks. That is illogical to draw that from one series. Especially considering he didn't do that bad a year later against the identical attack, bar one bowler. Even then, im not sure if the 2005 England attack was that good to be honest.

Mike Coward has no hesitation in calling Hayden a great player, and he would have seen a hell of a lot of cricket. People can find Hayden unlikeable, and there is no doubt that clouds people's judgements. But gee the guy could bat and he rightly deserves to be in the mix for any all time eleven.

finally some sense.....


also players stats should only be compared to those who were playing at the same time, to judge how good they were against other batsman in the era.

the one thing that would go against Hayden is that his average is simliar to fair few batsman around the same time.

And if Ponting keeps his average around 55 well that would work in his favor as only the class batsman seem to have the average around this mark.

 

[Respected Journo]

I also think batting position should also be taken into consideration when discussing the merit of certain players.

To me the opening positions and number 3 are the hardest places to bat. Facing the new ball is always a challenge. Especially if your batting second and you have spent 2 days in the field and you have to come out 2 hours before stumps on Day 2. The guys lower down can have a shower and gather their thoughts.

Therefore if a guy has opened the innings and succeeded over a long career it's a fair bet that he could play.

Lets face it, there are some batsmen in internation cricket who hide themselves down the order.

 

[Hass]

It's worth remembering that you need to take First Class stats into account when judging players from years gone by.

Test Cricket used to be much less frequent and many players made their reputations in First Class Cricket, just as Aussie Rules players make their name in club football.

Test stats are still important, but they aren't the be-all-to-end-all that they are today.

That's why someone like Bill Ponsford challenges for a spot in the side - he was dominant in First Class Cricket at a time when the best players still played at that level, not just in tests.

 

[Respected Journo]

^^^ Fair point.

It's one of the reasons why I find the argument that Hayden and co never had to face McGrath and Warne as fanciful. These batsmen would have faced all these bowlers at FC level along their careers. Hell, I remember Hayden and McGrath going toe to toe in a ODI game for Aus A and Australia respectively.

It's fine if people think that the bowling standard has been ordinary, i dont agree, but if you think that then that standard has to be applied across the board.