Cricinfo All-time XI: Australia

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Simon_Nesbit said:
I'd go for Ponting over Border, I don't think a team like that would make best use of his fighting qualities.

Very hard to argue against though.
Click to expand...


Definitely.

I think Punter & Haydos should be in there; but it's hard to decide who to force out.

Punter for AB is a hard one... as they say, AB isn't just in there as a cricketer - Steve Waugh may have taken it to the next level, but AB began the process of uncompromising culture that led to our dominance.
 
JuddtheDudd said:
I would have Punter in for Chappell any day.

Ricky bleeds for the baggygreen, Chappell only played when it suited him.

Haydos in also for one of the openers....(not sure which one)
Click to expand...

Yea, I'd go with that I think.

Punter has to be in there - are you said, bleeds green and gold, and will probably finish his career as second only to Bradman.

Reminds me of how lucky we are to have seen Warne/Glenno, and now Punter.
 
Very good side. Hard to say about Trumper obviously.

Punter unlucky but l think he is 12th man? Punter vs Border would depend on pitch and opponent for mine. Would just take AB - basically carried Aus cricket by himself for years against very strong bowling attacks. As a child of the 80s hes basically like a Father to us all :p.

Greg Chappell would be the second batsman picked in that side. Easily forgotten how good he was, especially against the best fast bowlers ever assembled.

From the article "Don Bradman, Shane Warne and Dennis Lillee were universally picked by the 10 judges, while Greg Chappell and Keith Miller received nine votes, one more than Victor Trumper and Adam Gilchrist in their respective categories".
 
team balance i dont think you need two leg spinners so i would drop O'Reilly and Bring in Ponting.

also as much as Harvey is hated, do people think if he wasn't then some people would pick him over Border?
 
I'd have Ponting in for Border. Border was a wonderful "backs to the wall type" (and better than Waugh at the job) but we're talking the "best 11" here. With Bradman, Ponting and Chappell, I'm not sure the side needs a doughty scrounger of runs.

Chappell is a monty. He was brilliant and made runs, sans much of the protection we now have, against some of the most brutal bowling attacks ever seen. People have forgotten how good he was. His test record doesn't include the WSC era, while chronic back problems curtailed his final years.

My only other queries would be Ponsford and Hayden, but I'm comfy with Trumper and Morris.

As for Punter's omission from the eleven, have a look at the judges. There's more than a sprinkling of some of his harshest critics. I wonder........
 
crownie said:
also as much as Harvey is hated, do people think if he wasn't then some people would pick him over Border?
Click to expand...

Poor old Harvey is a little forgotten these days.

He'd be the first batsman selected in my second 11 though. I can't squeeze him in front of Bradman, Chappell and Ponting for the first eleven and Keith Miller bats at 6.

For the record, my second eleven batting is:

Ponsford
Hayden
Harvey
McCabe
Border
Walters.


Third eleven batting:

Lawry
Simpson
Ian Chappell
Norm O'Neill
Lindsay Hassett
Steve Waugh
 
So the bloke who has scored more Test centuries then any other Australian and will be our all time greatest run scorer couldn't make the team???:confused:?? add to that he is probably one of the greatest fielders (no slips) of all time... I think people forget just how good Punter was in the field when he first came to the side...

I understand that stats dont tell the full story and AB is in for other reasons... but I dont see how they can ignore Pontings numbers....

Out: AB In: Ponting

The rest of the batting order was before my time so its hard for me to comment... but Haydos would have to be unlucky to miss out...

Ray lindwall unclucky???
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'd have Davidson in, infront of O'Reilly. Two Legspinners is overkill, especially when Warne is one of them.

I'd consider dumping Morris for Hayden, and definately AB for Ponting. Other than that, top team.

Actually looking at Morris' record i'd definately dump him for Haydos. Morris only got 12 hundreds which while a good achievement in the era of big run making and timeless tests.. couldn't include him.
 
King Elvis said:
A lot of the old people refuse to believe that modern day players are superior to those from 'the glory days,' - regardless of the evidence.
Click to expand...

It's a tough thing comparing eras. The "difficulty" is further confused by the changes in the approach to the game over time. I agree to an extent, there's no doubt whatsoever that modern players are fitter, more professional and - in all reality - better than those who played even 30 years ago. Bowlers in particular are much fitter and stronger than in the good ol' days.

On the flipside, 30 years ago, the boundary was the fence, pitches were often awful, bats had nothing on today's technical marvels, helmets were not worn and, in a similar vein, protective gear was nowhere near the standard it is today. I'm sure there are more than a few batsman of the past two decades who, had they had to front up without modern protective gear, may have been lesser players.

Realitically all you can do in determining and comparing the greatness of different players is to look at their record relative to their contemporaries.

For example, Greg Chappell (under-rated now in my view) played in an era when few players averaged 50. Mid 40's was considered a very very fine test career. He averaged a tick under 54. His record is phenomenal for the era in which he played so, when I'm comparing players in different eras, I try to take that into account.
 
Thats why Trumpers average is so good.

But in Bradman's era there were quite a few batsman that averaged around 50 - alot of the poms in particular. Which is why Morris couldn't be in our top two openers.
 
In terms of team balance, I'd have Lindwall or Davidson over O'Reilly. Takes nothing away from O'Reilly, but I'd only want one spinner in my team. Davidson gives the team some variety with left arm pace.

I'll take Ponting over Border, though I rate him so highly. Border faced some of the best bowlers: Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, he was so tough.

I'd have Ponsford over Trumper. Ponsford was a run machine. I'd consider Hayden, but I'd probably take Morris as the left hander. Bill Lawry is a forgotten man in these teams it seems, averaged 47 in a period of some good pace bowlers. People speak so highly of Morris's batsmanship, and that counts for me.

I'm tempted to include Healy who was peerless with the gloves, but how can you leave out Gilchrist in terms of excitement down the order (and very good as a keeper)

1st XI
Ponsford
Morris
Bradman
G. Chappell
Ponting
Gilchrist
Miller
Davidson
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

Rest of touring squad
Border
O'Reilly
Lindwall
Hayden
S.Waugh


 
Wicked Lester said:
It's a tough thing comparing eras. The "difficulty" is further confused by the changes in the approach to the game over time. I agree to an extent, there's no doubt whatsoever that modern players are fitter, more professional and - in all reality - better than those who played even 30 years ago. Bowlers in particular are much fitter and stronger than in the good ol' days.

On the flipside, 30 years ago, the boundary was the fence, pitches were often awful, bats had nothing on today's technical marvels, helmets were not worn and, in a similar vein, protective gear was nowhere near the standard it is today. I'm sure there are more than a few batsman of the past two decades who, had they had to front up without modern protective gear, may have been lesser players.

Realitically all you can do in determining and comparing the greatness of different players is to look at their record relative to their contemporaries.

For example, Greg Chappell (under-rated now in my view) played in an era when few players averaged 50. Mid 40's was considered a very very fine test career. He averaged a tick under 54. His record is phenomenal for the era in which he played so, when I'm comparing players in different eras, I try to take that into account.
Click to expand...

i saw some footage of the 1948 tour last night and the difference is batsman play more shots these days and are better risk takers.the bowling back then looked fairly pedestrian and no doubt bowlers have gotten quicker hence why protective head gear has been brought in.

balls in the footage were going to the boundry easily and they also had footage of the Don hitting a six straight down the ground with no effort at all.
 
Belnakor said:
Thats why Trumpers average is so good.

But in Bradman's era there were quite a few batsman that averaged around 50 - alot of the poms in particular. Which is why Morris couldn't be in our top two openers.
Click to expand...

They're an interesting lot some of those English batsmen.

Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond effectively finished pre WW2 (though Hammond played a few tests post war) and averaged high 50's (sutcliffe averaged 60). They were more or less contemporaries of Bradman, which puts his 99.94 in perspective.

Hutton and Barrington were post WW2 and averaged mid to high 50's, which was a great achievement. Weekes and Walcott also averaged mid to high 50's in this period and Compton (another pom) also averaged 50. During this period Australia's best was probably Harvey, who averaged 48. This woujld suggest he was very good, but not the standout of his era.

The 70's/early 80's are interesting. The batsmen averaging 50 or higher were Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad. Chappell finished with the best record, though Richard's (test record) was greatly reduced in his final few years (well into the 1980's) when he emphasised entertainment more so than protecting his wicket. Chappell and Richards were the standouts, though we can only shake our heads at what might have been had Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock been afforded sustained test careers.

50+ averages remained relatively rare until the mid 90's when they became relatively commonplace (helped in part by more test playing nations). Even so, it appears that over the past 15 years that many nations have 2 or even 3 players with averaging above 50.

You only need to look at the number: Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Younis Khan, Mohammed Yousif, Jayawardene, Sangakara, Graeme Smith, Kallis, Lara, Chanderpaul, Pietersen, Ponting, Steve Waugh, Hayden, Andy Flower and the list goes on with some players such as Michael Clarke hovering on or around 50.

Amongst these players you need to look at those who average 55+. Ponting is a standout as he has sustained an average between 55 and 60 for a long period and has done so at the difficult number 3 position. Tendulkar has been similarly impressive over the long term.
 
Wicked Lester said:
They're an interesting lot some of those English batsmen.

Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond effectively finished pre WW2 (though Hammond played a few tests post war) and averaged high 50's (sutcliffe averaged 60). They were more or less contemporaries of Bradman, which puts his 99.94 in perspective.

Hutton and Barrington were post WW2 and averaged mid to high 50's, which was a great achievement. Weekes and Walcott also averaged mid to high 50's in this period and Compton (another pom) also averaged 50. During this period Australia's best was probably Harvey, who averaged 48. This woujld suggest he was very good, but not the standout of his era.

The 70's/early 80's are interesting. The batsmen averaging 50 or higher were Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad. Chappell finished with the best record, though Richard's (test record) was greatly reduced in his final few years (well into the 1980's) when he emphasised entertainment more so than protecting his wicket. Chappell and Richards were the standouts, though we can only shake our heads at what might have been had Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock been afforded sustained test careers.

50+ averages remained relatively rare until the mid 90's when they became relatively commonplace (helped in part by more test playing nations). Even so, it appears that over the past 15 years that many nations have 2 or even 3 players with averaging above 50.

You only need to look at the number: Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Younis Khan, Mohammed Yousif, Jayawardene, Sangakara, Graeme Smith, Kallis, Lara, Chanderpaul, Pietersen, Ponting, Steve Waugh, Hayden, Andy Flower and the list goes on with some players such as Michael Clarke hovering on or around 50.

Amongst these players you need to look at those who average 55+. Ponting is a standout as he has sustained an average between 55 and 60 for a long period and has done so at the difficult number 3 position. Tendulkar has been similarly impressive over the long term.
Click to expand...

really good post this one.

when comparing players from all eras its all about how the player stands against players of his own era.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cricinfo All-time XI: Australia

Similar threads

2
All Time Great State Cricket Teams
2 3
Replies
58
Views
1K
2 eazy
2
Lingsface
All Time 11
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
Trojan90
T
2
How Does Khawaja stack up all time as an opener?
Replies
14
Views
729
melanChronic
melanChronic
1990crow
  • Poll
Test World Test XI vs Australia
Replies
7
Views
945
samFFC
samFFC
ioppolo
Fixture PM's XI vs Pakistan. 6-9 December @ Manuka Oval
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
266
Views
6K
Westend
W
Cleavy
Australia's 50 greatest white ball players (ODI and T20) rankings/listicle
Replies
5
Views
659
icyflakes
icyflakes
Jascave
Pick an All Time Australian Ashes Tour team to England
Replies
17
Views
1K
Trojan90
T

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top