Aussie All time XI

[Shiv]

Gilchrist is one of a select 4 that must always be in a world 11 along with Hobbs,Sobers and Bradman. He is quite brilliant and we will not see someone quite like him for quite some time.

[Vijay Arumugam]

Thanks Milo. I guess your name was Miles in BBC right?

If Davidson needs to be included for variety then McGrath has to drop out. Fair enough.

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by Vijay Arumugam

Paoli - Do you rate Spofforth ahead of Lindwall? I thought Spofforth was a bit like England's Lohmann. May be I am wrong. Do you rate him like Sidney Barnes of England?

Blackham - I don't have much idea about him. I would love to learn more about him.

Look, to be honest Vijay, I know nothing about Spofforth other than what I have read. What I have read is that he was the first "intimidator" of a bowler. In Ashes gone by, he used to make English players shiver in their boots.

As for Jack Blackham, he is along with Don Bradman as the only two Aussies in the Hall of Fame. He used to stand up to the stumps to Spofforth, and was the first keeper to ever keep without the "long stop"; and he did that whilst he stood up at the stumps!

[Leafy Seadragon]

My thoughts for what its worth:

Morris - close call with Hayden
Ponsford - similarly close with Simpson
Bradman - no explanation needed
G Chappell - a close call over Border, S Waugh & Ponting as the best modern day batsman
Harvey - never saw him play, but by all accounts an absolute class act
Miller - adds style to the middle-order and a bowling option
Gilchrist - in a team of strokeplayers, a bit of batting depth (and more strokeplay) can't go astray
Lindwall - from reports, up there with the best for ten years
Warne - best Australian spinner of all time in my opinion (what would Bradman know about cricket anyway?)
Lillee - a personal hero
McGrath - chosen ahead of Spofforth mainly because he provides something different to the other quicks
12th man - Border or Waugh to add some steel to the batting

The batting has plenty of flair, but is good enough to handle most conditions. I marginally placed Gilchrist ahead of Healey on batting grounds. Whilst Healey's a better keeper, the extra batting would mean that the top six could just go for it (how good would that be?) and Miller's not in the same batting class as the others (a parallel to Rachael's Botham argument). Admittedly I've chosen a few players on reputation, which everyone has to do (even Ern's not that old - see age thread). The one issue may be the lack of a second spinner, but this is consistent with most modern Oz teams, so I don't see a need to overly justify it. There are a lot of close calls and it was much harder than I thought.

Milo - what's your basis for the statement on Simpson? I would have thought Hayden and debatably a few others probably had better records

[Milo]

LS, Simpson did not open in every test match so his full career record is not on what I have judged him. Statistically, his record as opener (his most prevalent position) is the best in Australian history (averaging more than Hayden and excluding Barnes). This is not the real swinger for me though. He is without doubt the best slip fielder to play the game and is included in my team as a combination of both.

It's all a very close call anyway - but that's my take on it.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Milo, willing to pay that argument. I'd consider opening with Simpson and Hayden rather than Morris and Ponsford. The basis for my original choices was that both playerd during a time of uncovered wickets (changed in the early 60's I thought). Most of Simpson's career as an opener would have been presumably in a period post covered wickets. Without knowing much of the fielding capabilities of Morris & Ponsford, I suspect both Hayden and Simpson would be better fielders, with Simpson as you say outstanding (although Chappell was a useful slipper, as is Warne, so its not as if first slip was a weakness). All I can say is that Simpson and Hayden are the two best Australian openers I have seen, with Langer not too far behind. Ponsford and Morris were, from what I understand, the best Oz openers from their eras.

[Paoli]

Now, alot of people say Hayden, I didn't for one reason.

Should a three year massive purple patch put you up their with the greats?

Edward Craig says:

When the Australian opener Matthew Hayden was in the middle of his three-year run glut, some questioned whether he was a talented individual on an extended run of supreme form or an all-time great. There is something about his batting, his style, his history and past record that nudges towards the former. He does not appear to have the innate ball-striking ability of Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar or his own captain Ricky Ponting. He scores runs through hard work, hard hitting and a tough personality. But his statistics are up there with the best. So what is the truth? Hayden's last 22 innings have yielded 662 runs at 33.10. Perhaps the sceptics were right.

Read it all here

[Leafy Seadragon]

Paoli, the logic is inconsistent. Arthur Morris started his career with a bang, averaged 70 odd after 15 tests, and then averaged only high 30s for the remainder of his career, the next 31 tests, finishing with an average in the mid-40s. He too had a three-year purple patch amid a good career, yet is considered a great (and included in the All-time Australian eleven).

I don't necessarily agree with the analysis that Hayden was simply in good form for three years. His batting during this period was murderous. He may not have been as sweet as Ponting or Tendulkar, but short players often look nimbler and more balanced (and generally are), but compensated with power that these players couldn't match. The fact that he started this run in India, on turning wickets in one of the great series, was an indication that it wasn't just bullying poor teams or just 'in form', but applying effort and technique (ie. good batting). For most of those three years he was in my opinion the best batsman in the world.

[Milo]

I think the one difference between Morris and Hayden was that Morris' 'purple patch' if you will, was at the start of his career (age 24-28). The War had prevented him from starting it earlier and deprived him of playing when clearly in his prime. Hayden's was in the middle. The impact of the war cannot be understated when analysing players' records. Hobbs, Miller and Hutton clearly had their 'prime' removed because of the war/wars.

Only a small difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Career analyses are never good indicators, players often go on playing far too long and their poor form at the end of a career can seriously cloud their records. Recent players clearly include Viv and Greenidge who were nothing like the players in their late 30s that they were in their prime.

[Wiljoy]

Rachael,I'm sorry I can't agree with you about Botham, Did you every read what Freddie Truman said about Botham? He said"he couldn't bowl a BL**DY hoop down the side of a hill" And Freddie's quote is good enough for me !!